-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
The Beatles are not overrated, they were a fine band with a talented group of songwriters. I think they started off as more of a singles band with some of those early albums being very uneven. However, they really progressed very quickly and their best work is of a very high standard. When I was an early teen I thought the Beatles were the bees knees, but they have never really managed to quite recover from me discovering the work of Bowie a few years later. That to me really took music to a different emotional and intellectual level and I haven't really seen anything to compare with the depth and range of Bowie's 1970's output. Some albums come close, but not an entire body of work that goes on for a good dozen consecutive albums.
I would argue that in terms of advancing alternative music the work of Bowie has been more important than the Beatles. Not in terms of his own sales or anything like that, in terms of his influence. Sure you get a meat and potatoes rock band like Oasis worshipping at the altar of Lennon and McCartney, but in terms of general influence I think you can argue that Bowie influenced The Sex Pistols, The Smiths, Suede, Smashing Pumpkins, Arcade Fire, all kinds of bands all through the ages. Just more edgy, clever, they click with that oddness in you too.
The Beatles almost seem a bit Mumsy compared to the apocalyptic visions, the existential dread, the balls of releasing albums half filled with instrumentals. That to me is the pinacle of what popular music has achieved, so by comparison the worship of the Beatles is a little bit much, but they are not overrated. They progressed pop music to the stage that led to the developments that followed. I just think the 1970's was were pop music really reached really it's zenith. It has kind of been rinse and repeat a lot since then. The 80's was terrible production and drum sounds and the 1990's onwards was an attempt to reclaim and then this century it has kind of gone again.
I would rate Bowie higher, but maybe the Beatles in at number 2. I think other bands have made better albums than the Beatles, but not many have made a consecutive sequence of great albums like they did and that is what elevates them. I just think Bowie had more consecutive great albums and had more range and emotional and intellectual depth to his work. Just take Bowie's Blackstar and McCartney's New as a side by side recent comparison. One is something almost ephemeral and the other is more of a really solid, strong album which doesn't quite have any of the same depth or innovation. That kind of sums up the comparison for me. I enjoy both, but the one that has the bigger impact is Blackstar. Mind you I look forward to hearing each McCartney release, but you know it will be a bit more of the same.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
no Beatle influenced this ***ASTEROID*** from the ***VIRGO GALAXY CLUSTER*** sorry folks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYyEqaMYVBk
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Yeah Hendrix was so uninfluenced by the Beatles that he didn't cover Sgt peppers
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
The Beatles are not overrated, they were a fine band with a talented group of songwriters. I think they started off as more of a singles band with some of those early albums being very uneven. However, they really progressed very quickly and their best work is of a very high standard. When I was an early teen I thought the Beatles were the bees knees, but they have never really managed to quite recover from me discovering the work of Bowie a few years later. That to me really took music to a different emotional and intellectual level and I haven't really seen anything to compare with the depth and range of Bowie's 1970's output. Some albums come close, but not an entire body of work that goes on for a good dozen consecutive albums.
I would argue that in terms of advancing alternative music the work of Bowie has been more important than the Beatles. Not in terms of his own sales or anything like that, in terms of his influence. Sure you get a meat and potatoes rock band like Oasis worshipping at the altar of Lennon and McCartney, but in terms of general influence I think you can argue that Bowie influenced The Sex Pistols, The Smiths, Suede, Smashing Pumpkins, Arcade Fire, all kinds of bands all through the ages. Just more edgy, clever, they click with that oddness in you too.
The Beatles almost seem a bit Mumsy compared to the apocalyptic visions, the existential dread, the balls of releasing albums half filled with instrumentals. That to me is the pinacle of what popular music has achieved, so by comparison the worship of the Beatles is a little bit much, but they are not overrated. They progressed pop music to the stage that led to the developments that followed. I just think the 1970's was were pop music really reached really it's zenith. It has kind of been rinse and repeat a lot since then. The 80's was terrible production and drum sounds and the 1990's onwards was an attempt to reclaim and then this century it has kind of gone again.
I would rate Bowie higher, but maybe the Beatles in at number 2. I think other bands have made better albums than the Beatles, but not many have made a consecutive sequence of great albums like they did and that is what elevates them. I just think Bowie had more consecutive great albums and had more range and emotional and intellectual depth to his work. Just take Bowie's Blackstar and McCartney's New as a side by side recent comparison. One is something almost ephemeral and the other is more of a really solid, strong album which doesn't quite have any of the same depth or innovation. That kind of sums up the comparison for me. I enjoy both, but the one that has the bigger impact is Blackstar. Mind you I look forward to hearing each McCartney release, but you know it will be a bit more of the same.
Miles you are talking some shit but I like the bees knees saying
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
I just checked them out on YouTube as I'm not always au fait with up and coming new bands.
They all look very young, and it seems like simple stripped down music to me, lots of guitar and catchy choruses.
To be honest, I think they sound and look a bit like an Oasis tribute, so I'm not really sure they will last long.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
@Batman not a good argument. just bcuz someone does a cover song doesnt mean they were "influenced" by the artist. Big deal, a cover. Maybe the concert promoters said "do a few tunes from sgt pepper" which had just come out". So what. Maybe he just did it to please the crowd/sell tickets/....INfluenced my ass. Name any songs by Hendrix ----ANY---- which sound even remotely like he was influenced by the Beatles you mad balloon. Oh yeah maybe this one you moonbat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6bkx3-fLL8
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
@
Batman not a good argument. just bcuz someone does a cover song doesnt mean they were "influenced" by the artist. Big deal, a cover. Maybe the concert promoters said "do a few tunes from sgt pepper" which had just come out". So what. Maybe he just did it to please the crowd/sell tickets/....INfluenced my ass. Name any songs by Hendrix ----ANY---- which sound even remotely like he was influenced by the Beatles you mad balloon. Oh yeah maybe this one you moonbat:
Quote:
“Jimi was a sweetie, a very nice guy. I remember him opening at the Saville on a Sunday night, 4th June 1967. Brian Epstein used to rent it when it was usually dark on the Sunday. Jimi opened, the curtains flew back and he came walking forward, playing 'Sgt. Pepper', and it had only been released on the Thursday so that was like the ultimate compliment. It's still obviously a shining memory for me, because I admired him so much anyway, he was so accomplished. To think that that album had meant so much to him as to actually do it by the Sunday night, three days after the release. He must have been so into it, because normally it might take a day for rehearsal and then you might wonder whether you'd put it in, but he just opened with it. It's a pretty major compliment in anyone's book. I put that down as one of the great honours of my career. I mean, I'm sure he wouldn't have thought of it as an honour, I'm sure he thought it was the other way round, but to me that was like a great boost.” – Paul McCartney.
Quote:
Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles and The Influence Of Sgt. Pepper's
The date is June 4, 1967. The place is the Saville Theater, in London. In the audience that night are Paul McCartney and George Harrison of The Beatles. This is what they saw....
https://youtu.be/HLEboBA-Xzk
The video is Jimi Hendrix playing "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". That wouldn't be so unusual except The Beatles recording of the song had been released just three days before.
Hendrix had released "Are You Experienced" a few weeks earlier. His legendary performance at the Monterey Pop Festival was two weeks away. Although a lot of the public was not yet familiar with him, Hendrix was already getting a reputation as one of the greatest and most innovative guitarists in the world. And there was a developing mutual admiration between Jimi and The Beatles.Sgt. Pepper' audaciously saluted in 1967
Jimi Hendrix made a public display of his admiration for The Beatles when their seminal classic ’Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’ was released during the ’Summer of Love’ in 1967.
Purchasing the record on the day of its release, he performed the title track just two days later at the Saville Theatre in London’s Shaftesbury Avenue.
Unbeknown to Hendrix, some of The Beatles were actually in the audience, listening intently to his audacious performance.
Read more at
http://www.nme.com/news/music/jimi-h...7ZxJ82DA57j.99
Quote:
It wasn't the only Beatle tune in his catalog. He also did versions of "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Daytripper."
wait...did you just call me a moonbat??? what the fuck is a moonbat???
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
completely off the subject of influences, I have just stumbled across this, pretty interesting, nothing really new but still worth a listen
The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Big deal he expressed admiration FFS. He wasn't influenced By JACK SHIT, PIXIES, OR MOONBATS
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Big deal he expressed admiration FFS. He wasn't influenced By JACK SHIT, PIXIES, OR MOONBATS
*sigh* whatever you say Jack, your the master race
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Just because Mark TKO thinks Elvis was "overrated" :rolleyes: :shakehead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_dqfeYWsXc
There's 4 Beatles but there's only 1 King baby and he had more talent in his little finger.....
https://media.giphy.com/media/Gu7RsrPqkR9y8/giphy.gif
than entire record labels have.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Elvis couldn't even write his own material. He was overrated. As a closer comparative Orbison was a better writer, singer and musician. Elvis was good looking, that was his simple schtick. Take away that and he was nobody.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Elvis did learn to become a good singer though, but really had to copy Orbison to do it.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Someone should do a Beach Boys thread.
I need a good laugh.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Elvis was a better actor than anyone of the Beatles. His films are classics.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
I think the Rolling Stones are overrated. They have a few good songs, but they repeat the same tricks again and again and then wander off into that really mediocre country pastiche thing they did all too often. Quite boring. Mick Jagger is a terrible vocalist with some of the silliest front man moves. If you are going to do that then at least be for real and cut yourself up like Iggy used to do. Take it somewhere beyond vaudeville. People always go on about the Beatles and the Stones, but the Kinks were a much more talented group than the Stones IMO. They did vaudeville too, but Ray Davies wrote such exquisite songs with beautiful melodies. The Stones could write nicely crafted songs too like with Out of Time, but they all too often fell into dull repetitive dirges and bluesy meanderings. They mostly had nothing to say.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
I've seen the stones live several times. What a ficking great band.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Someone should do a Beach Boys thread.
I need a good laugh.
The Beach Boys were great, what's not to like? They relied heavily on The Kingston Trio and Chuck Berry but there's no denying their talent.
Three Dog Night also very underrated probably because they were so pop based, but 21 Top 40 hits between 1968 and 1975 is a very impressive feat.
Louis Jordan is underrated, Jerry Lee Lewis is amazing, Fats Domino amazing, there's talent galore from back in the day
-
Monkees were better than the Beatles. They were very much underrated.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Monkees were better than the Beatles. They were very much underrated.
And you wonder why people think you're a dopey twat! Bring back PK I say! ;)
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Monkees were better than the Beatles. They were very much underrated.
And you wonder why people think you're a dopey twat! Bring back PK I say! ;)
Oh how I miss PK
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
I saw windwood in Hartford. Had to sit through his nineties stuff but after a while he came out with just an acoustic and did his traffic stuff, great show, I can still feel John barleycorn
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Someone should do a Beach Boys thread.
I need a good laugh.
The Beach Boys were great, what's not to like? They relied heavily on The Kingston Trio and Chuck Berry but there's no denying their talent.
Three Dog Night also very underrated probably because they were so pop based, but 21 Top 40 hits between 1968 and 1975 is a very impressive feat.
Louis Jordan is underrated, Jerry Lee Lewis is amazing, Fats Domino amazing, there's talent galore from back in the day
I'm not too good with the apparently dozens of rock sub-styles..... but I'll just call the Beach Boys the lollipops of rock. Matter of fact, I hesitate to even classify their music as rock. It's more like a nauseating pop, feel-good style. Honestly I never heard anything of value from them. I can't fathom their popularity.
Of the groups you mentioned, Three Dog Night I did like. Some of their hits were bonafide good music at the time they were released.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Someone should do a Beach Boys thread.
I need a good laugh.
The Beach Boys were great, what's not to like? They relied heavily on The Kingston Trio and Chuck Berry but there's no denying their talent.
Three Dog Night also very underrated probably because they were so pop based, but 21 Top 40 hits between 1968 and 1975 is a very impressive feat.
Louis Jordan is underrated, Jerry Lee Lewis is amazing, Fats Domino amazing, there's talent galore from back in the day
I'm not too good with the apparently dozens of rock sub-styles..... but I'll just call the Beach Boys the lollipops of rock. Matter of fact, I hesitate to even classify their music as rock. It's more like a nauseating pop, feel-good style. Honestly I never heard anything of value from them. I can't fathom their popularity.
Of the groups you mentioned, Three Dog Night I did like. Some of their hits were bonafide good music at the time they were released.
I never understood the Beach boys love. The Beatles made music art. Beach boys made music boring.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Agreed. Pet Sound is meant to be this masterpiece, but outside of God Only Knows, it isn't very interesting at all. I can see the work that went into it, but that doesn't make it good. It's almost like there are some albums you have to respect as they are of the holy elements in rock lineage, but if the music doesn't hold up or have the songs, then you have to be able to dismiss it. Yet rock journalists will ALWAYS have pet sounds in the top 20 of all time. I bought it years ago, gave it plenty of chances, but I do not enjoy it at all. Yep overrated.
I also think The Strokes got incredibly overrated. Their first album was alright. It was a decent garage rock album, but the way the media salivated over was quite extraordinary. It became the hipster badge of honour, stylishly unkept haircuts were in, guitars were back, but it wasn't that good. Some decent songs, some not so good. Is this it? At about 30 minutes I guess it was A 7/10 album really. Then the follow up albums were not all that either were they? Overrated.
I also think Oasis are overrated. That first album gets lauded all the time, but it's not that great. It's hardly a Station to Station, or a White Album, or a London Calling. It was very crude Status Quo rock with a couple of mouthy gits. Live Forever was great, but some of those songs are actually a bit dull. Certainly none of the really intricate songwriting you saw on the albums mentioned earlier, yet quite often, especially in British rock journalism you will see Definitely Maybe above those albums and I really don't see it. Don't get me wrong, Definitely Maybe is alright, maybe an 8/10 album, but it isn't a masterpiece or anything of the sort. Morning Glory is better IMO and then Oasis became really average. Nothing more than a 4 good songs an album kind of band then. Overrated.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Monkees were better than the Beatles. They were very much underrated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr5dnte9JgU
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Agreed. Pet Sound is meant to be this masterpiece, but outside of God Only Knows, it isn't very interesting at all. I can see the work that went into it, but that doesn't make it good. It's almost like there are some albums you have to respect as they are of the holy elements in rock lineage, but if the music doesn't hold up or have the songs, then you have to be able to dismiss it. Yet rock journalists will ALWAYS have pet sounds in the top 20 of all time. I bought it years ago, gave it plenty of chances, but I do not enjoy it at all. Yep overrated.
I also think The Strokes got incredibly overrated. Their first album was alright. It was a decent garage rock album, but the way the media salivated over was quite extraordinary. It became the hipster badge of honour, stylishly unkept haircuts were in, guitars were back, but it wasn't that good. Some decent songs, some not so good. Is this it? At about 30 minutes I guess it was A 7/10 album really. Then the follow up albums were not all that either were they? Overrated.
I also think Oasis are overrated. That first album gets lauded all the time, but it's not that great. It's hardly a Station to Station, or a White Album, or a London Calling. It was very crude Status Quo rock with a couple of mouthy gits. Live Forever was great, but some of those songs are actually a bit dull. Certainly none of the really intricate songwriting you saw on the albums mentioned earlier, yet quite often, especially in British rock journalism you will see Definitely Maybe above those albums and I really don't see it. Don't get me wrong, Definitely Maybe is alright, maybe an 8/10 album, but it isn't a masterpiece or anything of the sort. Morning Glory is better IMO and then Oasis became really average. Nothing more than a 4 good songs an album kind of band then. Overrated.
Agree on beech boys and pet sounds
Agree on the strokes (the black rebel motorcycle club have always been a far superior band, they came out at the same time and for some reason people gravitated to the strokes a lot more)
Disagree to an extent on oasis, def maybe and what's the story were brilliant, be here now could have been fantastic if they trimmed down the run time, sotsog was decent and had some good songs on it (the band were in trouble at the time and it shows on the record) heathen chemistry was on the low side of ok
I never listened to anything after that but the singles never filled me with glee
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
I quite like the Beach Boys. It doesn't need to be intricate or contain social commentary, or be complex or anything ..... when I listen to them, they make me happy :)
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
I quite like the Beach Boys. It doesn't need to be intricate or contain social commentary, or be complex or anything ..... when I listen to them, they make me happy :)
Agree with this also, Beach Boys are Sunday morning whilst tidying up music
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
I'm not too good with the apparently dozens of rock sub-styles..... but I'll just call the Beach Boys the lollipops of rock. Matter of fact, I hesitate to even classify their music as rock. It's more like a nauseating pop, feel-good style. Honestly I never heard anything of value from them. I can't fathom their popularity.
Of the groups you mentioned, Three Dog Night I did like. Some of their hits were bonafide good music at the time they were released.
Well to each their own, I think The Beach Boys were very important. "nauseating" and "feel-good" go together for you do they? They're just a California twist on what groups like Dion and the Belmonts and Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons were doing I guess you didn't like those groups either...to each their own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIqe0kMKbkE
I know I ain't common......I got class I ain't even used yet ;D
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
California Girls, while one of the most popular and played Beach Boys songs (not to mention being about a good topic)...... is also one of the most nauseating. The opening tunes.... the whiny singing.... the lollipop sounds.... the nothingness of the music.... BARF. The only group I would think of comparing them to is Air Supply, and even they sound a bit better in comparison.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
They always go on about Brian Wilson being a tortured genius. Well, anyone would be tortured if they had those melodies going around in their head constantly. It would be bloody annoying to wake up everyday with Good Vibrations going through your head. Give me the lithium!,j5
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
California Girls, while one of the most popular and played Beach Boys songs (not to mention being about a good topic)...... is also one of the most nauseating. The opening tunes.... the whiny singing.... the lollipop sounds.... the nothingness of the music.... BARF. The only group I would think of comparing them to is Air Supply, and even they sound a bit better in comparison.
I hear ya tits. I'm not into The Beach Boys but my understanding is that pet sounds is an excellent album. Don't forget it was one of The Beach Boys that discovered Charles Manson. Charlie had met, I beleive it was Brian Wilson at the same house that Roman Polanski later occupied. It is suspected that's who Manson wanted to kill as they never called him back. Basically, The Beach Boys killed a lot of people and the Beatles get blamed for it
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
California Girls, while one of the most popular and played Beach Boys songs (not to mention being about a good topic)...... is also one of the most nauseating. The opening tunes.... the whiny singing.... the lollipop sounds.... the nothingness of the music.... BARF. The only group I would think of comparing them to is Air Supply, and even they sound a bit better in comparison.
I hear ya tits. I'm not into The Beach Boys but my understanding is that pet sounds is an excellent album. Don't forget it was one of The Beach Boys that discovered Charles Manson. Charlie had met, I beleive it was Brian Wilson at the same house that Roman Polanski later occupied. It is suspected that's who Manson wanted to kill as they never called him back. Basically, The Beach Boys killed a lot of people and the Beatles get blamed for it
That'll be Dennis Wilson, I think that it was in in the book Helter Skelter that I read about it (fucking brilliant read by the way, I highly recommend it)
Apparently Wilson let a couple of girls stay at his house with him and then they introduced him to Charley and Wilson had a small almost infatuation with him, he was intrigued more than anything, more and more girls ended up moving into the house (about 16 if I remember rightly) and Charley started making thinly veiled threats towards Wilson (something to do with a bullet but I can't remember exactly what) Wilson went ape shit and moved out of the house and just left them lot living in it.
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
How can you discuss great singers and not have Barry Manilow on here?
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
How can you discuss great singers and not have Barry Manilow on here?
Oh @Master
Well you came and you gave without taking
But I sent you away, oh Master
And you kissed me and stopped me from shaking
And I need you today, oh Master
-
Re: Are the Beatles overrated?
The beatles are the greatest band in history, no doubt
quality and quantity
Dylan was good, made 2 or 3 good albums, not memorable but good
Rolling Stones were good, made 2 or 3 good albums with some anthens
neither are anywhere near the beatles, dylans best song wouldn't get in the beatles top 30