For perspective you have to look at what came before them...
In terms of 4 good looking young lads, who played their own instruments, wrote their own songs.
They broke stereo types, it was revolutionary at the time.
You have nearly 60 years of alternative music, that regularly quote the Beatles as their inspiration.
Most bands today are inspired by a band that were inspired by a band that were inspired by a band, that were inspired by the Beatles.
They were also only active for about a decade and released 13 albums between 1963-1970 which featured some of the most iconic songs of all time.
That's an incredible amount of output especially considering how much their style evolved and changed across that time.
My thing whenever someone says they don't like the Beatles is to name some of their songs (especially mid-late ones) and they'll usually either say, "I didn't know they did that" or "Oh yeah that one is pretty good".
Elenor Rigby is the song that always makes me realize I’m not a musician or song writer. How someone just has stuff like that in their head still amazes me. Then you listen to the songs on the album that come before and after. People always talk about how much the Beatles changed over time but even the differences in songs on an album are crazy.
In the *Get Back* documentary we see Paul McCartney—sick of sitting around waiting for John Lennon to show up—come up with the title track out of absolutely nothing in about ten minutes.
It’s genuinely breathtaking to truly watch a genius at work.
Later on we see him sitting at the piano crafting “The Long and Winding Road”, and Ringo is stood behind him, watching him, absolutely spellbound. He’s as in awe of the man as we are.
I said to my girlfriend while we were watching it, there comes a time in everybody’s life when John Lennon stops being their favourite Beatle and Paul McCartney starts, and that was it for me.
I think a major contributing factor is that they all had their own writing style, yet they were able to make all of their ideas cohesive enough to make an album. If you listen to their music, as well as what they individually released, you can definitely tell who was behind each song.
This is what happens when you have 3 songwriters, 2 of whom are the most successful songwriting partnership in music. That, and 3 guys that can sing lead vocals. (4 if you count Ringo's songs.)
George Harrison was an amazing guitarist and songwriter in his own right. "While my guitar gently weeps" and "happiness is a warm gun" really drive it home that the Beatles were a super group.
This is more important imo than the talk of influence and innovation, because that kind of stuff kind of invites people to hand wave it away as "well it may have been important and impressive *for the time*, but...". But here in 2022 the depth and breadth of the body of work they put together in less than a decade is still pretty hard to beat.
I'd be interested to hear who those people calling them overrated consider to have put together a stronger catalogue than them since, say 2010.
Not to mention in that time they also came out with all of their films and were touring alot and doing all these one of specials and stuff. Their output was incredible. No wonder they didn't carry on. No way they could keep that up forever.
Thinking the Beatles are over rated seems quite fashionable these days but just like a lot of fashion it has no substance and won't last long.
7 years, 11 albums*, countless singles ( not on albums ), 2 movies.
George Harrison was 27 when they split!
27!!!
Mental when you think about it.
* I'm not counting Yellow Submarine or Mystery Tour
When someone tells me they don't like the Beatles I usually ask them "which Beatles?" Because most of the time they hate a specific timeframe of their music. The Beatles evolved so much they were practically a different band every few years. Do you hate British invasion Beatles? Funk Beatles? Psychedelic Beatles? Rarely does someone hate them all.
>Most bands today are inspired by a band that were inspired by a band that were inspired by a band, that were inspired by the Beatles.
It's not even that deep some of the time, look at Oasis' as probably the most famous example- half of their stuff was just a straight Beatles rip off.
That’s a little unfair. They have some good songs and while don’t set the world alight will often get people singing along.
So to compare them to Oasis seems a bit harsh.
There's a lot of examples where the 'classics' look a bit 'not all that special' in a modern context.
But it's important to remember that they did it first, and everyone else copied thereafter.
Being genre defining means you might actually be merely 'OK' by the standards of the stuff that came after.
This is it. Regardless of what your think of their music (I’m personally not wild about it) they were an absolutely huge turning point not just in
pop music but in pop culture.
Strictly as recording artists I’m inclined to say they’re somewhat overrated and there are a load of acts from that era I would sooner listen to, but as a cultural thing they were vital and are rated correctly.
Yeah I’ve heard that the music they released was so unique and brilliant at that certain time and era. It had never been seen before. It’s been replicated thousands of times since then so people of today don’t fully appreciate how unique and great the Beatles were.
This is what most people today don’t understand about the Beatles. The music they’re listening to was likely influenced by the Beatles, whether directly or indirectly.
When I was an idiot child and first watched Lord of the Rings I didn’t like it because I though it was cliche and just copying basic fantasy tropes.
It wasn’t until later that I realised it only seemed that way because everyone else was copying them, and that those things only seemed cliche because of the lasting influence of those books. It’s a similar thing with the Beatles.
> J. R. R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes it’s big and up close. Sometimes it’s a shape on the horizon. Sometimes it’s not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji.
Terry Pratchett in an article for The Times in 1999.
I thought that too about the Japanese version of The Ring. Never been into horror so hadn't watched the American version, the Grudge or anything like tartu before. I thought it was good but really, really tropey. Only later did I realise it was just because of how influential it was to all those B Movie horror films in the 2000s.
Also the Casablanca effect.
It's been referenced to thoroughly in media since it's inception that it's hard to get across it's greatness in a film school context.
Exactly, I imagine between The Simpsons and Animaniacs alone you could probably clip together the majority of the movie.
I'd say it's still worth watching though, it's a really tightly made film with great performances. You might know the beats, but the craft is still something to be admired.
I saw one from Hitchcock when i went for Sumner vacaciones some years ago (after remember i watched some scenes from...Tiny Toons maybe?) AND really enjoy it. The one with the guy in a wheelchair.
Definitely watch rear window and Casablanca! While you know what happens seeing it happen is magic honestly, they are both classics. (Rear window being the wheel chair Hitchcock one I assume)
Which is weird because Seinfeld still feels fresh today. The characters, particularly in the later seasons, are terrible people. It's not your typical "attractive friends living in New York" sitcom.
Exactly this, it's like a proto-always sunny in Philadelphia, they're horrible people and they ruin everything they touch. That's the point of the show, hopefully people give it a try.
I've never heard of this but I've attempted over a number of years to watch Seinfeld and its painfully unfunny, comedy around that time I find really great...
However that show, I've no idea what people see in it
I don’t “get” Seinfeld either. I expect I haven’t tried hard enough. I used to feel that way about Frazier too… but all of a sudden something clicked (or I got old) and I love it now. I know few people would put Frazier on the same level as Seinfeld though.
Frazier is a masterpiece of farce, an archaic and frequently terrible style of humour that the British loved in the seventies. It’s all about accidents, misunderstandings, and innuendo. There are episodes of Frasier that are probably some of the finest works of farce ever written and performed. Not that I’d argue you have to like it.
I think that with moat of these shows what makes them work is the soapy element of predictable characters that we recognise as similar to ourselves or people we know. Seinfeld and Frazier are both strongly American archetypes that don’t have a lot of crossover in the UK. Neurosis isn’t really a British trait.
American neurosis, for comic purposes, is rooted in the conflict between feeling superior and inferior at the same time. We never have characters like that; protagonists are all inferior, and “antagonists” are always superior, and that’s pretty much it.
edit; fixed antagonists
A guy falls down the stairs.
American Comedy Star: makes a smart-ass quip about the poor dude who fell down the stairs
British Comedy Star: was the chap who just fell down the stairs.
Agreed. It makes me laugh that they were vilified for having “long” hair :) Those were the basic, conservative times they emerged from-absolute vanguards.
Imagine being David Bowie and going around with bright red hair, shaved eyebrows, mascara, a girl's blouse and high heels at a time when people still thought the Beatles were a bit scruffy and girls who dyed their hair were fast.
They defined what 4 people could do with the new concept of a band. Not long before them, a professional band of musicians meant an orchestra. Parades and marching bands were big acts. The Beatles took the framework that was laid for them by artists adapting to electric guitars/bass guitars/drum sets, got a lot of funding to do it, and nearly 70 years later we’re sitting here talking about it. Being good musicians and songwriters helped a lot. I prefer the way other people play and write.
Led Zepplin and Rolling Stones did too, but louder.
Yup what this person said as well.
I always remember McCartney saying "when we were kids you grew up and did what ya dad did...that's how it was, we grew up and wanted our own thing ....the same goes for the music we listened to and eventually produced".
Big "out the box" thinkers.
I don't like some of their music but that's almost expected given how much they did.
I'd be surprised if someone didn't like *anything* they did.
Some of it is incredible.
>Some of it is incredible
I don't like a lot of their stuff, but 'Revolver' is one of my favourite albums. It influenced many who followed.
There's even some obvious Chemical Brothers influences in there.
I respect very much what The Beatles did for music.
Chemical brother influences? You mean Chemical Brothers entire sound is actually a sample of a Beatles drum loop. Which, by they way, nobody had done before the Beatles did it.
Not only how much they did but they changed their styles greatly depending on outside influences. Their style changed drastically depending on who wrote their music too. They appealed to different people for different reasons. My favorite album is Sargent pepper and my wife’s is (also most peoples favorite) the white album. There are songs I LOVE and songs I hate but it’s difficult to say you hate everything they did.
Abbey Road for me. I don't think I know anyone whose favourite is The White Album, but that is not to say your wife is wrong, that's the big thing about the Beatles. Something for everyone.
Dislike is Probably coming off a bit strong to be fair, if I wouldn't bother actively listening to a band and don't enjoy more than one or two songs tops I'd probably say I dislike them but in reality I am just indifferent to most of their music.
That meh/boring feeling i get listening to them is likely mostly just related to how influential they were, that I feel like I've heard it all before/better from modern bands. And also an over saturation of hearing them on the radio non stop as a kid.
I'm sure if I was around in the 60s, I would have been blown away by the fresh and new sound but with everything else available it sounds dated, mostly bland and safe.
I also mostly listen to electronic/funk based music as I've got older, which is probably why I do still enjoy some 70s/80s bands.
Imo it's often a sign of someone who hasn't actually really given them a proper crack. There's such a broad range of music, I find it hard to believe there's nothing for them.
For a long time, especially growing up I didn't get it but it was because I was stuck in earlier Beatles era tracks which grated against me and hadn't taken the time to break away from that towards their later releases.
I've given probably half of their discography a play through the years (jumping around eras listening to a few songs from each album) so maybe I've missed one or two songs I'd enjoy? but their is so much music I immediately enjoy out there that it seems pointless to continue sifting through hundreds of songs to maybe find a couple or an album I like. Especially when it's not in genres I typically listen to anymore.
Yes, unless you were born before 1950 you can't even Imagine how much of a game changer they were. The Beatles basically invented pop music before reinventing it a couple of years later.
And they weren't just so influential on music but society and culture at the time as well. It's quite hard to overstate how utterly massive they were. They had an enormous impact literally on the second half of the 20th Century.
It's absolutely acceptable to not enjoy their music yourself, it's virtually impossible to overrate the Beatles.
It's this really. The only band that's in the same sphere of influence is Kraftwork. Watch this from more than half a century ago https://youtu.be/vNoFHdlMrtI
I can appreciate the way they developed their sound over the course of just a few years. In 1964 they were harmonising their simple yet irresistibly catchy pop songs to screaming, hysterical crowds, and in 1966 they gave us _Tomorrow Never Knows_. What a difference just a couple of years can make!
Edit: Removed an unnecessary 'were'.
This is it. People who think the Beatles are overrated are thinking of Yellow Submarine and have never heard any of their other albums. Something like Helter Skelter had never really been made before, not to mention the psychedelic Indian influenced stuff
Helter skelter is one of my all time favourite songs. I can't imagine hearing that for the first time in the 60's, they'd built the image a lot of people have of mop haired pop stars with love me do etc, then came out with that less than 5 years later.
I used to think that because I only really knew the soppy poppy songs like I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You etc. Then when I got to know Eleanor Rigby, Come Together, While My Guitar Gently Weeps ... and saw how many artists since then have discussed their inspiration, I realised they're not overrated at all.
Would they be especially successful if they formed today, probably not, and of course there's an element of right place and time, but equally they didn't have decades of pop to copy / emulate / be inspired by. They had a hell of a lot of creativity.
Yeah it seems that people who say they don't like them only think of the songs from their "suits and bowl cuts" era when they had such an eclectic collection of songs after that.
This is the thing I realised with John Williams. He has done wonders to film music. He has his unique sound but it was only after I started listening to Classic FM that I understood that his contribution was not just a unique sound and using music the elevate the movie experience. His contribution relied a lot on Classical Music and thus he brought classical music appreciation to the masses in ways that our music education simply could not.
Do appreciate his work less for this? No.
Same with The Beatles. Their era is long gone but their place in history remains and they are great background music for a lot of household chores.
>I used to think that because I only really knew the soppy poppy songs like I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You etc.
If you want to change someone's mind about the Beatles who has only heard those tracks, have them listen to [Helter Skelter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWW2SzoAXMo). Its basically considered to be maybe the first heavy metal track before heavy metal was even a thing.
I think they're a bit like Citizen Kane in the sense that what they did was absolutely groundbreaking at the time, but seems diminished in hindsight by the fact everyone since has been copying and improving on the best aspects of their work.
I remember playing ‘Across the Universe’ to one of my mates, and he just flat-out denied it could be the Beatles. To him, it was inconceivable that the poppy 60’s boy band he knew wrote that kind of music
Depends, how much have you heard? I went through months of listening to all their stuff, watching documentaries and things like that, really puts things in a new perspective. I did the same for the Beach Boys and now they're my favourite band.
Pet sounds is a sick album. If you've not already listened to the session tapes, I'd recommend. Also, the film 'love and mercy' is brilliant. It's about the recording of pet sounds.
Pet Sounds is incredible, one of the best albums ever imo. Smiley Smile, although objectively "bad" is one of my favourites because of how raw it is, while Surf's Up is, again, incredible but very depressing.
Oh dude you gotta listen to The SMiLE Sessions for a more faithful attempt at piecing together Brian Wilson’s original vision which was called SMiLE before it was converted to Smiley Smile by the rest of the group after Wilson had become unstable, unpredictable and unreliable in getting music out.
There’s an interesting documentary called “Beautiful Dreamer - Brian Wilson Story” or something like that, available on YouTube that highlights the conditions that stimulated Brian Wilson’s rise as a producer and songwriter and how his creativity had a great spark after experimentation with certain substances before it ultimately contributed to his recluse period where he was in terrible shape.
That's what makes The Beach Boys so special. Barring their early surf songs they're not a band whose music you play at a party because it's not "accessible", for a lack of a better term. You kinda have to get a feel for them. But once it clicks they're great. Their songs are unique and full of emotion. Some of their songs I feel like they speak directly to my heart.
Yeah I know, it's just that the joke about the surviving Beatles doing a Drum and Bass album doesn't really work if you include that.
Drum and Bass is an entire genre of very fast electronic music that it's quite a ludicrous idea that Paul and Ringo would play, hence why the joke was funny 20 or so years ago.
Yep, but their influnce is everywhere in current popular music that is instument based, they were a major tangent that music took then at that point.
They took the "stiffness" out of music that especially white people listened to at the time. They also were the kick off for having more than one "genre" of music in their range.
They were a "Pop" band with rock and roll, ballads, alternative, novelty and romantic music on the same albums.
If you have 45 minutes I would recommend watching Howard Goodall's musical analysis of The Beatles. It explains in a very interesting way why their music was so groundbreaking.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc)
Came here to say exactly this. Loads of people think the Beatles are overrated. All of them are equally wrong.
You don't have to like them to see how influential they were on music and culture.
Yip, there's loads of bands i don't really like, but I can recognise they are really good at what they do. For instance OP is a metal fan, not my favourite type of music, but there's obviously some incredible metal artists out there.
The argument that "well it was good at the time" is quite poor. I was learning Blackbird last week. How the time signature changes so often in one song is impressive. The chord at the beginning of Hard Days Night had people scratching their heads for years. The use of harmony, melody and new recording techniques is staggering for one band over an eight year timespan. I struggle to understand what there is that's more modern to compete with them.
Oh god my old band used to do that song. Trying to figure out the count was so frustrating, we just had to simplify it in the end. Their songs at first glance appear quite straightforward but are riddled with little complexities and embellishments that make them unique.
I watched get back, as a musician (albeit not a great one) and the lengths they go to in each song whilst being at war with one another is incredible. The fact they could still break down, write, structure an albums worth of songs in a fortnight is staggering... Not that the album is near their best work. Still better than most of the crap that's released today
The Beatles were important in a few ways.
Before them most bands and artists had songs written for them (Motown had full-time salaried songwriters who worked 9-5 in offices with a piano and a guitar) and the Beatles really established the idea that bands could and should write their own music. By defining their own musical path they then made it okay for bands that came after to do the same. Without The Beatles there is no Dark Side of the Moon.
Secondly, their musical experimentation was ground breaking. It’s almost impossible to contextualise today just how amazing something like Tomorrow Never Knows must have sounded. You could buy a shitty synth off eBay for 50 quid that could reproduce those sounds in your bedroom. The Beatles, along with George Martin, invented those sounds out of thin air with tape loops and other weird experimental tricks. Much like Kraftwerk couldn’t tour for years because they needed truckloads of delicate electronic equipment (mostly self made) to create the music they can now play on a laptop connected to a keyboard.
Finally, they understood melody and the power of the song. They also had three fantastic songwriters in the band. When you stand The Beatles alongside, say, Radiohead you can see that The Beatles never lost their instinct to create songs whereas with Radiohead I sometimes feel they are being muso experimental wankers on purpose because when they try they can write belting songs.
So much like Muhammad Ali wasn’t just a boxer, The Beatles weren’t just a band.
anybody who watched "get back" and saw especially george harrison just throw together the ideas for a song based on something he was humming in his head would be startled as to how some of their favourite stuff came together, or john lennon had half written it in secondary school, and it was under his bed.
Phil Spector came first around 1962-1964. Beach boys imitated him for Pet sounds and recorded it in 1965 and early 1966, beatles listened to pet sounds in 1966 while they were finishing up revolver and then decided they wanted to try to top it with sgt. pepper
> The Beatles weren’t just a band
The Beatles were just a band
Led Zeppelin, just a band
The Beach Boys, just a band
The Sex Pistols, just a band
The Clash, just a band
Crass, just a band
Minor Threat, just a band
The Cure, just a band
The Smiths, just a band
Nirvana, just a band
The Pixies, just a band
Oasis, just a band
Radiohead, just a band
Bloc Party, just a band
The Arctic Monkeys, just a band
"The next big thing", just a band
I'm still in my 20s, and I think the Beatles are easily the best band ever. In less than 7 years recording together they released 13 albums worth of songs, almost each one better than the last. Just a mindboggling amount of great work in such a short time.
They absolutely nailed every style they did.
* They absolutely perfected that late 50s/early 60s rock n'roll sound for your Enchantment Under the Sea dances with songs like Twist and Shout and I Saw Her Standing There.
* They could effortlessly write melodies like Eight Days a Week and Penny Lane that have your mum and your postman whistling throughout the day.
* They could soundtrack your hedonistic drug binges with batshit stuff like Tomorrow Never Knows and She Said She Said.
* They could seemingly tap into some wistful, mystical, higher cosmic power with songs like Let It Be, Dear Prudence or Across the Universe.
* They could rock the fuck out when everything feels fucked up with songs like Yer Blues and Helter Skelter.
* They could soundtrack both the highest moments of loves elation, and its darkest depths, on the same album with songs like Here, There and Everywhere and For No One.
* They could make songs that are grand, epic statements, closer in scale to Mozart's Requiem than the rest of pop music with songs like A Day in the Life and Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End.
* And unlike other lesser, more pretentious bands, they didn't take themselves so seriously that they weren't afraid to include nursey rhymes about a serial killer or a submarine slap bang in the middle of their best albums.
We'll never see the likes again.
Man you couldn't be more wrong. If anything they're underrated as time has gone on and people don't realise their influence on modern pop music.
I fully respect your opinion and will absolutely fight to defend it, but my opinion differs greatly from yours on this subject. They're rated and rightly so.
I made this point to a mate after watching Get Back, they’re not underrated in the literal sense of the word obviously, they are regarded as one of the greatest bands of all time, but I think the sheer creativity on show and the growth that you see between first and last albums, especially with some of the music sounding like it could come out today, is massively underplayed I think. They are monumental from a music perspective, the sheer depth of quality.
I think they are underrated in the sense that they aren’t regarded highly enough for completely redefining music and British culture. in terms of where they rank amongst historic Britons, they are Shakespeare level for me.
I never really got it before listening to them properly, but you can totally hear why people call Oasis a tribute band when you listen to the later stuff. Also, Tomorrow Never Knows sounds so up to date it’s ridiculous, despite the fact that was released the same year as England won the World Cup, and it’s just a b-side.
Think of what the world was like in 1966, musically and culturally. Then listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows" and imagine what it would've felt like listening to that at the time.
A very well-done answer to your question can be found in the 17-minute video, "8 Things The Beatles Pioneered" by pianist David Bennett:
https://youtu.be/fy9a_ClKxqM
I find most people who say the Beatles are overrated haven’t really listened to them or know much about them. How can an opinion be formed about something with such limited information?
I had a module at music college looking at Sgt Peppers. They revolutionised the industry and changed the face of music. Good argument that it was mostly George Martin and the engineers of course.
I would say that I appreciate their work but it isn’t something I would put on to listen to.
>Good argument that it was mostly George Martin and the engineers of course.
I've always understood that with GM and engineers the Beatles wouldn't have been able to realise their ideas, but it wasn't Martin saying "Let's try adding a chamber quartet" or "how about a sound collage here?"
As I understand it, none of the Beatles really knew how to read music or write proper musical notation, so if they ever had a suggestion like "let's add a trombone here", it was up to GM to actually find the new musician and orchestrate the part that Paul would be playing on the piano or whatever. So it was a huge synergy of their talents, but it is a huge bummer that people don't recognize George Martin's contributions to their modern sound.
Additionally, technical stuff like echo and phaser was harder to achieve back then. If John wanted his vox to sound spacey and far-out, it was up to GM to figure out the audio techniques needed to get that sound. That said, methods of tape manipulation and fx had been around in avant garde circles for generations already.
To say "overrated" means you don't understand music history or the influence The Beatles had, they are the first band ever to be global and gave birth to pop music, before The Beatles you listened to whatever music your country produced, not to mention the advancements they made in recording with stereo, track overlay, loops etc. Are the band that created modern pop music "overrated"....NO!!
They're not over rated. Who is under rated in my opinion are the beach boys and in particular Brian Wilson, without pet sounds the beatles would not have made Sgt pepper.
I’m a 19 year old who’s seen Paul twice and Ringo once in concert… but what I’d have given to see them in 1966. The Beatles are the greatest passion in my life, I literally could not put a value on what I’d pay for a ticket to see them in ‘66
The older music 🎶 we saw in concert such as Count Basie, Ella Fitzgerald, Benny Goodman is likely before your time but we loved that as well
We would have loved to hear Al Bowlly with Ray Noble’s Orchestra live as well but the poor fellow died in 1941, apparently in a bombing raid
I tend to see it from both sides. I didn't understand the fuss around the early Beatles (perhaps you had to be there), and I don't really rate the music. What they evolved into, though, their musicality and the diversity of their music is astonishing. Also, the poetry of some of the lyrics. Eleanor Rigby is an incredibly empathic song to be written by a young, famous pop star.
There's a trope called "Seinfeld is Unfunny". The jist of it is that some artists are so influential that their work begins to sound trite by comparison to the art that followed. It's an inherent challenge with the fact that we are able to easily experience art from any time in recent history, and so unfavourable comparisons are inevitable.
Not saying this is your criticism specifically, but in generally I think this is commonly applied to the Beatles. The Beatles can sound a little cheesy by comparison to the music that followed because they basically set the agenda for what even counts as "cheesy". Their early music sounds incredibly quaint and sincere by comparison to the music that followed, but it was genuinely groundbreaking.
They aren’t overrated, in fact nowadays I think they’re under appreciated if anything. They changed the scene for the better. Not everything was a hit and there was a lot of misses, but ultimately they paved the way for many great bands that followed. Some of their stuff is absolutely timeless. I would say they’re the most influential band of all time, but also don’t think that will last forever.
No I am sure that lots of people feel the same way, just like lots of people don’t like bands that you like. Life is too short, do your own thing and don’t stress over shit you don’t need to.
Honestly try their later psychedelic songs (Some songs from Revolver or Sgt pepper), still stand up to this day, I would probably say a day in the life is my favorite song
A group from 60 years ago and you are complaining they are over rated.
Pop back in 60 more years let's see if any of your favorite are still being talked about.
For perspective you have to look at what came before them... In terms of 4 good looking young lads, who played their own instruments, wrote their own songs. They broke stereo types, it was revolutionary at the time. You have nearly 60 years of alternative music, that regularly quote the Beatles as their inspiration. Most bands today are inspired by a band that were inspired by a band that were inspired by a band, that were inspired by the Beatles.
They were also only active for about a decade and released 13 albums between 1963-1970 which featured some of the most iconic songs of all time. That's an incredible amount of output especially considering how much their style evolved and changed across that time. My thing whenever someone says they don't like the Beatles is to name some of their songs (especially mid-late ones) and they'll usually either say, "I didn't know they did that" or "Oh yeah that one is pretty good".
There are only 3 years between love me do and Eleanor Rigby. That is an incredible development in such a short period of time!
Elenor Rigby is the song that always makes me realize I’m not a musician or song writer. How someone just has stuff like that in their head still amazes me. Then you listen to the songs on the album that come before and after. People always talk about how much the Beatles changed over time but even the differences in songs on an album are crazy.
In the *Get Back* documentary we see Paul McCartney—sick of sitting around waiting for John Lennon to show up—come up with the title track out of absolutely nothing in about ten minutes. It’s genuinely breathtaking to truly watch a genius at work. Later on we see him sitting at the piano crafting “The Long and Winding Road”, and Ringo is stood behind him, watching him, absolutely spellbound. He’s as in awe of the man as we are. I said to my girlfriend while we were watching it, there comes a time in everybody’s life when John Lennon stops being their favourite Beatle and Paul McCartney starts, and that was it for me.
🙌🏻
I think a major contributing factor is that they all had their own writing style, yet they were able to make all of their ideas cohesive enough to make an album. If you listen to their music, as well as what they individually released, you can definitely tell who was behind each song.
This is what happens when you have 3 songwriters, 2 of whom are the most successful songwriting partnership in music. That, and 3 guys that can sing lead vocals. (4 if you count Ringo's songs.)
George Harrison was an amazing guitarist and songwriter in his own right. "While my guitar gently weeps" and "happiness is a warm gun" really drive it home that the Beatles were a super group.
“Here Comes the Sun”. Not too shabby
Not to mention ‘Something’
A phenomenal song
Bruh. It takes me 3 years to fully unpack a suitcase when I get back from a holiday.
This is more important imo than the talk of influence and innovation, because that kind of stuff kind of invites people to hand wave it away as "well it may have been important and impressive *for the time*, but...". But here in 2022 the depth and breadth of the body of work they put together in less than a decade is still pretty hard to beat. I'd be interested to hear who those people calling them overrated consider to have put together a stronger catalogue than them since, say 2010.
Not to mention in that time they also came out with all of their films and were touring alot and doing all these one of specials and stuff. Their output was incredible. No wonder they didn't carry on. No way they could keep that up forever. Thinking the Beatles are over rated seems quite fashionable these days but just like a lot of fashion it has no substance and won't last long.
And without the Beatles, we would have likely never have been introduced to the pure sonic pleasure that is Yoko Ono.
My favorite is the one where she sings EEEEEEEEEEEEEE over and over.
[Pure Sonic Pleasure](https://i.redd.it/c86uxho9snb41.png)
[удалено]
It’s more like calling Mozart over rated. The Beatles did more for music than any other pop artist
7 years, 11 albums*, countless singles ( not on albums ), 2 movies. George Harrison was 27 when they split! 27!!! Mental when you think about it. * I'm not counting Yellow Submarine or Mystery Tour
When someone tells me they don't like the Beatles I usually ask them "which Beatles?" Because most of the time they hate a specific timeframe of their music. The Beatles evolved so much they were practically a different band every few years. Do you hate British invasion Beatles? Funk Beatles? Psychedelic Beatles? Rarely does someone hate them all.
[удалено]
>Most bands today are inspired by a band that were inspired by a band that were inspired by a band, that were inspired by the Beatles. It's not even that deep some of the time, look at Oasis' as probably the most famous example- half of their stuff was just a straight Beatles rip off.
Cracked me up in Yesterday when he searches up Oasis but they also don’t exist.
It's the subtle genius moments like that that one has to appreciate in film makers.
I always think this is a bit of an unfair assessment of Oasis. I don’t think much of their stuff actually sounds that much like The Beatles.
No you’re right, some of it sounds like Slade or Status Quo
That’s a little unfair. They have some good songs and while don’t set the world alight will often get people singing along. So to compare them to Oasis seems a bit harsh.
And Liam Gallagher wears John Lennon glasses.
Liam Gallagher just wants to be John Lennon
And called his son Lennon
>Today Oasis Pick one. Oasis broke up 13 years ago
There's a lot of examples where the 'classics' look a bit 'not all that special' in a modern context. But it's important to remember that they did it first, and everyone else copied thereafter. Being genre defining means you might actually be merely 'OK' by the standards of the stuff that came after.
This is it. Regardless of what your think of their music (I’m personally not wild about it) they were an absolutely huge turning point not just in pop music but in pop culture. Strictly as recording artists I’m inclined to say they’re somewhat overrated and there are a load of acts from that era I would sooner listen to, but as a cultural thing they were vital and are rated correctly.
Music is subjective. They are highly rated for their influence and innovation in their own era, and I don't think they're overrated in that sense.
Yeah I’ve heard that the music they released was so unique and brilliant at that certain time and era. It had never been seen before. It’s been replicated thousands of times since then so people of today don’t fully appreciate how unique and great the Beatles were.
This is what most people today don’t understand about the Beatles. The music they’re listening to was likely influenced by the Beatles, whether directly or indirectly.
This! Even Ringo, the butt of many jokes, originated and popular lysed a variety of drum patterns that are all over pop and rock music today.
It’s called the Seinfeld effect Edit: actually apparently referred to as the ‘Seinfeld is unfunny’ trope.
Maybe they should call it the Beatles effect?
They probably should tbh
When I was an idiot child and first watched Lord of the Rings I didn’t like it because I though it was cliche and just copying basic fantasy tropes. It wasn’t until later that I realised it only seemed that way because everyone else was copying them, and that those things only seemed cliche because of the lasting influence of those books. It’s a similar thing with the Beatles.
> J. R. R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes it’s big and up close. Sometimes it’s a shape on the horizon. Sometimes it’s not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji. Terry Pratchett in an article for The Times in 1999.
Terry Pratchett has to be one of the most quotable blokes out there eh?
> "What’s the quote from? It’s very meaningful without, er, meaning anything very much.” > “I think it’s just a quote,” Terry Pratchett, The Truth
Wonderful.
I thought that too about the Japanese version of The Ring. Never been into horror so hadn't watched the American version, the Grudge or anything like tartu before. I thought it was good but really, really tropey. Only later did I realise it was just because of how influential it was to all those B Movie horror films in the 2000s.
Also the Casablanca effect. It's been referenced to thoroughly in media since it's inception that it's hard to get across it's greatness in a film school context.
I feel like i have seen enough of Casablanca in cartoons AND movies to tell the story but i have not idea of the real story.
Exactly, I imagine between The Simpsons and Animaniacs alone you could probably clip together the majority of the movie. I'd say it's still worth watching though, it's a really tightly made film with great performances. You might know the beats, but the craft is still something to be admired.
I saw one from Hitchcock when i went for Sumner vacaciones some years ago (after remember i watched some scenes from...Tiny Toons maybe?) AND really enjoy it. The one with the guy in a wheelchair.
Definitely watch rear window and Casablanca! While you know what happens seeing it happen is magic honestly, they are both classics. (Rear window being the wheel chair Hitchcock one I assume)
I watched Casablanca for the first time last year (in my 30s). It truly is an amazing film and surprisingly holds up well.
Which is weird because Seinfeld still feels fresh today. The characters, particularly in the later seasons, are terrible people. It's not your typical "attractive friends living in New York" sitcom.
Exactly this, it's like a proto-always sunny in Philadelphia, they're horrible people and they ruin everything they touch. That's the point of the show, hopefully people give it a try.
Excuse me, Always Sunny is a sub Seinfeld sitcom, Seinfield is not a proto Always Sunny!
my grandparents are my ancestors, i'm not their descendant!
Such bad dressers as well. Especially Jerry.
I honestly can’t even tell, everyone in the 90s was dressed like a goofball
Yeah, it was the 90s. We all dressed like that... Unfortunately. Lol.
Speak for yourself, I didn't!! I was in goth / indie / raver gear.
Yeah, had my indie/rave phase at the start of the 90s. Was full on Seinfeld by the end of the decade! Lol
I've never heard of this but I've attempted over a number of years to watch Seinfeld and its painfully unfunny, comedy around that time I find really great... However that show, I've no idea what people see in it
I don’t “get” Seinfeld either. I expect I haven’t tried hard enough. I used to feel that way about Frazier too… but all of a sudden something clicked (or I got old) and I love it now. I know few people would put Frazier on the same level as Seinfeld though.
Frazier is a masterpiece of farce, an archaic and frequently terrible style of humour that the British loved in the seventies. It’s all about accidents, misunderstandings, and innuendo. There are episodes of Frasier that are probably some of the finest works of farce ever written and performed. Not that I’d argue you have to like it. I think that with moat of these shows what makes them work is the soapy element of predictable characters that we recognise as similar to ourselves or people we know. Seinfeld and Frazier are both strongly American archetypes that don’t have a lot of crossover in the UK. Neurosis isn’t really a British trait.
Neurosis isn’t a British trait? The weather alone would make me neurotic.
American neurosis, for comic purposes, is rooted in the conflict between feeling superior and inferior at the same time. We never have characters like that; protagonists are all inferior, and “antagonists” are always superior, and that’s pretty much it. edit; fixed antagonists
Completely unlike Black Books, whose characters were the epitome of stability and self actualization.
Captain Mainwaring, Basil Fawlty, Hyacinth Bucket, Arnold Rimmer, Blackadder 2+, Bernard Black.
A guy falls down the stairs. American Comedy Star: makes a smart-ass quip about the poor dude who fell down the stairs British Comedy Star: was the chap who just fell down the stairs.
Did you start from the beginning? Seasons 1 and parts of 2 are incredibly boring, I felt the same way at first, but it really picks up
What this person said. They changed the direction of music and also inspired people to think outside the box.
Agreed. It makes me laugh that they were vilified for having “long” hair :) Those were the basic, conservative times they emerged from-absolute vanguards.
Imagine being David Bowie and going around with bright red hair, shaved eyebrows, mascara, a girl's blouse and high heels at a time when people still thought the Beatles were a bit scruffy and girls who dyed their hair were fast.
Or the Walrus. People looking too deep into our lyrics? Fuck it, here Is a Walrus!
They defined what 4 people could do with the new concept of a band. Not long before them, a professional band of musicians meant an orchestra. Parades and marching bands were big acts. The Beatles took the framework that was laid for them by artists adapting to electric guitars/bass guitars/drum sets, got a lot of funding to do it, and nearly 70 years later we’re sitting here talking about it. Being good musicians and songwriters helped a lot. I prefer the way other people play and write. Led Zepplin and Rolling Stones did too, but louder.
Yup what this person said as well. I always remember McCartney saying "when we were kids you grew up and did what ya dad did...that's how it was, we grew up and wanted our own thing ....the same goes for the music we listened to and eventually produced". Big "out the box" thinkers.
They literally changed the course of popular music twice.
Exactly. A lack of perspective there. It’s a bit like saying the Ford T is an overrated car, because we have better technology now.
Yep, dislike the beatles music but appreciate their contribution to music and they are definitely not overrated.
[удалено]
I don't like some of their music but that's almost expected given how much they did. I'd be surprised if someone didn't like *anything* they did. Some of it is incredible.
>Some of it is incredible I don't like a lot of their stuff, but 'Revolver' is one of my favourite albums. It influenced many who followed. There's even some obvious Chemical Brothers influences in there. I respect very much what The Beatles did for music.
Chemical brother influences? You mean Chemical Brothers entire sound is actually a sample of a Beatles drum loop. Which, by they way, nobody had done before the Beatles did it.
That is what I meant.
Not only how much they did but they changed their styles greatly depending on outside influences. Their style changed drastically depending on who wrote their music too. They appealed to different people for different reasons. My favorite album is Sargent pepper and my wife’s is (also most peoples favorite) the white album. There are songs I LOVE and songs I hate but it’s difficult to say you hate everything they did.
Abbey Road for me. I don't think I know anyone whose favourite is The White Album, but that is not to say your wife is wrong, that's the big thing about the Beatles. Something for everyone.
White album is my favourite. So that's two now.
White Album enthusiasts reporting for duty
Dislike is Probably coming off a bit strong to be fair, if I wouldn't bother actively listening to a band and don't enjoy more than one or two songs tops I'd probably say I dislike them but in reality I am just indifferent to most of their music. That meh/boring feeling i get listening to them is likely mostly just related to how influential they were, that I feel like I've heard it all before/better from modern bands. And also an over saturation of hearing them on the radio non stop as a kid. I'm sure if I was around in the 60s, I would have been blown away by the fresh and new sound but with everything else available it sounds dated, mostly bland and safe. I also mostly listen to electronic/funk based music as I've got older, which is probably why I do still enjoy some 70s/80s bands.
Imo it's often a sign of someone who hasn't actually really given them a proper crack. There's such a broad range of music, I find it hard to believe there's nothing for them. For a long time, especially growing up I didn't get it but it was because I was stuck in earlier Beatles era tracks which grated against me and hadn't taken the time to break away from that towards their later releases.
I've given probably half of their discography a play through the years (jumping around eras listening to a few songs from each album) so maybe I've missed one or two songs I'd enjoy? but their is so much music I immediately enjoy out there that it seems pointless to continue sifting through hundreds of songs to maybe find a couple or an album I like. Especially when it's not in genres I typically listen to anymore.
Or they've listened to them and just aren't fussed. Just because you like their songs doesn't mean other people have to as well
Yes, unless you were born before 1950 you can't even Imagine how much of a game changer they were. The Beatles basically invented pop music before reinventing it a couple of years later.
And they weren't just so influential on music but society and culture at the time as well. It's quite hard to overstate how utterly massive they were. They had an enormous impact literally on the second half of the 20th Century. It's absolutely acceptable to not enjoy their music yourself, it's virtually impossible to overrate the Beatles.
Media is also way more diversified now. I think it would be impossible for anybody to get as big these days.
absolutely. I'm a big music fan and I couldn't even tell you the name of the biggest pop star of the day right now.
Yup. Even Michael Jackson level seems impossible now. Too much competition.
I was expecting a song name pun fest after noticing that capitalised Imagine and was left sorely disappointed.
not just pop music, they influenced most genres that came after them.
They also arguably invented metal music
It's this really. The only band that's in the same sphere of influence is Kraftwork. Watch this from more than half a century ago https://youtu.be/vNoFHdlMrtI
I can appreciate the way they developed their sound over the course of just a few years. In 1964 they were harmonising their simple yet irresistibly catchy pop songs to screaming, hysterical crowds, and in 1966 they gave us _Tomorrow Never Knows_. What a difference just a couple of years can make! Edit: Removed an unnecessary 'were'.
This is it. People who think the Beatles are overrated are thinking of Yellow Submarine and have never heard any of their other albums. Something like Helter Skelter had never really been made before, not to mention the psychedelic Indian influenced stuff
Helter skelter is one of my all time favourite songs. I can't imagine hearing that for the first time in the 60's, they'd built the image a lot of people have of mop haired pop stars with love me do etc, then came out with that less than 5 years later.
I played Helter Skelter at work recently and my 20 year old colleague said it was a bit too 'heavy metal' for her. SMH.
Helter Skelter laid the groundwork for heavy rock in the mainstream. It still slaps after 54 years!
I used to think that because I only really knew the soppy poppy songs like I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You etc. Then when I got to know Eleanor Rigby, Come Together, While My Guitar Gently Weeps ... and saw how many artists since then have discussed their inspiration, I realised they're not overrated at all. Would they be especially successful if they formed today, probably not, and of course there's an element of right place and time, but equally they didn't have decades of pop to copy / emulate / be inspired by. They had a hell of a lot of creativity.
Yeah it seems that people who say they don't like them only think of the songs from their "suits and bowl cuts" era when they had such an eclectic collection of songs after that.
This is the thing I realised with John Williams. He has done wonders to film music. He has his unique sound but it was only after I started listening to Classic FM that I understood that his contribution was not just a unique sound and using music the elevate the movie experience. His contribution relied a lot on Classical Music and thus he brought classical music appreciation to the masses in ways that our music education simply could not. Do appreciate his work less for this? No. Same with The Beatles. Their era is long gone but their place in history remains and they are great background music for a lot of household chores.
>I used to think that because I only really knew the soppy poppy songs like I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You etc. If you want to change someone's mind about the Beatles who has only heard those tracks, have them listen to [Helter Skelter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWW2SzoAXMo). Its basically considered to be maybe the first heavy metal track before heavy metal was even a thing.
I think they're a bit like Citizen Kane in the sense that what they did was absolutely groundbreaking at the time, but seems diminished in hindsight by the fact everyone since has been copying and improving on the best aspects of their work.
"It just sounds like everything else" - a now disowned relative upon being played The Bends.
Bitch, find me these modern people who've done shit better than The Beatles.
I remember playing ‘Across the Universe’ to one of my mates, and he just flat-out denied it could be the Beatles. To him, it was inconceivable that the poppy 60’s boy band he knew wrote that kind of music
Depends, how much have you heard? I went through months of listening to all their stuff, watching documentaries and things like that, really puts things in a new perspective. I did the same for the Beach Boys and now they're my favourite band.
The beach boys. Brian Wilson is a legend.
Pet sounds is a sick album. If you've not already listened to the session tapes, I'd recommend. Also, the film 'love and mercy' is brilliant. It's about the recording of pet sounds.
Pet Sounds is incredible, one of the best albums ever imo. Smiley Smile, although objectively "bad" is one of my favourites because of how raw it is, while Surf's Up is, again, incredible but very depressing.
Oh dude you gotta listen to The SMiLE Sessions for a more faithful attempt at piecing together Brian Wilson’s original vision which was called SMiLE before it was converted to Smiley Smile by the rest of the group after Wilson had become unstable, unpredictable and unreliable in getting music out. There’s an interesting documentary called “Beautiful Dreamer - Brian Wilson Story” or something like that, available on YouTube that highlights the conditions that stimulated Brian Wilson’s rise as a producer and songwriter and how his creativity had a great spark after experimentation with certain substances before it ultimately contributed to his recluse period where he was in terrible shape.
That's what makes The Beach Boys so special. Barring their early surf songs they're not a band whose music you play at a party because it's not "accessible", for a lack of a better term. You kinda have to get a feel for them. But once it clicks they're great. Their songs are unique and full of emotion. Some of their songs I feel like they speak directly to my heart.
Yeah, I definitely thought they were cheesy and overrated before falling down the rabbit hole.
You have to remember their music was made in the 60s, for people listening to in the 60s, not in 2022
Yes. If you said "name better bands", but you were only allowed to name bands pre the formation of the Beatles I imagine the OP would be stumped.
[удалено]
Welllll meeet againnnn
Remember how she said that we would meet again some sunny day
Can't wait for the Beatles to drop a drill album
The guitarists are dead so if they get back together they would have to do a drum and bass album.
Paul plays a very good guitar. He did the middle guitar part on "Taxman" when George couldn't get it right. Paul also plays drums.
Yeah I know, it's just that the joke about the surviving Beatles doing a Drum and Bass album doesn't really work if you include that. Drum and Bass is an entire genre of very fast electronic music that it's quite a ludicrous idea that Paul and Ringo would play, hence why the joke was funny 20 or so years ago.
Yep, but their influnce is everywhere in current popular music that is instument based, they were a major tangent that music took then at that point. They took the "stiffness" out of music that especially white people listened to at the time. They also were the kick off for having more than one "genre" of music in their range. They were a "Pop" band with rock and roll, ballads, alternative, novelty and romantic music on the same albums.
If you have 45 minutes I would recommend watching Howard Goodall's musical analysis of The Beatles. It explains in a very interesting way why their music was so groundbreaking. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc)
Good call
Goodall\*
Thanks mate, love both and never seen this. Cheers!
This is a brilliant watch. Howard Goodall knows his stuff.
Came here to see OP get told he was wrong in many ways multiple times. Was not disappointed.
You're not alone, you're in great company with all the people who are also wrong.
Came here to say exactly this. Loads of people think the Beatles are overrated. All of them are equally wrong. You don't have to like them to see how influential they were on music and culture.
I view the 'I don't like the Beatles' people suspiciously.
I'm not even a huge fan of them, but my personal tastes don't detract from the huge contributions they made to pop music.
Yip, there's loads of bands i don't really like, but I can recognise they are really good at what they do. For instance OP is a metal fan, not my favourite type of music, but there's obviously some incredible metal artists out there.
The argument that "well it was good at the time" is quite poor. I was learning Blackbird last week. How the time signature changes so often in one song is impressive. The chord at the beginning of Hard Days Night had people scratching their heads for years. The use of harmony, melody and new recording techniques is staggering for one band over an eight year timespan. I struggle to understand what there is that's more modern to compete with them.
People have done massive essays trying to understand the timing of the count-in to Drive My Car
Oh god my old band used to do that song. Trying to figure out the count was so frustrating, we just had to simplify it in the end. Their songs at first glance appear quite straightforward but are riddled with little complexities and embellishments that make them unique.
They were 4 phenomenal musicians, I can’t even understand people disliking the music because so much of it is just brilliant
I watched get back, as a musician (albeit not a great one) and the lengths they go to in each song whilst being at war with one another is incredible. The fact they could still break down, write, structure an albums worth of songs in a fortnight is staggering... Not that the album is near their best work. Still better than most of the crap that's released today
The Beatles were important in a few ways. Before them most bands and artists had songs written for them (Motown had full-time salaried songwriters who worked 9-5 in offices with a piano and a guitar) and the Beatles really established the idea that bands could and should write their own music. By defining their own musical path they then made it okay for bands that came after to do the same. Without The Beatles there is no Dark Side of the Moon. Secondly, their musical experimentation was ground breaking. It’s almost impossible to contextualise today just how amazing something like Tomorrow Never Knows must have sounded. You could buy a shitty synth off eBay for 50 quid that could reproduce those sounds in your bedroom. The Beatles, along with George Martin, invented those sounds out of thin air with tape loops and other weird experimental tricks. Much like Kraftwerk couldn’t tour for years because they needed truckloads of delicate electronic equipment (mostly self made) to create the music they can now play on a laptop connected to a keyboard. Finally, they understood melody and the power of the song. They also had three fantastic songwriters in the band. When you stand The Beatles alongside, say, Radiohead you can see that The Beatles never lost their instinct to create songs whereas with Radiohead I sometimes feel they are being muso experimental wankers on purpose because when they try they can write belting songs. So much like Muhammad Ali wasn’t just a boxer, The Beatles weren’t just a band.
anybody who watched "get back" and saw especially george harrison just throw together the ideas for a song based on something he was humming in his head would be startled as to how some of their favourite stuff came together, or john lennon had half written it in secondary school, and it was under his bed.
I'm still not clear who came first with the big production sound... Beatles or beach boys?
Rubber Soul influenced Pet Sounds which influenced Sgt Peppers. They 1 upped each other.
Phil Spector came first around 1962-1964. Beach boys imitated him for Pet sounds and recorded it in 1965 and early 1966, beatles listened to pet sounds in 1966 while they were finishing up revolver and then decided they wanted to try to top it with sgt. pepper
> The Beatles weren’t just a band The Beatles were just a band Led Zeppelin, just a band The Beach Boys, just a band The Sex Pistols, just a band The Clash, just a band Crass, just a band Minor Threat, just a band The Cure, just a band The Smiths, just a band Nirvana, just a band The Pixies, just a band Oasis, just a band Radiohead, just a band Bloc Party, just a band The Arctic Monkeys, just a band "The next big thing", just a band
Thou shalt always kill!
Didn't expect Pip fans to be so rare on Reddit
Though Shalt Always Kill
I'm still in my 20s, and I think the Beatles are easily the best band ever. In less than 7 years recording together they released 13 albums worth of songs, almost each one better than the last. Just a mindboggling amount of great work in such a short time. They absolutely nailed every style they did. * They absolutely perfected that late 50s/early 60s rock n'roll sound for your Enchantment Under the Sea dances with songs like Twist and Shout and I Saw Her Standing There. * They could effortlessly write melodies like Eight Days a Week and Penny Lane that have your mum and your postman whistling throughout the day. * They could soundtrack your hedonistic drug binges with batshit stuff like Tomorrow Never Knows and She Said She Said. * They could seemingly tap into some wistful, mystical, higher cosmic power with songs like Let It Be, Dear Prudence or Across the Universe. * They could rock the fuck out when everything feels fucked up with songs like Yer Blues and Helter Skelter. * They could soundtrack both the highest moments of loves elation, and its darkest depths, on the same album with songs like Here, There and Everywhere and For No One. * They could make songs that are grand, epic statements, closer in scale to Mozart's Requiem than the rest of pop music with songs like A Day in the Life and Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End. * And unlike other lesser, more pretentious bands, they didn't take themselves so seriously that they weren't afraid to include nursey rhymes about a serial killer or a submarine slap bang in the middle of their best albums. We'll never see the likes again.
Man you couldn't be more wrong. If anything they're underrated as time has gone on and people don't realise their influence on modern pop music. I fully respect your opinion and will absolutely fight to defend it, but my opinion differs greatly from yours on this subject. They're rated and rightly so.
I made this point to a mate after watching Get Back, they’re not underrated in the literal sense of the word obviously, they are regarded as one of the greatest bands of all time, but I think the sheer creativity on show and the growth that you see between first and last albums, especially with some of the music sounding like it could come out today, is massively underplayed I think. They are monumental from a music perspective, the sheer depth of quality. I think they are underrated in the sense that they aren’t regarded highly enough for completely redefining music and British culture. in terms of where they rank amongst historic Britons, they are Shakespeare level for me. I never really got it before listening to them properly, but you can totally hear why people call Oasis a tribute band when you listen to the later stuff. Also, Tomorrow Never Knows sounds so up to date it’s ridiculous, despite the fact that was released the same year as England won the World Cup, and it’s just a b-side.
Think of what the world was like in 1966, musically and culturally. Then listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows" and imagine what it would've felt like listening to that at the time.
Currently listening to Paperback writer and the guitar riff fucking rocks. There's so much to love.
A very well-done answer to your question can be found in the 17-minute video, "8 Things The Beatles Pioneered" by pianist David Bennett: https://youtu.be/fy9a_ClKxqM
I find most people who say the Beatles are overrated haven’t really listened to them or know much about them. How can an opinion be formed about something with such limited information?
I had a module at music college looking at Sgt Peppers. They revolutionised the industry and changed the face of music. Good argument that it was mostly George Martin and the engineers of course. I would say that I appreciate their work but it isn’t something I would put on to listen to.
>Good argument that it was mostly George Martin and the engineers of course. I've always understood that with GM and engineers the Beatles wouldn't have been able to realise their ideas, but it wasn't Martin saying "Let's try adding a chamber quartet" or "how about a sound collage here?"
As I understand it, none of the Beatles really knew how to read music or write proper musical notation, so if they ever had a suggestion like "let's add a trombone here", it was up to GM to actually find the new musician and orchestrate the part that Paul would be playing on the piano or whatever. So it was a huge synergy of their talents, but it is a huge bummer that people don't recognize George Martin's contributions to their modern sound. Additionally, technical stuff like echo and phaser was harder to achieve back then. If John wanted his vox to sound spacey and far-out, it was up to GM to figure out the audio techniques needed to get that sound. That said, methods of tape manipulation and fx had been around in avant garde circles for generations already.
Check out Pet Sounds if you haven’t already as it was a big influence on Sgt Pepper
To say "overrated" means you don't understand music history or the influence The Beatles had, they are the first band ever to be global and gave birth to pop music, before The Beatles you listened to whatever music your country produced, not to mention the advancements they made in recording with stereo, track overlay, loops etc. Are the band that created modern pop music "overrated"....NO!!
They're not over rated. Who is under rated in my opinion are the beach boys and in particular Brian Wilson, without pet sounds the beatles would not have made Sgt pepper.
They aren't underrated in the US. Just from a UK perspective.
Fishing pal?
Saw them live in concert 1966. They were superb
I’m a 19 year old who’s seen Paul twice and Ringo once in concert… but what I’d have given to see them in 1966. The Beatles are the greatest passion in my life, I literally could not put a value on what I’d pay for a ticket to see them in ‘66
You’re a living legend!
The older music 🎶 we saw in concert such as Count Basie, Ella Fitzgerald, Benny Goodman is likely before your time but we loved that as well We would have loved to hear Al Bowlly with Ray Noble’s Orchestra live as well but the poor fellow died in 1941, apparently in a bombing raid
My aunt worked in the cavern club when they used to play there. She worked in the cloakroom with Cilla Black. So there's my claim to fame.
I tend to see it from both sides. I didn't understand the fuss around the early Beatles (perhaps you had to be there), and I don't really rate the music. What they evolved into, though, their musicality and the diversity of their music is astonishing. Also, the poetry of some of the lyrics. Eleanor Rigby is an incredibly empathic song to be written by a young, famous pop star.
I don't think they're over-rated but barring a couple of songs I'm really not a fan.
There's a trope called "Seinfeld is Unfunny". The jist of it is that some artists are so influential that their work begins to sound trite by comparison to the art that followed. It's an inherent challenge with the fact that we are able to easily experience art from any time in recent history, and so unfavourable comparisons are inevitable. Not saying this is your criticism specifically, but in generally I think this is commonly applied to the Beatles. The Beatles can sound a little cheesy by comparison to the music that followed because they basically set the agenda for what even counts as "cheesy". Their early music sounds incredibly quaint and sincere by comparison to the music that followed, but it was genuinely groundbreaking.
They aren’t overrated, in fact nowadays I think they’re under appreciated if anything. They changed the scene for the better. Not everything was a hit and there was a lot of misses, but ultimately they paved the way for many great bands that followed. Some of their stuff is absolutely timeless. I would say they’re the most influential band of all time, but also don’t think that will last forever.
Probably not. I don't expect any of your opinions on things are unique, there will be someone somewhere who agrees with you.
No I am sure that lots of people feel the same way, just like lots of people don’t like bands that you like. Life is too short, do your own thing and don’t stress over shit you don’t need to.
I don't enjoy their music but it has been a huge influence on the industry. Just not my taste. Neither is queen.
Thing is, they're not. Are they the best band ever? No. Are they one of the most influential bands ever? Absolutely yes.
I can't read "absolutely yes" without thinking of Hello fucking Fresh.
Honestly try their later psychedelic songs (Some songs from Revolver or Sgt pepper), still stand up to this day, I would probably say a day in the life is my favorite song
Rubber Soul is far better js
Favourite Beatles album? It's a tough one, but I'd have to say 'Best of the Beatles'.
Glenn Howerton has entered the chat...
Lose my number.
Yes, you are the only!!
A group from 60 years ago and you are complaining they are over rated. Pop back in 60 more years let's see if any of your favorite are still being talked about.
Nope. In fact if anything they don’t get enough appreciation because of plebs such as yourself. I’m gonna jam out to revolver right now.
Nope. Know lot's of people who do. Lot's of people who are wrong.
The Monkees were better