• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Beatles were overrated. Influence on music overhyped

Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,570
Reaction score
6,361
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States. The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.

When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.

There is a movie coming out in June called Yesterday. It is about a struggling musician who is about to give up when all of a sudden there is a global blackout and when he wakes up, the Beatles never existed. He starts performing their biggest hits and becomes the most popular musician in the world.

Again, I think the Beatles music was good, even great, not god-like influential. Most young people don't even know who the Beatles were. For example, when Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.
 
Bucky said:
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States. The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.

When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.

There is a movie coming out in June called Yesterday. It is about a struggling musician who is about to give up when all of a sudden there is a global blackout and when he wakes up, the Beatles never existed. He starts performing their biggest hits and becomes the most popular musician in the world.

Again, I think the Beatles music was good, even great, not god-like influential. Most young people don't even know who the Beatles were. For example, when Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.
Click to expand...

As musicians I would consider them average on their individual talents. I grew up hearing nat king cole, johnny mathis and a host of crooners that all sounded the same to me...and then came the beatles and music changed. As a group they were leaps and bounds ahead of any other group. Their music changed almost from album to album. It's a short time between meet the beatles and sgt. peppers and a world of difference musically. In my mind no other band did for rock and roll what the beatles accomplished. They really weren't around as a group for a long time like the stones.
 
My wife gave me a card depicting a fight/argument in an elderly home about Stones vs. Beatles.

I prefer Stones '68-'72, but the Beatles last 4 years are hardly anything to sneeze at. They were different. But both, utterly genius. Consider the variety in Exile on Main Street vs. "White Album", then consider the total variation over those two fourish year periods.

So many completely different songs. So many blended formats.




I don't think the discussion of who was "better" worthy. In combination, each band was a collective genius. That said, the best example of music I have found is the first (of three by now?) Yo Yo Ma recordings of the Bach solo cello concertos: a genius interpreting a genius.

For a while, I thought that if in some mythical afterlife or now-time I was asked before a God to explain why the human race should not be exterminated, I would simply call for that to be played. Yo Yo Ma recording those six concertos for the first time. But nowadays I might just sit silent, eyes closed or covered. Just how much pointless misery is the spark worth?
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States. The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.

When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.

There is a movie coming out in June called Yesterday. It is about a struggling musician who is about to give up when all of a sudden there is a global blackout and when he wakes up, the Beatles never existed. He starts performing their biggest hits and becomes the most popular musician in the world.

Again, I think the Beatles music was good, even great, not god-like influential. Most young people don't even know who the Beatles were. For example, when Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.
Click to expand...

I just went around and surveyed four different high school classes and I would say that about 98% of the kids that I asked knew who the Beatles were and most could name all four Beatles as well. Almost none knew who James Brown was... like 6 kids out of about 85 or so.
 
bongsaway said:
As musicians I would consider them average on their individual talents. I grew up hearing nat king cole, johnny mathis and a host of crooners that all sounded the same to me...and then came the beatles and music changed. As a group they were leaps and bounds ahead of any other group. Their music changed almost from album to album. It's a short time between meet the beatles and sgt. peppers and a world of difference musically. In my mind no other band did for rock and roll what the beatles accomplished. They really weren't around as a group for a long time like the stones.
Click to expand...

IMO The Beatles underutilized George Harrison. IMO he would have been more well-known believe it or not if he never joined the Beatles. IMO the band didn't fully utilize all members talent. It was just a two-man show.

Paul McCartney wins the longevity award, but he produced a lot of bad music as well.
 
Bucky said:
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States. The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.

When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.

There is a movie coming out in June called Yesterday. It is about a struggling musician who is about to give up when all of a sudden there is a global blackout and when he wakes up, the Beatles never existed. He starts performing their biggest hits and becomes the most popular musician in the world.

Again, I think the Beatles music was good, even great, not god-like influential. Most young people don't even know who the Beatles were. For example, when Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.
Click to expand...

Ummm...

The Beatles weren't a music legend only in the UK. They were a legend all over the world...including the US.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I just went around and surveyed four different high school classes and I would say that about 98% of the kids that I asked knew who the Beatles were and most could name all four Beatles as well. Almost none knew who James Brown was... like 6 kids out of about 85 or so.
Click to expand...

I am guessing you didn't survey a school here in the states.
 
The Beatles brought entire new styles to popularity, including integrating Asian-Indian instruments, Hindu-Zen ideology into music and many other innovations into popular culture. They rapidly evolved from just doing love songs for teenagers. As they personally aged, so did the diversity and sophistication of their music. Each of the 4 personalities each brought their own differences into the music, why there can be such variety on the same album.

Unlike most bands, the Beatles continuously evolved with popular American culture - and popular American culture evolved with the Beatles. There is virtually no similarities between the wildly popular early Beatles with the Beatles at the end. The Beatles were not just big, they were massive.
 
Mr Person said:
My wife gave me a card depicting a fight/argument in an elderly home about Stones vs. Beatles.

I prefer Stones '68-'72, but the Beatles last 4 years are hardly anything to sneeze at. They were different. But both, utterly genius. Consider the variety in Exile on Main Street vs. "White Album", then consider the total variation over those two fourish year periods.

So many completely different songs. So many blended formats.




I don't think the discussion of who was "better" worthy. In combination, each band was a collective genius. That said, the best example of music I have found is the first (of three by now?) Yo Yo Ma recordings of the Bach solo cello concertos: a genius interpreting a genius.

For a while, I thought that if in some mythical afterlife or now-time I was asked before a God to explain why the human race should not be exterminated, I would simply call for that to be played. Yo Yo Ma recording those six concertos for the first time. But nowadays I might just sit silent, eyes closed or covered. Just how much pointless misery is the spark worth?
Click to expand...

The Rolling Stones music is "guy" music as the "bad boys," while the Beatles were at first solidly Top 40s pop music. The Stones never approached the diversity or technical skills the Beatles reached - but they were Brit rivals for sure - each their own following. Very few women would say the preferred the Stones over the Beatles.
 
joko104 said:
The Rolling Stones music is "guy" music as the "bad boys," while the Beatles were at first solidly Top 40s pop music. The Stones never approached the diversity or technical skills the Beatles reached - but they were Brit rivals for sure - each their own following. Very few women would say the preferred the Stones over the Beatles.
Click to expand...

Yes they would.

The Beatles, of course stple their entire careers from the Rutles.




 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
The Rolling Stones music is "guy" music as the "bad boys," while the Beatles were at first solidly Top 40s pop music. The Stones never approached the diversity or technical skills the Beatles reached - but they were Brit rivals for sure - each their own following. Very few women would say the preferred the Stones over the Beatles.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you here.
That said, comparing the Beatles to the Stones really is apples to oranges. Not to take away from the Beatles but their musicality paled compared to the Stones.
When I grew older I much preferred the Stones. I would say most teeny boppers who were women during Beatlemania would tell you the same. I am not taking anything away from the Beatles, btw. George Harrison was a gift to the world, but Keith Richards, well there is no one who compares. M/O of course. :)
 
joko104 said:
The Rolling Stones music is "guy" music as the "bad boys," while the Beatles were at first solidly Top 40s pop music. The Stones never approached the diversity or technical skills the Beatles reached - but they were Brit rivals for sure - each their own following. Very few women would say the preferred the Stones over the Beatles.
Click to expand...

I have to take issue with the part of your post that I highlighted.

Have you heard this Stones album?

 
Bucky said:
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States. The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.

When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.

There is a movie coming out in June called Yesterday. It is about a struggling musician who is about to give up when all of a sudden there is a global blackout and when he wakes up, the Beatles never existed. He starts performing their biggest hits and becomes the most popular musician in the world.

Again, I think the Beatles music was good, even great, not god-like influential. Most young people don't even know who the Beatles were. For example, when Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.
Click to expand...

They were awesome. Still enjoy listening to their stuff. Not sure who had more influence but the Beach Boys weren't in their league. Not even close. Then there is all their solo and other collaborations. McCartney & Wings, Traveling Wilburys, John & Yoko. I can't name 1 song from Kanye West and could care less what his fans think. The Beatles will endure long after West is dead and buried.
 
I thin the Beatles had the right level or creativity and happened at the right point in time.
 
i want to see the film that was referred to in the OP. as for the Beatles being overhyped, i don't really agree. their impact and influence is astounding.
 
Bucky said:
IMO The Beatles underutilized George Harrison. IMO he would have been more well-known believe it or not if he never joined the Beatles. IMO the band didn't fully utilize all members talent. It was just a two-man show.

Paul McCartney wins the longevity award, but he produced a lot of bad music as well.
Click to expand...
They broke up soon after George really began developing his talents.
 
Taylor said:
They broke up soon after George really began developing his talents.
Click to expand...

It’s my memory that it was Lennon that started to find outside interests and went his own way first.
 
IMHO.......

Queen was a more inventive & creative & influential band than the Beatles or Stones ever were.
 
RetiredUSN said:
IMHO.......

Queen was a more inventive & creative & influential band than the Beatles or Stones ever were.
Click to expand...

for music...Hendrix gets my nod
for lyrics....Dylan
as a group....there are a bunch that revolutionized music....things never done before....
maybe they werent even the first to some things.....but they made it "their thing"

groups in that distinction

Moody Blues....Chicago....ELO....Beatles....Queen...KISS....and so many more

music has been redefined each generation....it is what makes it great....new sounds, new techniques, new styles

and each has a place in our history
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom