Are the Beatles overrated? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Are the Beatles overrated?

Rynaldo

04/12/10, 10:40 AM

aradiantsunrise

04/12/10, 10:41 AM

:zoom:

bradsonemanband

04/12/10, 10:43 AM

haha the velvet underground? talk about overrated...

Regards

04/12/10, 10:44 AM

lolol.

Rynaldo

04/12/10, 10:47 AM

haha the velvet underground? talk about overrated...

Ok, they may also be overrated, but at leat they had a clear influence on artists such as David Bowie and The Strokes.

bradsonemanband

04/12/10, 10:49 AM

Ok, they may also be overrated, but at leat they had a clear influence on artists such as David Bowie and The Strokes.

while the Beatles had a "clear" influence on everyone. probably including the velvet underground.

seraph1214

04/12/10, 10:50 AM

Not at all.

dkloom

04/12/10, 10:50 AM

I think that the Beatles can seem overrated but love them alot! (if that makes sense)

Personally, I didn't really know much about them when I was younger. Saw them on tv once or twice, knew of them but one day when I was probably 13, Octopus' Garden was on the radio and I really liked it. I started listening to their music and found I like almost all of it. Even though it differs a lot in style, it seems like everything is awesome to me.

indietrash

04/12/10, 10:51 AM

you may rate an artist however you wish to. everyone is entitled to their opinion. music is subjective. yay.

HometownHero

04/12/10, 11:02 AM

:hitself:

wall e

04/12/10, 11:03 AM

So young, so ignorant.

zachff

04/12/10, 11:05 AM

Yep. The Beatles were totally overrated. The best band ever was The Monkees. They had clear influences on New Kids on the Block and *Nsync

sleepyseanzzz

04/12/10, 11:06 AM

no theyre not. thanks for playing

/thread

SLoT

04/12/10, 11:06 AM

So young, so ignorant.
This.

Robin.

04/12/10, 11:09 AM

Are the Beatles overrated? I definitely think they are and their influence on music is exaggerate. What artists did they actually influence? Also it is extremely cliche to name them "The best bands" ect. I personally think the best band was The Velvet Underground. Are The Beatles overrated? Please discuss

I was preparing to have an intense heart to heart conversation with you after I saw how old you were.

No bad feelings at all though, I was thinking Creed and Limp Bizkit were good bands at your age.

Rynaldo

04/12/10, 11:13 AM

So young, so ignorant.
Wow so old you are 5 years older then me, you were probably around when the beatles were still around.I may be young but im not ignorant. Just beacuse I have an opinion which goes against the status quo that doesnt mean im ignorant. My dad played me many different types of music when I was younger so I can clearly state that their beatles influence and legacy is somehwta overrated. Thats just my opinion tho and it will most probably be different thna anyone else's.

NateFoundGlory

04/12/10, 11:17 AM

Well hey, I've never seen this thread before. Obviously the Beatles have never influenced anyone ever, amirite?

Robin.

04/12/10, 11:20 AM

Wow so old you are 4 years older then me, you were probably around when the beatles were still around.I may be young but im not ignorant. Just beacuse I have an opinion which goes against the status quo that doesnt mean im ignorant. My dad played me many different types of music when I was younger so I can clearly state that their beatles influence and legacy is somehwta overrated. Thats just my opinion tho and it will most probably be different thna anyone else's.

It is one thing to have an opinion, but you are clearly stating that The Beatles had no more influence than The Velvet Revolver and that they are completely overrated. You are playing out with facts out there young man.

Just google: Bands influenced by and I'm sure the first option would be The Beatles...

It would be easier to ask which bands are not influenced by The Beatles, and eventually they would led some influence to The Beatles.

Like one guy said, I'm sure Velvet Underground had some influence too, and if not then they had some influence of someone that was influenced by The Beatles.

EvilZeppelin

04/12/10, 11:24 AM

haha the velvet underground? talk about overrated...

This.

:hitself:

and this.

bradsonemanband

04/12/10, 11:29 AM

Wow so old you are 5 years older then me, you were probably around when the beatles were still around.I may be young but im not ignorant. Just beacuse I have an opinion which goes against the status quo that doesnt mean im ignorant. My dad played me many different types of music when I was younger so I can clearly state that their beatles influence and legacy is somehwta overrated. Thats just my opinion tho and it will most probably be different thna anyone else's.

so, just to be clear, are you saying that The Beatles are overrated because YOU don't think they're what everyone else talks them up to be, or are you saying they are overrated cuz they didn't have as big of an influence on any other musicians like people think?

HometownHero

04/12/10, 11:31 AM

Wow so old you are 5 years older then me, you were probably around when the beatles were still around.I may be young but im not ignorant. Just beacuse I have an opinion which goes against the status quo that doesnt mean im ignorant. My dad played me many different types of music when I was younger so I can clearly state that their beatles influence and legacy is somehwta overrated. Thats just my opinion tho and it will most probably be different thna anyone else's.

You are young which doesn't make you ignorant. You're just dumb and ignorant and that is in no relation to your age. Try again, bro. Your "opinion" has no logic supporting it, or no merit in fact. So yeah shut the fuck up

Wake Up

04/12/10, 11:33 AM

:thisissparta:

flask

04/12/10, 11:34 AM

http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album_United-Nations-United-Nations.jpg

Robin.

04/12/10, 11:38 AM

I will create a thread about Bob Dylan not being a good writer just to create some hype and get some feedback :-p

herecomesthesun

04/12/10, 11:38 AM

:blink:

anthonydarko

04/12/10, 11:40 AM

lololololololol

h0merg0mez

04/12/10, 11:45 AM

It's pretty unanimous that they're the "greatest band of all time." However, that doesn't mean people enjoy listening to them more than any other band. The title doesn't mean a lot, in my opinion. People that don't even really listen to the Beatles just default to the opinion that they're the greatest of all time.

I hate all the "greatest records of all time" lists because people try to estimate the influence that a certain artist had on the music world. With that said, no band really has the chance to match what the Beatles did, or become the greatest of all time -- it's just impossible.

I guess my main point is that the "greatest" bands/records shouldn't mean much when compared to your favorites. That's the only thing I really put any stock in. I've washed my hands of the "greatest" bullshit. I'll continue to listen to my favorites and be content.

Rynaldo

04/12/10, 11:47 AM

You are young which doesn't make you ignorant. You're just dumb and ignorant and that is in no relation to your age. Try again, bro. Your "opinion" has no logic supporting it, or no merit in fact. So yeah shut the fuck up

Bro, get a life. you've contibuted to almost 9000 posts,isnt it about time u leave your computer and socialize a bit? My opinion does have logic. i actually did a bit of rsearch before creating this forum because I knew ignorant ppl who cant even use there brains will disagree with me.Seriously dude, 8000+ posts? Get a life

Rustash

04/12/10, 11:47 AM

wall e

04/12/10, 11:51 AM

Wow so old you are 5 years older then me, you were probably around when the beatles were still around.I may be young but im not ignorant. Just beacuse I have an opinion which goes against the status quo that doesnt mean im ignorant. My dad played me many different types of music when I was younger so I can clearly state that their beatles influence and legacy is somehwta overrated. Thats just my opinion tho and it will most probably be different thna anyone else's.

THE STATUS IS NOT QUO!

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h289/amatthies/dr_horrible_fingers.gif

anthonydarko

04/12/10, 11:52 AM

Bro, get a life. you've contibuted to almost 9000 posts,isnt it about time u leave your computer and socialize a bit? My opinion does have logic. i actually did a bit of rsearch before creating this forum because I knew ignorant ppl who cant even use there brains will disagree with me.Seriously dude, 8000+ posts? Get a life
Comeback #2353523: Insult one's post count and insinuate that the poster has no life because of post count. Also, perhaps you should look at yourself before you start pointing fingers since you're on here too, maybe you should go out and socialize too hmm?

popdisaster00

04/12/10, 11:54 AM

Whether you like the beatles or not, 99% of the music, or at least Rock music that you hear today would not be here. Sure, music would be here, but it wouldn't sound the same.

Robin.

04/12/10, 11:54 AM

I've finally grown up and recognized the Beatle's influence on music. Although i still think they're a bit overrated, and John Lennon was a total douche no matter how good of a songwriter you think he was.

If you really want overrated, look at Led Zepplin.

Led Zeppelin is not overrated. Actually underrated.

You want something overrated? The Backstreet Boys, there you go THAT'S overrated.

Robin.

04/12/10, 11:56 AM

Comeback #2353523: Insult one's post count and insinuate that the poster has no life because of post count. Also, perhaps you should look at yourself before you start pointing fingers since you're on here too, maybe you should go out and socialize too hmm?

Being 23 yo against 15 gives you the benefit of advantage on post count.

anthonydarko

04/12/10, 12:00 PM

Being 23 yo against 15 gives you the benefit of advantage on post count.
It also lets me fuck bitches and snort coke off they ass. 636 REPRESENT SON!

SophGod

04/12/10, 12:04 PM

Bro, get a life. you've contibuted to almost 9000 posts,isnt it about time u leave your computer and socialize a bit? My opinion does have logic. i actually did a bit of rsearch before creating this forum because I knew ignorant ppl who cant even use there brains will disagree with me.Seriously dude, 8000+ posts? Get a life

Let's say someone spends an hour a day on here with an average of 30 posts in an hour. Now, this leaves 23 hours of a day to socialize, and if you make 30 posts a day it should only take a year to get over 10000 posts.

The Indigo

04/12/10, 12:05 PM

I may be young but im not ignorant. Just beacuse I have an opinion which goes against the status quo that doesnt mean im ignorant.
That doesn't make you ignorant.

What artists did they actually influence?
That makes you ignorant.

Stavie Steelo

04/12/10, 12:11 PM

Never been a fan of the Beatles, but won't deny they influenced music. I like some covers of their songs though.

Brand-new-123

04/12/10, 12:14 PM

Rynaldo

04/12/10, 12:15 PM

FallOutWeeze

04/12/10, 12:19 PM

Are the Beatles overrated? I definitely think they are and their influence on music is exaggerate. What artists did they actually influence? Also it is extremely cliche to name them "The best bands" ect. I personally think the best band was The Velvet Underground. Are The Beatles overrated? Please discuss

The Velvet Underground wasn't bigger then Jesus unlike The Beatles

Regards

04/12/10, 12:22 PM

Guys my aim of this post was to express my opinion not to argue with anyone.Im sorry if I offended anyone with my comments. I made this post beacuse I was sick and tired of everyone telling me 'music was nothing before the beatles" "the beatles created music" "the beatles have the best lyrics" just beacause I don't listen to the beatles. Someone my age even told me "maybe your too young too listen to the beatles" eventhough I listen to Buddy Holly and Frank Sinatra who started before The Beatles. I will be closing this post soon beacuse no one can understand my point of view, Im not saying The Beatles are by any means a bad band.
I honestly don't listen to the Beatles and really don't find much enjoyment out of them. With that being said, you cannot deny the impact they had on music as a whole. It's not necessarily because of their sound, but how they went about music that influenced it. Look at 90% of bands today, and you'll see the generic guitar, bass, drums, vocal set-up. Who do you think popularized that? No matter how contradicting this may sound, sound does not make up the entirety of music.

Thomas Nassiff

04/12/10, 12:26 PM

I totally think that the band that started rock and roll is overrated. What, you wrote songs that were simple yet aesthetically pleasing, 15 of which consistently make it into Top 50 Songs of All Time lists? Pshaw, is that all you got?

HometownHero

04/12/10, 12:33 PM

Comeback #2353523: Insult one's post count and insinuate that the poster has no life because of post count. Also, perhaps you should look at yourself before you start pointing fingers since you're on here too, maybe you should go out and socialize too hmm?

Your point is irrelevant. Post count is far to high ;-)

HometownHero

04/12/10, 12:38 PM

HometownHero

04/12/10, 12:39 PM

narcoleptic953

04/12/10, 12:50 PM

Seriously. The Beatles don't matter. The Velvet Underground is better AND more important because they influenced The Strokes, and The Strokes are the epitome of great, interesting music.

...

....

Oh wait...

iloveanimals

04/12/10, 01:06 PM

No the Beatles are a really good band.

Thomas Nassiff

04/12/10, 01:07 PM

None of that matters. They have influenced no one. They suck
Yeah you're right. I'm gonna go listen to Poison, now those guys were the tits.

Aphasia17

04/12/10, 01:07 PM

Trace Cyrus can run circles around The Beatles.

Cause, you know, he's a horse.

For me though, The Beatles have had too much influence to be considered overrated.

Regards

04/12/10, 01:11 PM

Bro, get a life. you've contibuted to almost 9000 posts,isnt it about time u leave your computer and socialize a bit? My opinion does have logic. i actually did a bit of rsearch before creating this forum because I knew ignorant ppl who cant even use there brains will disagree with me.Seriously dude, 8000+ posts? Get a life
Haha, I totally missed this. Such a terrible come back. And I think the words you were looking for were "research" and "people." One of the neat things about forums is that it gives us an opportunity to exercise proper grammar and writing technique. Adding onto that it gives way into rehtoric and debate, which some people (ie your argument) tend to fail at.

Brand-new-123

04/12/10, 01:12 PM

Haha, I totally missed this. Such a terrible come back. And I think the words you were looking for were "research" and "people." One of the neat things about forums is that it gives us an opportunity to exercise proper grammar and writing technique. Adding onto that it gives way into rehtoric and debate, which some people (ie your argument) tend to fail at.
His argument isn't a person. Boom.

Regards

04/12/10, 01:14 PM

His argument isn't a person. Boom.
http://www.nicknormal.com/normalblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/meredith-roasted-500.jpg

Brand-new-123

04/12/10, 01:17 PM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zTgJqXwGngQ/Sg5g04qbYpI/AAAAAAAAATo/qcfMw5tY3ZM/s400/dwight_schrute_profile_page.jpg

Regards

04/12/10, 01:21 PM

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/The-Office-tv-08.jpg

Brand-new-123

04/12/10, 01:31 PM

http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Shows/M_R/Oa_Oh/Office/season5/office-creed-bratton153.jpg

flask

04/12/10, 01:32 PM

the beatles certainly weren't influenced by Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Elvis, Buddy Holly....no the beatles invented rock and roll.

imagination

04/12/10, 01:37 PM

Is Mozart overrated? I definitely think he is and his influence on music is exaggerate. What artists did he actually influence? Also it is extremely cliche to name him "The best composer" ect. I personally think the best composer was Salieri. Is Mozart overrated? Please discuss

that one gave me a laugh

Nikkixface

04/12/10, 01:38 PM

Yep. The Beatles were totally overrated. The best band ever was The Monkees. They had clear influences on New Kids on the Block and *Nsync

So true. I loved The Monkees!

Oddpac87

04/12/10, 01:39 PM

Lol. 15 year olds.

ThePartialGlow

04/12/10, 01:45 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Rubber_Soul.jpg

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/beatles_revolver-300.jpg

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/sgt_peppers_300x300.jpg

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/johnnys/files/2009/08/white-album-300x300.jpg

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/beatles_-_abbey_road300x300.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y8V0VZ6H0Sw/Sqcyunr6lPI/AAAAAAAADwk/T9hWuFmApHs/s320/Let-it-Be-300x300.jpg

All in a span of 5 years...all packed full of amazing songs that were not only influential but still hold up today. Let's see that ever happen again.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 01:46 PM

while the Beatles had a "clear" influence on everyone. probably including the velvet underground.

Yep. This. People that argue how bands have had more influence on more bands than The Beatles fail to recognize that The Beatles probably influenced the bands that they're ranking above The Beatles. Confusing sentence, but hope it makes sense. The Beatles can't really be overrated, because to me, at least, they spanned so many different sounds, genres, whatever you want to call it, and therefore have had some influence in just about any band since their formation.

The Beatles more or less influenced everyone, so whether the similarities or influences taken were intentional, it's pretty ignorant to suggest that they're not there. Because, even a band that sounds totally different than The Beatles, they still may and probably have taken a page or two out of The Beatles.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 01:48 PM

So true. I loved The Monkees!

:overhead:

Rustash

04/12/10, 01:51 PM

Led Zeppelin is not overrated. Actually underrated.

You want something overrated? The Backstreet Boys, there you go THAT'S overrated.

Agreed about the Backstreet Boys. But i guess it depends on the people you know for the Led Zepplin thing. I had to endure 4 years of High School hearing about how Jon Bonham was the best drummer to ever live. It got on my nerves, especially since he was slightly above average at best.

Brand-new-123

04/12/10, 01:52 PM

that one gave me a laugh
http://i17.tinypic.com/4m9hdv9.png

davehennessy

04/12/10, 01:55 PM

deFobbed14yrs

04/12/10, 01:55 PM

lol wut

imagination

04/12/10, 01:57 PM

http://i17.tinypic.com/4m9hdv9.png

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5827/mrandrewbernard.jpg

Brand-new-123

04/12/10, 02:01 PM

http://images.buddytv.com/articles/bbaumgarweby2.jpg

bradsonemanband

04/12/10, 02:01 PM

i'd say the beatles and the beach boys have had some of the biggest influence on 99% of the rock and pop music since, and the beach boys were influenced by the beatles, and vice versa even.

Formatfun

04/12/10, 02:11 PM

While I like the Velvet Underground, the Beatles are definitely not overrated. Not one bit.

Just listen to their music, you'll see how amazing they are. If you don't, it's your problem, not the entire world's.

Scrandon

04/12/10, 02:15 PM

N o p e.

yellowhouse

04/12/10, 02:22 PM

http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album_United-Nations-United-Nations.jpg

Best album artwork ever.

Also, while it is true that most people tend to have a huge hard on for The Beatles all the time, and they are not a band that I choose to listen to usually, I think it's just--well, wrong to say that they're overrated. Their influence and greatness is undeniable.

aerofan11

04/12/10, 02:41 PM

They obviously influenced Oasis and Panic at the Disco, and that's just the start. They influenced Beach Boys (especially Brian Wilson), U2, The Rolling Stones, and also The Velvet Underground. They practically influenced every artist from the 60s, and probably the 70s.

Are they overrated? Define overrated. They're my favourite band, but even I can say that I agree that they are somewhat overrated. I don't think it's fair to hail them "The Greatest Band Ever", that's subjective, no band should be called that, in my opinion. But, you can't deny how influential they are, nor can you deny that they are one of the greatest things to ever happen to music. Without the Beatles, I don't think artists/band would take risks (well, not in the 60s/70s), because it was the Beatles that showed the world that change can bring brilliant things. And because they did that, they aren't overrated, they deserve most of the praise they get.

So, yeah they're a little overrated, but they do deserve some of the praise, just not the "Greatest Band Ever" crap. It's all opinions, at the end of the day.

xJesusFreakx

04/12/10, 02:43 PM

The Beatles are overrated. Radiohead is overrated. Bob Dylan is overrated. My Bloody Valentine is overrated. The Velvet Underground is overrated. Cultural significant is overrated. Influence is overrated. Music is overrated, but only if it's music I don't like; my favorite bands are not overrated.

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 02:47 PM

Never been a fan of the Beatles, but won't deny they influenced music. I like some covers of their songs though.

this. And I listen to post-hardcore/screamo/pop rock/electronica. lol.

CollectiveConfusion

04/12/10, 02:47 PM

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 02:49 PM

xJesusFreakx

04/12/10, 02:50 PM

dc Talk is overrated. Fight me.

Pete Furler is overrated. dc Talk is underrated.

/fight

ThisIsNotDan

04/12/10, 02:51 PM

being overrated is overrated

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 02:52 PM

Pete Furler is overrated. dc Talk is underrated.

/fight

How many threads can we make into a Newsboys/ dc Talk debate? Not enough is the only correct answer.

/nowfightended.

Side note, I saw the book Jesus Freak in Barnes & Noble this past weekend and thought of you.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 02:53 PM

being overrated is overrated

Making threads with obvious answers is overrated, as well as being overrated.

yayitsjoe

04/12/10, 02:55 PM

not overrated. just overplayed and over acknowledged.

El_Jeffe

04/12/10, 02:58 PM

KingsCrossing

04/12/10, 03:07 PM

One of the neat things about forums is that it gives us an opportunity to exercise proper grammar and writing technique. Adding onto that it gives way into rehtoric and debate, which some people (ie your argument) tend to fail at.

Yeah, I think the word you're looking for is rhetoric.

Major fail.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 03:08 PM

I think the order in which you find bands/artists has a lot to do with how you rate them. Someone who grew up on The Beatles (like myself) would obviously find influences of theirs in newer/artists that came out after The Beatles more important than someone who recently got into them.

kearn1tm

04/12/10, 03:25 PM

I'm not going to throw the term "overrated" around. But the more I discover about music, the more sounds I seek out from across the world, the more I understand what early African-American music was doing, what jazz music unleashed, what was happening musically throughout parts of Africa, Jamaica, various sounds being developed throughout pockets of the world, etc, etc, etc... the less I seem to care for the influence of The Beatles on the wider musical spectrum.

But I guess every one's musical journey is a little different.

I agree. I started delving into '20s/'30s Blues recently and immediately traced the profound influence on modern Rock/Pop. Listening to primitive (not as in the music itself, but the quick, cheap recording process at the advent of 45s), overnight recordings of Mississippi Fred McDowell or Robert Johnson (name drop city!) and this music born of defiance against assimilation; an idiosyncratic sound meant to capture certain knowledge, meaning, value, ritual and beliefs that were subjugated and threatened and it starts to "taint" the Beatles just a bit. And the Eastern sounds they played with among so many others, it's more a matter of the Beatles being such a mainstream force in the first half of the '60s with palatable pop that they had the attention and influence to synthesize so many influences into an easily digestible (that's not a dig, in fact, it's a compliment) version. Get Back has none of the spirituality and power of Kokomo Blues, nor did it create something as unique as the early Blues artists did for Modern Rock and Pop. However, it did integrate so many elements into a sound that's not foreign (no pun intended) and that's understandable to a large audience, which had such a lasting effect on pop/rock music. But really, there's this hyperbole that's associated with them; this obligatory need to love them and acknowledge their work as superior to most. You see them trump these antiquated "best of" lists.

I don't listen to the Beatles because I'm literally afraid of being unable to listen to them without being informed by their monolithic reputation and status within western music. I fear that I'll be unable to have an organic, visceral reaction. It will simply be "feeling as I'm told."

Let me clarify. I'm not claiming they're overrated (such a term is useless to me anyway, which has been well-argued on this board in the past), rather they've become such a force that we're (of younger generations) simply forced to adhere to the idea that they're the pinnacle of western music in the last century and that we should constantly honor them as they inform music as no other has. I'm not sure if that's the case.

Jaimehere

04/12/10, 03:36 PM

i don't like em much BUT THEY DESERVE TO BE OVERRATED, their music changed everything

HometownHero

04/12/10, 03:36 PM

this. And I listen to post-hardcore/screamo/pop rock/electronica. lol.
Curious to see what you think constitutes an electronica band. Say Attack Attack and I will kill you

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 03:37 PM

The Beatles more or less latched an audience and could do literally anything and people would accept it as brilliance. I guess it had a lot to do with the fact that there was no "driving" force in music up to that point. Sure Elvis, Buddy Holly, and as everyone else has said about early 20's and 30's blues/jazz musicians, but no band/artist had a following quite like The Beatles. Their ability to appease such a large fan base was directly related to the fans willing to grow with them, because they were doing something different than most other 60's artists, and other 60's artists often tried to emulate what they had done (aside from The Beach Boys, who were the main cause of the heralded Sgt. Pepper). So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the fact that they were one of (if not the) first band to really dabble in so many different musical grounds, is why the fans just kept coming in, and not leaving. The Beatles would experiment with different sounds, and the already then fans would love it, and new fans would join in. You'll never see that with any modern artist from this point forward, only because everything has seemingly been done, and many new artists that try to do something different typically wind up sounding one in the same due to the digitalization and over processing of music. That, and the fact that any bands that "make it" typically just fit a mold of what promoters/labels are looking for and are safe bets, and true originality often goes unnoticed.

Edit: And, since you won't see this with any other artist, The Beatles will probably always be credited with directly influencing "everyone," because they collided different influences of their own into a formidable sound. Any other artist from their time, i.e. the Stones, Zep, etc., are well appreciated, and rightfully so, but didn't exactly delve into different things nearly as much as The Beatles did. The fact that no artists from today will have the impact of The Beatles attributes to the fact that The Beatles or someone else has probably already done what they were thinking of. Music has just come so far in this past century that I'm not sure much room for creativity in terms of acts like The Beatles is even possible.

drevans18

04/12/10, 03:38 PM

I was preparing to have an intense heart to heart conversation with you after I saw how old you were.

No bad feelings at all though, I was thinking Creed and Limp Bizkit were good bands at your age.

what are you talking about? creed is probably the most influential, best band of the last 2 decades.

sorry, i had to. i thought it was funny. and the beatles overrated? ummm sure ringo isn't the best drummer. and sure the guitars are basic. but, that doesn't mean overrated. they've literally influenced hundreds of millions of people.

ohheroine

04/12/10, 03:42 PM

:horse:

/thread.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 03:45 PM

what are you talking about? creed is probably the most influential, best band of the last 2 decades.

sorry, i had to. i thought it was funny. and the beatles overrated? ummm sure ringo isn't the best drummer. and sure the guitars are basic. but, that doesn't mean overrated. they've literally influenced hundreds of millions of people.

Ringo, in my eyes, is an underrated drummer. He more or less invented "fills" in pop music (which is totally arguable), and George Harrison's guitar work got increasingly better as the band matured.

Chris92

04/12/10, 03:45 PM

No.

imagination

04/12/10, 03:46 PM

http://images.buddytv.com/articles/bbaumgarweby2.jpg

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/1/13839/14_2007/office%20angela.jpg

imagination

04/12/10, 03:47 PM

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 03:49 PM

flask

04/12/10, 03:51 PM

the word "overrated" is overrated.

kearn1tm

04/12/10, 03:56 PM

Also, could be very wrong, but weren't The Beatles the first to record with multi-track/layering/dubbing technology? If that's the case, then that influence alone is enough to prove their significance.

Les Paul was recording stuff using multi-tracking a decade prior, and Elvis, Buddy Holly, and Patti Page did some stuff with it in the '50s too, among others (if memory serves me).

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 03:59 PM

Curious to see what you think constitutes an electronica band. Say Attack Attack and I will kill you

No way I hate them too. I love innerpartysystem.

drevans18

04/12/10, 04:01 PM

Ringo, in my eyes, is an underrated drummer. He more or less invented "fills" in pop music (which is totally arguable), and George Harrison's guitar work got increasingly better as the band matured.

sorry i wasn't really paying attention to what you said. i was too busy getting lost in taylor swift's eyes. talk about a voice of a generation.

anyways, i just don't think ringo is that good. and yes absolutely they got more musically talented. but regardless, they're definitely not the most instrumentally sound band in the world.

TO THE OP: they literally influenced SO many people. its kind of a joke. and they still do. i would say by the age of like 7, a kid will know who the beatles are. and thats 40 years after they broke up. they changed music.

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:02 PM

haha the velvet underground? talk about overrated...

oh dear

HometownHero

04/12/10, 04:02 PM

No way I hate them too. I love innerpartysystem.
I don't have to kill you now but I'm not impressed either haha but at least you get to live

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:02 PM

what are you talking about? creed is probably the most influential, best band of the last 2 decades.

sorry, i had to. i thought it was funny. and the beatles overrated? ummm sure ringo isn't the best drummer. and sure the guitars are basic. but, that doesn't mean overrated. they've literally influenced hundreds of millions of people.

guitars are basic. oh dear do you even play guitar!

pennie

04/12/10, 04:03 PM

no.

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 04:04 PM

I don't have to kill you now but I'm not impressed either haha but at least you get to live

To be honest I love the genre but I don't know of much good stuff that's out there. I usually go here for a crapload of free stuff though.

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:04 PM

No way I hate them too. I love innerpartysystem.

innerpartysystem compared to Beatles. Bangs head over an over again. Do you even know what recording techniques they helped influence and create, which this band you so much love will now be using. Ignorance is not a blessing!

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 04:05 PM

sorry i wasn't really paying attention to what you said. i was too busy getting lost in taylor swift's eyes. talk about a voice of a generation.

anyways, i just don't think ringo is that good. and yes absolutely they got more musically talented. but regardless, they're definitely not the most instrumentally sound band in the world.

TO THE OP: they literally influenced SO many people. its kind of a joke. and they still do. i would say by the age of like 7, a kid will know who the beatles are. and thats 40 years after they broke up. they changed music.

I love me some Taylor Swift. Glad you do too, haha.

Ringo and George are by no means "the best," in fact, I think of music subjectively so to me there is a "best," but no absolute "best" generally speaking. But, I think Ringo gets it pretty badly for being a "bad drummer," when in reality, like I said, people often overlook his fills and what he did after The Beatles, which was decent to say the least. George, on the other hand, in my eyes is an excellent guitarist, both in and out of The Beatles.

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 04:05 PM

innerpartysystem compared to Beatles. Bangs head over an over again. Do you even know what recording techniques they helped influence and create, which this band you so much love will now be using. Ignorance is not a blessing!

Um, I guess you didn't realize that the post you just quoted wasn't in reference to the topic of this thread. A guy above you asked me a question. lol.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 04:06 PM

Les Paul was recording stuff using multi-tracking a decade prior, and Elvis, Buddy Holly, and Patti Page did some stuff with it in the '50s too, among others (if memory serves me).

Did they maybe have the first album recorded entirely in separate tracks, with Revolver? I know they were the first to do something using separate tracks, not necessarily "invented," but I remember reading/watching something claiming that they were the first to do "something" regarding multi-tracking.

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:07 PM

:appl: i couldn't have said it better myself.

I am scared by the lack of knowledge you people have about popular music and how these bands have actually effected music. Technology wise, ethos wise, morally, allowed music to expand and helped push Tin Pan Alley underground. Oh wait but I bet you didn't know this.

HometownHero

04/12/10, 04:08 PM

kearn1tm

04/12/10, 04:09 PM

Did they maybe have the first album recorded entirely in separate tracks, with Revolver? I know they were the first to do something using separate tracks, not necessarily "invented," but I remember reading/watching something claiming that they were the first to do "something" regarding multi-tracking.

I don't know beyond that. Heck, maybe they were the first to record a whole album in separate tracks. You likely know more about it than I do. I simply know they weren't the first to record using the technique.

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:11 PM

Lol you fail

EH? how can you say someone has failed without even giving a reason why. Shows what a butt monkey you really are!

drevans18

04/12/10, 04:11 PM

guitars are basic. oh dear do you even play guitar!

yes, for 8 years now. and by simple, i just mean not like ridiculously intricate (one band i'm in is a cover band, and we cover them to no avail, but we try nonetheless. and their songs are very easy to learn). again, let me make this clear: its not a bad thing, and it says nothing about their talent or influence. just their guitar parts are not crazy like some bands these days (probably what the OP is comparing to).

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 04:12 PM

I don't know beyond that. Heck, maybe they were the first to record a whole album in separate tracks. You likely know more about it than I do. I simply know they weren't the first to record using the technique.

Yeah I realized after posting that they "invented" multi-tracking was a loaded statement. And, had they invented it, it would be more so the workings of George Martin rather than The Beatles themselves, anyways. I remember the documentary attributing to Les Paul often, too.

drevans18

04/12/10, 04:15 PM

I love me some Taylor Swift. Glad you do too, haha.

Ringo and George are by no means "the best," in fact, I think of music subjectively so to me there is a "best," but no absolute "best" generally speaking. But, I think Ringo gets it pretty badly for being a "bad drummer," when in reality, like I said, people often overlook his fills and what he did after The Beatles, which was decent to say the least. George, on the other hand, in my eyes is an excellent guitarist, both in and out of The Beatles.

good good. i agree with that. he does get it badly, when in fact, he's just pretty mediocre (comparatively). but post-bealtes, george showed his talent more than ringo. by the way, have you listened to ringo's new cd 'Y Not'? saw him perform on Jimmy Fallon. i was disappointed to be honest.

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:15 PM

Yeah I realized after posting that they "invented" multi-tracking was a loaded statement. And, had they invented it, it would be more so the workings of George Martin rather than The Beatles themselves, anyways. I remember the documentary attributing to Les Paul often, too.

Les Paul came up with the idea of multi tracking. Beatles did not create multi tracking. Read about Abbey Roads and you will learn lots of what they actually attributed to!

HometownHero

04/12/10, 04:16 PM

EH? how can you say someone has failed without even giving a reason why. Shows what a butt monkey you really are!
You quoted him thinking he compared Innerpartysystem to The Beatles. I asked him a question about electronica, completely off topic. So you failed lol

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 04:19 PM

good good. i agree with that. he does get it badly, when in fact, he's just pretty mediocre (comparatively). but post-bealtes, george showed his talent more than ringo. by the way, have you listened to ringo's new cd 'Y Not'? saw him perform on Jimmy Fallon. i was disappointed to be honest.

I'm not a huge fan of Ringo outside of The Beatles, but I do know that his drumming improved drastically since then, and even in The Beatles his drumming was under appreciated.

Les Paul came up with the idea of multi tracking. Beatles did not create multi tracking. Read about Abbey Roads and you will learn lots of what they actually attributed to!

I know, I was saying hypothetically if The Beatles were the first to use it, then it would more so be Martin's workings.

GeeBee

04/12/10, 04:19 PM

Not overrated, but overdone. If I never hear another one of their songs, it'll be too soon.

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 04:19 PM

Lol you fail

EH? how can you say someone has failed without even giving a reason why. Shows what a butt monkey you really are!

You quoted him thinking he compared Innerpartysystem to The Beatles. I asked him a question about electronica, completely off topic. So you failed lol

Not only that, he missed the fact that I quoted him:

Um, I guess you didn't realize that the post you just quoted wasn't in reference to the topic of this thread. A guy above you asked me a question. lol.

LOL! epicfail.

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:19 PM

You quoted him thinking he compared Innerpartysystem to The Beatles. I asked him a question about electronica, completely off topic. So you failed lol

ah ha but you failed by not mentioning that in the first place. So you fail butt monkey! Once again pointless arguments in forums has been accomplished. (ummmm maybe I need to get a job to fill my time?) Don't you dare reply to this bitch!

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 04:20 PM

ah ha but you failed by not mentioning that in the first place. So you fail butt monkey! Once again pointless arguments in forums has been accomplished. (ummmm maybe I need to get a job to fill my time?) Don't you dare reply to this bitch!

You still fail for reasons listed here:

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=65237352#post65237 352

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:21 PM

Not only that, he missed the fact that I quoted him:

LOL! epicfail.

hey I can't keep up with the constant posting on here. I got confused. Plus I am glad I made an epic fail. Means I am human!

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:22 PM

You still fail for reasons listed here:

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=65237352#post65237 352

you are a punk and a butt monkey! :)

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 04:23 PM

you are a punk and a butt monkey! :)

You might want to learn how to read before you start typing, pal. =D

Anyway, I like some of the beatles. not much though.

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:23 PM

Can I just mention. I like the Beatles not because of any technological reasons but because they have so many amazing tunes. Obviously they had written some real crap but on the whole they were talented! They are richer than most of us!

drevans18

04/12/10, 04:23 PM

I'm not a huge fan of Ringo outside of The Beatles, but I do know that his drumming improved drastically since then, and even in The Beatles his drumming was under appreciated.

i think we agree. :drew: (i chose it because that smiley for some reason has my name)

First Assault

04/12/10, 04:24 PM

You might want to learn how to read before you start typing, pal. =D

Anyway, I like some of the beatles. not much though.

your a punk too! :)

Sean Rizzo

04/12/10, 04:25 PM

your a punk too! :)

Way to use the same insult twice in a row.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 04:27 PM

i think we agree. :drew: (i chose it because that smiley for some reason has my name)

Oh, your name is Drew? In that case:

xKCek6_dB0M&feature=fvst

Regards

04/12/10, 04:35 PM

Yeah, I think the word you're looking for is rhetoric.

Major fail.
I hardly think the mixing up of two letters constitutes a "major fail". But whatever works for you.

underthetalking

04/12/10, 04:35 PM

No.

drevans18

04/12/10, 04:39 PM

Oh, your name is Drew? In that case:

xKCek6_dB0M&feature=fvst

oh i know. she wrote it for me... or at least i tell myself that.

drevans18

04/12/10, 04:40 PM

your a punk too! :)

*you're

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 04:43 PM

oh i know. she wrote it for me... or at least i tell myself that.

Nice job at breaking her heart! Though, I bet Drew is kicking himself now, haha.

KingsCrossing

04/12/10, 04:45 PM

I hardly think the mixing up of two letters constitutes a "major fail". But whatever works for you.

Considering the context you used the word in, not to mention the actual definition of the word itself, I'd say that most definitely qualifies as a major fail.

El_Jeffe

04/12/10, 04:50 PM

I agree. I started delving into '20s/'30s Blues recently and immediately traced the profound influence on modern Rock/Pop. Listening to primitive (not as in the music itself, but the quick, cheap recording process at the advent of 45s), overnight recordings of Mississippi Fred McDowell or Robert Johnson (name drop city!) and this music born of defiance against assimilation; an idiosyncratic sound meant to capture certain knowledge, meaning, value, ritual and beliefs that were subjugated and threatened and it starts to "taint" the Beatles just a bit. And the Eastern sounds they played with among so many others, it's more a matter of the Beatles being such a mainstream force in the first half of the '60s with palatable pop that they had the attention and influence to synthesize so many influences into an easily digestible (that's not a dig, in fact, it's a compliment) version. Get Back has none of the spirituality and power of Kokomo Blues, nor did it create something as unique as the early Blues artists did for Modern Rock and Pop. However, it did integrate so many elements into a sound that's not foreign (no pun intended) and that's understandable to a large audience, which had such a lasting effect on pop/rock music. But really, there's this hyperbole that's associated with them; this obligatory need to love them and acknowledge their work as superior to most. You see them trump these antiquated "best of" lists.

I don't listen to the Beatles because I'm literally afraid of being unable to listen to them without being informed by their monolithic reputation and status within western music. I fear that I'll be unable to have an organic, visceral reaction. It will simply be "feeling as I'm told."

Let me clarify. I'm not claiming they're overrated (such a term is useless to me anyway, which has been well-argued on this board in the past), rather they've become such a force that we're (of younger generations) simply forced to adhere to the idea that they're the pinnacle of western music in the last century and that we should constantly honor them as they inform music as no other has. I'm not sure if that's the case.

Yea I'm with you here. They definitely hold a place, but when you seek through the wider musical realm, rather than the pop-rock sound that resonates with the fan base here (& elsewhere really), then you begin to understand that The Beatles were a small piece in an otherwise very large puzzle. The Beatles had a gift of essentially made the inaccessible... accessible, & were able to deliver it in a way that appealed to the youth of the era, which was something no one had really been able to do on such a scale previously. & to be fair, they did it rather well, mostly.

I think people also don't seem to realise the musical world, in terms of mainstream listeners, has changed with the coming of the internet etc. Because a lot of the high acclaim for The Beatles comes from the idea that they captured a pop-culture era like no other... & perhaps that's a fair point. But many continue on that it won't be repeated ever again... & again, they're probably right... but it's because it simply can't be repeated in a modern mainstream musical climate, for reasons (largely involving the digestion of music/the internet, etc) that I don't think I really need to point out to someone like you mate.

The Beatles more or less latched an audience and could do literally anything and people would accept it as brilliance. I guess it had a lot to do with the fact that there was no "driving" force in music up to that point. Sure Elvis, Buddy Holly, and as everyone else has said about early 20's and 30's blues/jazz musicians, but no band/artist had a following quite like The Beatles. Their ability to appease such a large fan base was directly related to the fans willing to grow with them, because they were doing something different than most other 60's artists, and other 60's artists often tried to emulate what they had done (aside from The Beach Boys, who were the main cause of the heralded Sgt. Pepper). So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the fact that they were one of (if not the) first band to really dabble in so many different musical grounds, is why the fans just kept coming in, and not leaving. The Beatles would experiment with different sounds, and the already then fans would love it, and new fans would join in. You'll never see that with any modern artist from this point forward, only because everything has seemingly been done, and many new artists that try to do something different typically wind up sounding one in the same due to the digitalization and over processing of music. That, and the fact that any bands that "make it" typically just fit a mold of what promoters/labels are looking for and are safe bets, and true originality often goes unnoticed.

Edit: And, since you won't see this with any other artist, The Beatles will probably always be credited with directly influencing "everyone," because they collided different influences of their own into a formidable sound. Any other artist from their time, i.e. the Stones, Zep, etc., are well appreciated, and rightfully so, but didn't exactly delve into different things nearly as much as The Beatles did. The fact that no artists from today will have the impact of The Beatles attributes to the fact that The Beatles or someone else has probably already done what they were thinking of. Music has just come so far in this past century that I'm not sure much room for creativity in terms of acts like The Beatles is even possible.

Yes I think I agree with some of what you're saying here mate. As I was saying to Toddy, The Beatles essentially made the inaccessible... accessible, & were able to deliver it in a way that appealed to the youth of the era, which was something no one had really been able to do on such a scale previously. Which is a feat, definitely. But as for never being repeated... hmm... not sure. Dare I mention Micheal Jackson? But more than that, music & the internet has forever changed the "hold" an artist has or could have over the music culture in modern mainstream, so for that reason alone there isn't likely to be another Beatles-esque era, if that makes sense? But that by no means justifies saying no other band will ever be "as good" as The Beatles... not at all.

While in terms of their sound, in regards to modern influence; anyone who listens laregly to pop-rock, naturally can understand the direct influence of The Beatles, but anyone who continually seeks further in the musical world can kind of see that The Beatles were a very small piece in a very large puzzle. The narrow view of many music fans here (this isn't aimed at you mate) tends to skew individual perception, & therefore anyone who influenced the leading Western pop-rock sound that the fan base here resonates with well, tends to be held in a higher esteem.

Also, could be very wrong, but weren't The Beatles the first to record with multi-track/layering/dubbing technology? If that's the case, then that influence alone is enough to prove their significance.

Definitely Les Paul, which as already stated, was used with other artists previously. He just kind of developed it into such an infamous recording technique with The Beatles. Almost a right place, right time, concept.

Clark

04/12/10, 05:00 PM

I hate this thread minus the posts of pictures from The Office.

lesto17

04/12/10, 05:15 PM

No.

drevans18

04/12/10, 05:16 PM

Nice job at breaking her heart! Though, I bet Drew is kicking himself now, haha.

yeah, that drew is an ass hole. she should have chosen the RIGHT one. (me).

the seventeenth

04/12/10, 05:24 PM

Not too big a fan, but they are indeed one of the most influential and respected bands of all time.
Respect your elders.

h0merg0mez

04/12/10, 05:24 PM

Yes

h0merg0mez

04/12/10, 05:25 PM

Absolutely Not.

fflash

04/12/10, 05:42 PM

CollectiveConfusion

04/12/10, 06:36 PM

I am scared by the lack of knowledge you people have about popular music and how these bands have actually effected music. Technology wise, ethos wise, morally, allowed music to expand and helped push Tin Pan Alley underground. Oh wait but I bet you didn't know this.

sarcasm? i'm confused. his original post was a joke.... as was my reply.....

live.

04/12/10, 06:38 PM

Most influential? Robert Johnson, ftw.

zion the lion

04/12/10, 06:41 PM

They're so overplayed, there's not one ounce of me that can stand it.

Why is that nontalented piece of crap taylor swift being brought into this thread though?

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 06:46 PM

They're so overplayed, there's not one ounce of me that can stand it.

Why is that nontalented piece of crap taylor swift being brought into this thread though?

Just because your aunt doesn't listen to it doesn't make it bad.

You're so attention hungry, so I'll be glad to feed you.

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 06:56 PM

Yea I'm with you here. They definitely hold a place, but when you seek through the wider musical realm, rather than the pop-rock sound that resonates with the fan base here (& elsewhere really), then you begin to understand that The Beatles were a small piece in an otherwise very large puzzle. The Beatles had a gift of essentially made the inaccessible... accessible, & were able to deliver it in a way that appealed to the youth of the era, which was something no one had really been able to do on such a scale previously. & to be fair, they did it rather well, mostly.

I think people also don't seem to realise the musical world, in terms of mainstream listeners, has changed with the coming of the internet etc. Because a lot of the high acclaim for The Beatles comes from the idea that they captured a pop-culture era like no other... & perhaps that's a fair point. But many continue on that it won't be repeated ever again... & again, they're probably right... but it's because it simply can't be repeated in a modern mainstream musical climate, for reasons (largely involving the digestion of music/the internet, etc) that I don't think I really need to point out to someone like you mate.

Yes I think I agree with some of what you're saying here mate. As I was saying to Toddy, The Beatles essentially made the inaccessible... accessible, & were able to deliver it in a way that appealed to the youth of the era, which was something no one had really been able to do on such a scale previously. Which is a feat, definitely. But as for never being repeated... hmm... not sure. Dare I mention Micheal Jackson? But more than that, music & the internet has forever changed the "hold" an artist has or could have over the music culture in modern mainstream, so for that reason alone there isn't likely to be another Beatles-esque era, if that makes sense? But that by no means justifies saying no other band will ever be "as good" as The Beatles... not at all.

While in terms of their sound, in regards to modern influence; anyone who listens laregly to pop-rock, naturally can understand the direct influence of The Beatles, but anyone who continually seeks further in the musical world can kind of see that The Beatles were a very small piece in a very large puzzle. The narrow view of many music fans here (this isn't aimed at you mate) tends to skew individual perception, & therefore anyone who influenced the leading Western pop-rock sound that the fan base here resonates with well, tends to be held in a higher esteem.

Definitely Les Paul, which as already stated, was used with other artists previously. He just kind of developed it into such an infamous recording technique with The Beatles. Almost a right place, right time, concept.

I didn't mean that no band will ever be "as good" as The Beatles, just that the impact/ fan base more than likely won't ever be repeated. The fact that there are so many more bands out now kind of diminishes the appreciation for one said band. You know what I mean? There weren't nearly as many bands then as there are now, so people kind of had to appreciate what was out. Now, there are just so many more options, that music listeners gravitate to many more bands rather than unifying under one, if that makes sense.

And I agree with your 2nd paragraph. I'm pointing the finger at your average pop/rock music listener, that thinks The Beatles are the know all/end all, when in reality, they're more or less a continuation and gathering of their own influences. George, particularly, was HUGELY influenced by Indian music, for one. I just think many blind listeners think The Beatles started it all, when, as I and you have said, they just continued and incorporated what they liked and blended it into perfect pop music. That said, I still think The Beatles are not "overrated," though I hate that word, and I still think that The Beatles formidable music derived from other influences, made the most accessible and directly influential music this past century.

Robin.

04/12/10, 07:02 PM

I didn't mean that no band will ever be "as good" as The Beatles, just that the impact/ fan base more than likely won't ever be repeated. The fact that there are so many more bands out now kind of diminishes the appreciation for one said band. You know what I mean? There weren't nearly as many bands then as there are now, so people kind of had to appreciate what was out. Now, there are just so many more options, that music listeners gravitate to many more bands rather than unifying under one, if that makes sense.

And I agree with your 2nd paragraph. I'm pointing the finger at your average pop/rock music listener, that thinks The Beatles are the know all/end all, when in reality, they're more or less a continuation and gathering of their own influences. George, particularly, was HUGELY influenced by Indian music, for one. I just think many blind listeners think The Beatles started it all, when, as I and you have said, they just continued and incorporated what they liked and blended it into perfect pop music. That said, I still think The Beatles are not "overrated," though I hate that word, and I still think that The Beatles formidable music derived from other influences, made the most accessible and directly influential music this past century.

They did have influences, and no they weren't the starters, but I think they were pioneers in a lot of things. Most important I think they were the first to actually combine those influences and create something that you could not consider a "plain genre". You could easily say Sgt Peppers is psychedelic as well as rock/pop and lots of sparks of influence of a lot of artists from around the world (like your example of George's influence), while Elvis Presley per say was plain rock n' roll. I don't know if you get the picture, I did my best though.

Brokenhill

04/12/10, 07:07 PM

My obligatory "Pink Floyd > The Beatles"

IWasaCamera

04/12/10, 07:12 PM

By who? There's a remarkable amount of younger listeners who loathe The Beatles.

They were simply a great pop band. Greatest band ever? Questionable, but then it becomes a matter of defining "greatest" and having everyone formulate their arguments within those parameters which seldom occurs. I will say though, that their "psychedelic" forays are vastly overblown and they were better as a straightforward pop-rock band as evidenced by Abbey Road.

Joeypeapot777

04/12/10, 07:21 PM

Last time this discussion somebody suggested life is overrated so they decided to form a cult called Heaven's Gates and kill themselves.

/true story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

Kurt Retenauer

04/12/10, 08:06 PM

They did have influences, and no they weren't the starters, but I think they were pioneers in a lot of things. Most important I think they were the first to actually combine those influences and create something that you could not consider a "plain genre". You could easily say Sgt Peppers is psychedelic as well as rock/pop and lots of sparks of influence of a lot of artists from around the world (like your example of George's influence), while Elvis Presley per say was plain rock n' roll. I don't know if you get the picture, I did my best though.

I do, and we're in total agreement as far as I'm concerned. More or less very similar to what I said.

Plutonio

04/12/10, 08:07 PM

you may rate an artist however you wish to. everyone is entitled to their opinion. music is subjective. yay.
This, however I refuse to talk to indietrash as i have seen the extent of his retardation on sputnikmusic.com

TheProsAndCons

04/12/10, 11:02 PM

Yes.

zion the lion

04/12/10, 11:17 PM

Just because your aunt doesn't listen to it doesn't make it bad.

You're so attention hungry, so I'll be glad to feed you.

Which one of my aunts? The ones who are actually related to me were in their 40s or 50s when the beatles hit it big, one is dead, and the other has alzheimers, is dying, and thinks I'm 3 years old again, I doubt she gives a shit.

I'm not attention hungry, you have a bone to pick with me and you need to get the fuck over it.

cshadows2887

04/12/10, 11:36 PM

Yep. The Beatles were totally overrated. The best band ever was The Monkees. They had clear influences on New Kids on the Block and *Nsync

Don't you demean The Monkees in your quest to be funny. The Monkees are better than your jokes will ever be.

Let's say someone spends an hour a day on here with an average of 30 posts in an hour. Now, this leaves 23 hours of a day to socialize, and if you make 30 posts a day it should only take a year to get over 10000 posts.

I'm a pretty big fan of you, sir.

I'm not going to throw the term "overrated" around. But the more I discover about music, the more sounds I seek out from across the world, the more I understand what early African-American music was doing, what jazz music unleashed, what was happening musically throughout parts of Africa, Jamaica, various sounds being developed throughout pockets of the world, etc, etc, etc... the less I seem to care for the influence of The Beatles on the wider musical spectrum.

But I guess every one's musical journey is a little different.

Their influence on recording technique alone means you can't underestimate their influence. All the jazz greats and early bluesmen and such were great, but their recordings usually sounded awful. The Beatles' popularity led to experiments in recording that noboy else really had the freedom to do. Even if their only contribution was the way they used backward tape loops, that would be enough.

And you're right, they were just popularizers for the most part. They made rock and roll accessible to moms. They made it okay for bands to write their own songs. They christened the era of the overblown concept record. They mainstreamed psychadelia. And perhaps most importantly, they made it okay for bands to put their focus on studio recordings when they retired from touring. Those are some big shoes to fill.

And that's not even mentioning the great tunes.

I'm not a huge fan of Ringo outside of The Beatles, but I do know that his drumming improved drastically since then, and even in The Beatles his drumming was under appreciated.

I'm going to be really upset if you of all people don't add an asterisk to explain that the exception to that statament is the pure pop perfection of "Photograph."

Why is that nontalented piece of crap taylor swift being brought into this thread though?

BEcause there are more people in this thread who like her than like your attention whoring.

zion the lion

04/13/10, 12:10 AM

BEcause there are more people in this thread who like her than like your attention whoring.

Its not attention whoring. I cant stand taylor swift, I dont think she's good. And a thread about the beatles has a side conversation about her for some reason...why?

cshadows2887

04/13/10, 12:12 AM

Its not attention whoring. I cant stand taylor swift, I dont think she's good. And a thread about the beatles has a side conversation about her for some reason...why?

Right, cause this thread has been the model of on-topic-ness. Some people around here like her stuff. Facts of life.

TerrellAttempt

04/13/10, 01:09 AM

Of course the Beatles aren't overrated, I mean they wrote some of THE BEST songs ever and were the first to do 90% of the studio experimentation that became commonplace as things went on. But... on that note, I think the 1964-1972 Beach Boys were better., and were the Beatles' only real rivals anyway.

catherinexhimel

04/13/10, 04:28 AM

I don't think the Beatles were overrated. People didn't listen to electronic auto-tune music back then like they do now, but even I still love the Beatles. Their songs are classic and I don't think they'll ever die.

Numero10

04/13/10, 07:42 AM

George Harrison is the best guitar player ever. Maybe not technically but his solos kick ass

koohyuko

04/13/10, 07:44 AM

Honestly, I was never the biggest fan of The Beetles, so yeah, I think that they are a bit overrated.

On the other hand, they are still one of the most influential musicians of all time, and are partially responsible for many of the bands that I listen to. And for that, no matter how overrated they may or may not be, they have my respect.

danofthedead

04/13/10, 08:16 AM

I was preparing to have an intense heart to heart conversation with you after I saw how old you were.

No bad feelings at all though, I was thinking Creed and Limp Bizkit were good bands at your age.

You thought Creed and Limp Bizkit were cool in the last 5 years? I had both of their albums also, but that was in 1999. When you were 15 the entire scene was at its peak. Are you just now starting to listen to TBS and Brand New?

Robin.

04/13/10, 09:10 AM

You thought Creed and Limp Bizkit were cool in the last 5 years? I had both of their albums also, but that was in 1999. When you were 15 the entire scene was at its peak. Are you just now starting to listen to TBS and Brand New?

I miscalculated.

inthemidst

04/13/10, 10:14 AM

Yellowcard2006

04/13/10, 10:44 AM

The Beatles are so influential they influenced this thread

TERRABITHIA

04/13/10, 11:22 AM

you may rate an artist however you wish to. everyone is entitled to their opinion. music is subjective. yay.

THIS
But I do love the Beatles. I do not think they are at all overrated.

dkloom

04/13/10, 12:04 PM

The Beatles are so influential they influenced this thread

bahahahahahaha .... hell yes

HometownHero

04/13/10, 12:09 PM

xsinkshipsx

04/13/10, 12:18 PM

Are the Beatles overrated? I definitely think they are and their influence on music is exaggerate. What artists did they actually influence? Also it is extremely cliche to name them "The best bands" ect. I personally think the best band was The Velvet Underground. Are The Beatles overrated? Please discuss

when I was 15, I still thought relient k was the best band ever. The beatles aren't overrated. My roommate in college taught me that. PM him, his ap.net name is MattDennis...he will let you know

zion the lion

04/13/10, 06:08 PM

Right, cause this thread has been the model of on-topic-ness. Some people around here like her stuff. Facts of life.

So thats the argument for why she was brought up in this thread and why I've been called an attention whore for asking? Really? Because people like her?

So because people like ICP they should be brought up in a taylor swift thread?

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 06:20 PM

So thats the argument for why she was brought up in this thread and why I've been called an attention whore for asking? Really? Because people like her?

So because people like ICP they should be brought up in a taylor swift thread?

Nope. There is no argument to why she was brought up. He's saying that the thread is off topic, and an off topic post didn't exactly end the thread. In fact, it enabled responses, oddly enough, one from you. The post was a joke because another poster in here is named Drew, and the song is written about a boy named Drew, if you need to have some sort of connection/reasoning behind each individual post, which I find ironic, seeing as many of your posts are SHINFO, if not about one of your 90,000 aunts who hung out with Paul McCartney or whatever.

You're being called an attention whore because you always post with intention to enable a reaction from someone, by having an off the wall opinion or just making an irrelevant post or claim.

Brand-new-123

04/13/10, 06:33 PM

How has this thread not been shut down yet?

zion the lion

04/13/10, 06:36 PM

Nope. There is no argument to why she was brought up. He's saying that the thread is off topic, and an off topic post didn't exactly end the thread. In fact, it enabled responses, oddly enough, one from you. The post was a joke because another poster in here is named Drew, and the song is written about a boy named Drew, if you need to have some sort of connection/reasoning behind each individual post, which I find ironic, seeing as many of your posts are SHINFO, if not about one of your 90,000 aunts who hung out with Paul McCartney or whatever.

You're being called an attention whore because you always post with intention to enable a reaction from someone, by having an off the wall opinion or just making an irrelevant post or claim.

"Shinfo" doesnt need to be capitalized. I asked a question, which wasnt "shinfo" at all in fact you're the one who tried bringing some form of that into it by being a dick and bringing one of my "90,000" aunts in through this whole thing, you're the one digging and trying to get me to make some crazy claim about my family.

You're trying to make me an attention whore, I asked a simple question, you have a hard on for the chick so you got offended but a simple question shouldnt invoke that kind of response. By the way, it was an appropriate question if you ask me, taylor swift has very little to do with the beatles, yet there was a whole entire conversation going on about her...why...did she build a time machine and secretly replace paul after he secretly died? Was she the invisible 5th beatle? Was she Yoko's long lost daughter?

Brand-new-123

04/13/10, 06:42 PM

Can we please stop this bickering before the thread gets off topic?

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 06:52 PM

"Shinfo" doesnt need to be capitalized. I asked a question, which wasnt "shinfo" at all in fact you're the one who tried bringing some form of that into it by being a dick and bringing one of my "90,000" aunts in through this whole thing, you're the one digging and trying to get me to make some crazy claim about my family.

You're trying to make me an attention whore, I asked a simple question, you have a hard on for the chick so you got offended but a simple question shouldnt invoke that kind of response. By the way, it was an appropriate question if you ask me, taylor swift has very little to do with the beatles, yet there was a whole entire conversation going on about her...why...did she build a time machine and secretly replace paul after he secretly died? Was she the invisible 5th beatle? Was she Yoko's long lost daughter?

You asked her relevancy to the thread when you willingly knew that it was an off topic post. You were obviously looking for someone who likes Taylor Swift to respond to you to give you attention. Don't play dumb. Speaking of dumb, it was dumb to even bother with you.

zion the lion

04/13/10, 06:57 PM

You asked her relevancy to the thread when you willingly knew that it was an off topic post. You were obviously looking for someone who likes Taylor Swift to respond to you to give you attention. Don't play dumb. Speaking of dumb, it was dumb to even bother with you.

I was asking her relevancy to the thread, and I didnt give a shit who responded. I sure as hell didnt think it was going to be the guy with the biggest boner and shrine for her who was going to respond to me and throw a hissy fit though. And thats not playing dumb, for all I know she could have fucked a former roadie or John's son and thats why she's in this thread.

Rawrr

04/13/10, 07:00 PM

Thread is full of "edgy".

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 07:01 PM

I was asking her relevancy to the thread, and I didnt give a shit who responded. I sure as hell didnt think it was going to be the guy with the biggest boner and shrine for her who was going to respond to me and throw a hissy fit though. And thats not playing dumb, for all I know she could have fucked a former roadie or John's son and thats why she's in this thread.

You could try scrolling up to see if it's relevant, or just have read what I said in quoting the original Drew, which was "Hey, your name is Drew," and following was a song that makes mention of a boy named Drew. Either way, both beat asking how she's relevant in an already off topic thread.

You think you'll garner friends by mocking me for being a fan of her by saying things like I have a "shrine for her" and the "biggest boner," but in reality, you'll never be taken seriously. Have fun posting, I'll keep laughing.

Brand-new-123

04/13/10, 07:04 PM

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/images/the-office-5061.jpg

anthonydarko

04/13/10, 07:05 PM

This thread has gone on for too long.

zion the lion

04/13/10, 07:07 PM

You could try scrolling up to see if it's relevant, or just have read what I said in quoting the original Drew, which was "Hey, your name is Drew," and following was a song that makes mention of a boy named Drew. Either way, both beat asking how she's relevant in an already off topic thread.

You think you'll garner friends by mocking me for being a fan of her by saying things like I have a "shrine for her" and the "biggest boner," but in reality, you'll never be taken seriously. Have fun posting, I'll keep laughing.

Eh, I usually ignore your posts because you usually find a way to flip out and call me an attention whore or you try to make up a story about my family and pretend like I said it. Asking seemed easier.

No, I'm not trying to make friends by making fun of you, I went through all of my school years of being made fun of and having people use that as a friend making tool, so I dont do that. I was just calling you creepy in a roundabout way without blatantly doing it so that you dont come and murder me and my mom in our sleep in taylors name.

zion the lion

04/13/10, 07:09 PM

Thread is full of "edgy".

just like you bub.

Manicapathy

04/13/10, 07:09 PM

Are the Beatles overrated?
http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/No%20Drowning.jpg

Brand-new-123

04/13/10, 07:10 PM

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/2/21012/463699-lolcatsdotcomttbwex6me2ieahcu_super .jpg

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 07:12 PM

Eh, I usually ignore your posts because you usually find a way to flip out and call me an attention whore or you try to make up a story about my family and pretend like I said it. Asking seemed easier.

No, I'm not trying to make friends by making fun of you, I went through all of my school years of being made fun of and having people use that as a friend making tool, so I dont do that. I was just calling you creepy in a roundabout way without blatantly doing it so that you dont come and murder me and my mom in our sleep in taylors name.

I'd never murder you. I just don't like you. And, for the record, calling someone creepy and making allegations that they'll "murder you and your mom in your sleep in Taylor's name" is more or less the same thing as attempting to make fun of someone. But, it's okay, I don't really take anything you say seriously, let alone to heart.

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 07:13 PM

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/2/21012/463699-lolcatsdotcomttbwex6me2ieahcu_super .jpg

Only thing worse than irrelevant posts are posts that complain about them and act as if posting internet memes will stop an argument.

No offense.

Brand-new-123

04/13/10, 07:15 PM

Only thing worse than irrelevant posts are posts that complain about them and act as if posting internet memes will stop an argument.

No offense.
You could at least argue about bands that matter. Like Newsboys and DC Talk.

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 07:18 PM

You could at least argue about bands that matter. Like Newsboys and DC Talk.

It's no fun without Tim, though, haha. But, at least we're team Newsboys.

Plus that's more of a Christian Music thread thing.

zion the lion

04/13/10, 07:19 PM

I'd never murder you. I just don't like you. And, for the record, calling someone creepy and making allegations that they'll "murder you and your mom in your sleep in Taylor's name" is more or less the same thing as attempting to make fun of someone. But, it's okay, I don't really take anything you say seriously, let alone to heart.

Someone tried to kill a president for Jodie Foster, if I'm talking shit about a crappy singer then I have no idea what you'd do to me. Yeah you shouldnt take most of what I say seriously because its dry or morbid humor...But you clearly do because you flip out on me more than you should. Now good day because I'm looking for some girl with a dragon tattoo book and a library card.

Brand-new-123

04/13/10, 07:22 PM

It's no fun without Tim, though, haha. But, at least we're team Newsboys.

Plus that's more of a Christian Music thread thing.
Yeah yeah yeah. I guess it all comes down to the fact that I'm avoiding writing a paper and I'm distraught that this thread survived past page 1.

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 07:26 PM

Someone tried to kill a president for Jodie Foster, if I'm talking shit about a crappy singer then I have no idea what you'd do to me. Yeah you shouldnt take most of what I say seriously because its dry or morbid humor...But you clearly do because you flip out on me more than you should. Now good day because I'm looking for some girl with a dragon tattoo book and a library card.

You're safe girly girl. I don't care about you nearly as much as you think I do.

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 07:27 PM

Yeah yeah yeah. I guess it all comes down to the fact that I'm avoiding writing a paper and I'm distraught that this thread survived past page 1.

Currently editing a paper too, haha. On Sister Carrie and whether or not the characters are victims of naturalism or exemplify free agency. Haha.

The thread was going well for a while, but it got ruined. Partially my fault.

aoftbsten

04/13/10, 07:34 PM

The Beatles are definitely not overrated. Sure they do have some terrible songs in their catalog, but hey everyone is bound to release a dud eventually. Besides the have so many great songs, in fact some of the best songs ever written, in their catalog to over look any dud they may have written.

Brand-new-123

04/13/10, 07:34 PM

Currently editing a paper too, haha. On Sister Carrie and whether or not the characters are victims of naturalism or exemplify free agency. Haha.

The thread was going well for a while, but it got ruined. Partially my fault.
I have one about Global Warming, one about my "career path" and a third about Oscar Wilde. I also have a presentation for speech class, and one for my business class. I think I'd rather waste time on AP though.

The thread was bad from the OP. Don't blame yourself, you just helped prolong it.

Kurt Retenauer

04/13/10, 07:44 PM

I have one about Global Warming, one about my "career path" and a third about Oscar Wilde. I also have a presentation for speech class, and one for my business class. I think I'd rather waste time on AP though.

The thread was bad from the OP. Don't blame yourself, you just helped prolong it.

Yeah, questioning The Beatles significance is an obvious downhill discussion and an uphill battle.

That said, papers suck. But, I'm glad I've only got one at the moment. Your three and a presentation is unfortunate. I've got a lot next week, but this week is kind of slow.

cshadows2887

04/13/10, 08:53 PM

iSasquatchh

04/13/10, 09:22 PM

Yes.

stupidtyonparad

04/13/10, 10:49 PM

yes they are.

cshadows2887

04/13/10, 10:51 PM

yes they are.

I knew you'd make me regret complimenting your band in your thread. Haha.

stupidtyonparad

04/13/10, 11:02 PM

I knew you'd make me regret complimenting your band in your thread. Haha.

anything considered the "greatest of all time" in their respective category is instantly overrated. so much opinion goes into such a statement and it's seriously all bullshit.

cshadows2887

04/13/10, 11:04 PM

anything considered the "greatest of all time" in their respective category is instantly overrated. so much opinion goes into such a statement and it's seriously all bullshit.

You're confusing the opinions of the stupid with the general consensus. The general consensus would call them one of the greatest. And I'm hoping you wouldn't argue otherwise. Only a clown would declare they are the undisputed best band of all time.

El_Jeffe

04/13/10, 11:22 PM

There's a lot of clowns around then haha. But I do agree with what you just said mate, I've always had the same problem a lot of members.

Matt Chylak

04/13/10, 11:23 PM

domotime2

04/13/10, 11:25 PM

6 year olds -60 year olds can name 5-10 beatle songs.

birtcho

04/13/10, 11:35 PM

Matt Chylak

04/13/10, 11:40 PM

6 year olds -60 year olds can name 5-10 beatle songs.

so? that has nothing to do with the beatles being overrated or not.

/shit-starting

EDIT: in fact, that would almost lend itself to the opposing argument. there's no way 6-year-olds need to know "hey jude"

domotime2

04/14/10, 12:02 AM

so? that has nothing to do with the beatles being overrated or not.

/shit-starting

EDIT: in fact, that would almost lend itself to the opposing argument. there's no way 6-year-olds need to know "hey jude"
but they do, there's a reason. The Beatles are probably the only music group taught in schools other than classical music....why? There's a reason.

Matt Chylak

04/14/10, 12:24 AM

but they do, there's a reason. The Beatles are probably the only music group taught in schools other than classical music....why? There's a reason.

all i'm saying is, it might not be the reason you're presupposing ("they're THAT important"), but rather the reason the OP is (poorly) claiming: they're overrated

IWasaCamera

04/14/10, 10:07 AM

but they do, there's a reason. The Beatles are probably the only music group taught in schools other than classical music....why? There's a reason.
haha

cshadows2887

04/14/10, 10:25 AM

There's a lot of clowns around then haha. But I do agree with what you just said mate, I've always had the same problem a lot of members.

Haha. I just have a problem with the people who react too hard against the stupidity of certain mindless music fans. Just because they're dumbasses doesn't mean you should defame a truly great band. If you don't really give The Beatles a listen outside of the stereotypes and critical consensus, you're really doing yourself a disservice as a music fan, because there's SO much great music you would miss.

briewer

04/14/10, 10:26 AM

haha the velvet underground? talk about overrated...
Woof. In a thread overflowing with stupidity, you managed to take the cake with this comment. Congrats.

cshadows2887

04/14/10, 10:28 AM

Woof. In a thread overflowing with stupidity, you managed to take the cake with this comment. Congrats.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's just been exposed to a sub-community who tends to recognize their greatness and thus spoke. 'Cause if he thinks the general population even knows who they are, my head would spin from silliness.

briewer

04/14/10, 10:33 AM

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's just been exposed to a sub-community who tends to recognize their greatness and thus spoke. 'Cause if he thinks the general population even knows who they are, my head would spin from silliness.
I took it as a dumb comment from a scene kid lacking perspective, not someone who's jaded by their presence in a certain community. I guess we'll find out what he's thinking whenever he responds.

cshadows2887

04/14/10, 10:34 AM

I took it as a dumb comment from a scene kid lacking perspective, not someone who's jaded by their presence in a certain community. I guess we'll find out what he's thinking whenever he responds.

Haha. I try to be an optimist where possible.

briewer

04/14/10, 10:35 AM

Haha. I try to be an optimist where possible.
That's skill I'm seriously lacking.

cshadows2887

04/14/10, 10:39 AM

That's skill I'm seriously lacking.

It's okay we can be the little angel and the little devil on this kid's shoulders. Except if the angel and the devil both agreed that thinking VU is overrated is absurd.

IWasaCamera

04/14/10, 10:41 AM

This whole "overrated" business is ridiculous from the outset anyway. It relies on a supposed consensus view that is never stated outright so I fail to see the point in the discussion if there's no framework to operate within. Guys, VU is overrated and even though our perceptions of the term differ, you're still totally wrong.

Brilliant thread.

jhrunion

07/28/11, 06:41 AM

Did you know that:
the beach boys, NOT the beatles, were the first pop/rock act signed to capitol.
the beach boys, not the beatles, were the first rock act EVER to gain FULL CONTROL in the studio.
brian wilson quit touring to work in the studio long BEFORE the beatles quit touring to work in the studio.
the beach boys started their own record label Brother records over a year before the beatles started thiier own record label apple records.
drug references...the beach boys beat the beatles to the punch on that one too...when brian wilson changed the lyrics of sloop john b to 'this is the worst TRIP i've ever been on." all the beatles ever did was get american music of the 50's and 60's and give it back to the world in a more generic, diluted, white bread, watered down, more easy to digest form. first they did lame covers of some great 50's rock and roll. then, they heard dylan and got got all lyrically serious. then, they heard the jangly innovations of roger mcguinn and added that to their sound. then they heard frank zappa's freak out and got all musically 'experimental.' they then did lt. salt while listening to pet sounds. lennon stole the granny glasses idea from McGuinn. even the band's flirtation with eastern religion goes back to the byrds' david crosby. lennon stole lyrics from chuck berry and the communist Manifesto. harrisson borrowed lyrics from eastern religious texts. lennon even went as far as to say when you 'borrowed' from others work it was stealing it was a love-in. hog wash!!!

georgedcc

07/28/11, 07:40 AM

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad150/georgedcc/bad-artist-imitate.jpg

Kurt Retenauer

07/28/11, 07:49 AM

The Beach Boys did a lot of what The Beatles did before The Beatles did it, yes, but that doesn't mean that The Beatles couldn't have done it better.

Everyone's influenced by someone, and trying to imitate someone else. The Beach Boys/Brian Wilson was an imitation of Phil Spector, but many claim (and I'll back) that Wilson did a better job at producing/songwriting. Likewise, someone could say The Beatles imitated The Beach Boys, but were better.

Numero10

07/28/11, 07:52 AM

Dude talkin' like The Beatles didn't openly admit that Sgt. Pepper's wasn't them tryna beat Pet Sounds

jimbobtx

07/29/11, 12:05 PM

Are the Beatles overrated?

No.

k1no

07/29/11, 12:17 PM

I believe their overrated personally. But I respect what they did for music.

Coloso

07/29/11, 12:22 PM

"overrated" is an overrated word

cshadows2887

07/30/11, 01:23 AM

Oh sweet Jesus, not this thread again.

Turi

07/30/11, 04:09 AM

Well, regardless of what anyones opinion is, you can't deny their influence, so many artists cite them as an influence so it's a little ignorant to ask whether they are "overrated", because they clearly aren't.

I personally only really like a few songs of theirs, and I believe they have way more shit songs than good songs, but they were miles ahead of anyone else at the time, and musically, they were excellent, they had a perfect combination of great melodies and oddball chords to keep listeners interested.

Sugarnotch

08/01/11, 01:12 AM

I love The Beatles, especially their middle era and early stuff, but they are inconceivably overrated. The fact of the matter is that they aren't the best band ever, despite being invariably heralded as such by swanky journalists.

Azmodius

08/01/11, 08:48 AM

It's a personal thing, but having it played non-stop when I was young made me hate them. Can't listen to anything they do now, appreciate their influence on practically everyone. But much like Rage Against the Machine, when something is overplayed to that extent, it really annoys me later. Sorry.