Are the Beatles overrated?

[Batman]

What a nice thread with no one calling one another names

Batman I used to do the same with my old mans Donovan records, listened to them over and over in my room when no one was around.

When we'd get on the car and he'd be in charge of the tape deck of course, he used to say with a smile on his face 'Im sticking a Donovan tape on' like it was some kind of torture. I'd go along with it of course 'Dad no dont put that rubbish on!!' Im not quite sure if I had him sussed, or him me.

Shut up turd face

[walrus]

Unrelated but how to u feel about the Grateful Dead. Jerry was a very under appreciated guitar player. The dead were an important, influential American band

[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.

[brocktonblockbust]

no Beatle influenced this ***ASTEROID*** from the ***VIRGO GALAXY CLUSTER*** sorry folks.

[Batman]

no Beatle influenced this ***ASTEROID*** from the ***VIRGO GALAXY CLUSTER*** sorry folks.

Yeah Hendrix was so uninfluenced by the Beatles that he didn't cover Sgt peppers

[walrus]

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