Are the Beatles overrated?

A little of column a and a little of column b, to be honest.

They're overrated in some ways, perfectly rated in other ways, and sometimes underrated.

Gasp!

Way overrated. Way.

I've always thought they were weird. Some odd combo of Gilbert & Sullivan and what-could-be kindergarten songs (We All Live in a Yellow Submarine? Octupus' Garden?)

Some exceptions but a lot of silly songs (love songs and other)

I think most artists are over and under rated in different ways. A lot of the most highly rated artists prior to the 80s were highly rated, in many ways, due to the bias in critical circles in favor of males, bands, rock. The Beatles did start out really pop but progressed into other types of music.

The Beatles are regarded as the most influential band of all time. They had a number of clunkers along the way as one poster mentioned; Yellow Submarine and Octopus’ Garden, but they were a groundbreaking group that paved the way for others to come along.

The Beatles are the most iconic rock band of all time - they influenced the entire world and changed music, period. I doubt that we will ever see their likes again. A Super Nova that will be remembered forever.

R7 I don’t think that is in question. Elvis, Beatles, MJ, Madonna and a few others were Super Novas who influenced music in profound ways. They are the Big Four in music.

One aspect that always amazes me is how the Beatles/British Invasion ended so many careers for American pop / rock acts.

I still can't wrap my head around it ..,everything pre Beatles became music your parents listened to.

Same with Elvis, MJ, Madonna, Nirvana. There was a hard shift in music tastes and led to careers ending.

Not as overrated as the Beach Boys

A Beatles cover of Chuck Barry (“Roll Over Beethoven”) came on the radio today when I was driving and I just thought what a crappy, tinny, sucked dry version it was. But the Beatles got really good later on when they stopped all the jangly rip offs. I love The White Album. I don’t like that they messed up American music by taking our originals and sterilizing them. It makes me mad because now they’re considered geniuses instead of Howlin Wolf or Buddy Holly. Just doesn’t sit right with me!

My husband actively dislikes the Beatles. I'm not a huge fan but I feel generally favorable towards their music.

I generally like The Beatles, but I think that the music of The Rolling Stones has aged better.

R12 The Beatles, Paul McCartney in particular always gave huge props to The Every Brothers. The Beatles absolutely did destroy their careers however.

Octopus’s Garden is a Ringo song, so it doesn’t count. Yellow Submarine was meant as a song for children.

Whatever you think of them, and personally I'm a fan, no other group will ever have the same global impact. They were just very lucky in that their timing was perfect. They were the right people, working with the right collaborator(s) (George Marin especially) at the right time.

*Martin of course

I’m surprised at what they could get played on the radio. It sounds practically avant-garde compared to most pop music of its time, before its time, and after its time.

"I generally like The Beatles, but I think that the music of The Rolling Stones has aged better."

The Rolling Stones did a blatant and dismal rip off of Sgt. Pepper called "Their Satanic Majesties Request." It was their attempt to be "psychedelic." The Beatles were always more creative and interesting than the Rolling Stones.

Not overrated. They have held up amazingly well for 50 years. Despite their relatively short career, they have covered a lot of ground and written many true classics. Madonna and Swift will be largely forgotten in 50 years.

No one listens to the Beatles anymore, R21. They had a bit of a resurgence in the 80s and 90s when some Xers got into them, but younger generations don't know their music.

At least in the UK, they’re still very popular.

^US, not UK

When people think of people who forever changed music, they think of only two-The Beatles and Janet Jackson. End of story.

They're one of the very few bands that actually deserves its reputation for excellent songwriting.

As an uptight elitist conservative formerly devoutly religious Boomer I always thought that they were subversive.

John was very dismissive of The Stones, Mick in particular.

I've always loved songs like When I'm 64, Yellow Submarine and Octopus's Garden because it's the Beatles harking back to the British music hall and what would have had a strong influence on them when they were boys. From the early 20th Century to the avant-garde. They're even better than their reputation.

Whether or not the beatles were more creative than the stones doesn't matter, the fact is that the stones music has aged much much better. But yeah, the beatles were more groundbreaking, no question about that.

Hell yeah! Can't stand those twee British wankers. The only musician from that era whose work sounds as fresh today as it did back in the 60s is Connie Francis.

We hear you R31

R31 LOL

They were a cultural phenomenon the likes of which had never been seen before.

^” They were a white cultural phenomenon the likes of which had never been seen before Elvis.”

Everything has to be about race. Everything. Everything. Everything.

No. But Little Richard preceded the Beatles and was a thunderbolt. Chuck Berry too.

[quote]They were a white cultural phenomenon

What?

I met Paul McCartney in the greengrocers in Brighton when I lived there.

He was alright.

Paul wasn't the pissant that John was.

John being a pissant is what made his music greater than Paul's. Compare Mother to something like Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. There's no comparison.

I like George Harrison.

"While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is a beautiful song.

I think they were over-hyped for sure. The media and corporations wanted to make as much off their popularity as was humanly possible. When I hear one of their songs (not the White Album--yuck) I feel happy because it makes me think of my youth. Do I listen to their albums now? Only John's.

R43 They were not overhyped.

Compared to other groups, they actually kept a lower profile: their concerts, TV appearances and interviews were rare compared to other popular bands at the time.

Georg Harrison was the one that insisted that they stop touring on 1966 because no one could hear them because of the screaming, hysterical audience. A man and his wife that I know went to a Beatles concert years ago and said that they could hardly hear them because of all the screaming teenage girls. The audience was louder than the band!

Brian Epstein, a gay man, was their manager and very pivotal to their great success. He groomed them, had them wear specific suits, and had them bow to the audience after a performance. He pushed them to the top and was their icing on the cake.

R25 - you're joking, right Janet Jackson did NOT change music. She's a dancer/lip syncer. She's not an artist in any sense. She had a career because she was a Jackson family member with a corporation pushing the shit out of her, not because she had any innate talent.

R21 Swift, no. Madonna, yes. Madonna has been around 38 years and not forgotten.

Beatles were so creative. The diversity of their music is huge. Paul/John were a great collaborative team.

If you want to understand the impact of the Beatles, you have to know what pop music was like in the US in 1963, early 1964.

Watch this episode of American Bandstand. Early 1964, just a few weeks before the Beatles hit.

Listen to the music. It was 1964 but we were still in the '50s. Look at the clothes. The hair styles.

6 months later it was a whole new world. And I mean it: a whole new world. The kids on the Bandstand show were unaware of what was about to hit them.

Young people today cannot understand the Beatles' impact because they are ignorant of the era. They know nothing about the context.

The swinging 60s began when the Beatles played the Ed Sullivan Show in February. Six weeks after this Bandstand show.

Start at 3:43

I don't think they are overrated or underrated.

R49: Mary!

R49 is mostly correct, R51. The Phil Spector (Wall of Sound) music and the Supremes (Motown) were already on the scene; things were already changing. But the British Invasion had the largest impact.

The Beatles and Kinks are 1000x better than The Rolling Stones.

R52 Phil Spector/Ronettes "Be My Baby"(1963) was still tinged with a 50s "American Graffiti" sound. Just like all of the other girl groups of the time.

The Supremes did not have a hit record until "Where Did Our Love Go" in the summer of 1964.

The animated movie "Yellow Submarine" is great for kids and stoned adults. I always thought "Imagine" and "Give Peace a Chance" were kindergarten songs too.

Beatles suck asshole!

I was never an enthusiastic Beatles fan. They had some good songs but I think their success was in their personalities. They wrote a lot of clunkers and some annoying trite tunes.

The opening of the video does not have the correct narration. The guy is claiming it's going to be 1964 but that's impossible.

The camera pans the Criterion theater in the Bond building. It is clearly showing My Fair Lady. The movie had its world premiere at this very theater in Oct of 1964. It would not be playing there on Dec 31 1963.

The music of the Rolling Stones had a grittier feel to it than the Beatles' did, probably because the Rolling Stones were more R&B based, thanks to poor Brian Jones. In fact, Brian Jones named the band from a song by Muddy Waters called "Rollin' Stone." But the Beatles created some beautiful love songs ("And I Love Her", "If I Fell", "Something") which the Rolling Stones seemed to have no aptitude for. I can't think of any good love song by the Rolling Stones except maybe "Wild Horses" and they got THAT from Gram Parson's influence.

R32 Connie loves this satire.

No. Irrelevant.

Ruby Tuesday and Angie - I like them anyway.

More of an edge than the Beatles - more blues-based.

David Bowie said all British rock and roll was derivative and Brits knew that it didn't spring from their souls - so they made it ironic and something to be smug about.

Wish I could find the interview. Very insightful. Done in 1999 I believe, in the UK.

Oh and he knew the Internet was going to completely transform music - and the world. That music would be 'of the people' and 'stars' (and labels) wouldn't control the scene like Elvis, Beatles, Stones, had.

The man was brilliant.

Here it is. Bowie with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight (1999)

There was Before the Beatles, and there was After the arrival of the Beatles. They profoundly affected not only music, but the attitude that a new era was upon us.

*They were a breakline in Western culture.*

Very few people outside of Henry VIII and Martin Luther had ever done that before.

R66 - didn't they really just steal from America though?

"Three great influences that shaped The Beatles' music include Buddy Holly, Little Richard, and The one and only King, Elvis Presley" - and what about Chuck Berry? one of the pioneers of rock and roll music from the 1950s.

They were just cute white boys co-opting...

and for the Stones, it was black bluesmen in the South - Mississippi Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, etc.

They have never appealed to me even just a little. The lyrics have never moved me and I never thought the music sounded that great. I just don’t get it and it was t that shocking when you compare it to what was going on at the time. I think a band like the Velvet Underground is way more groundbreaking. I don’t know anything about the technical aspects of music but I did have a musician friend tell me that technically speaking their music for the most part is quite simple. I’m someone who has very diverse music taste and I feel like i listen to a lot of good music. I’m a fan of classic blues and jazz, rock from all decades, hip hop, r&b and even some Kpop.

I don;t understand the sex symbol thing. Paul was the only one who was remotely attractive, and only mildly.

Elvis co-opted too. Didn't he copy "Hound Dog" from a black blues-Woman named Big Mama Thornton?

And the Sun Records guy said he'd been looking for a white guy who could sound like a black guy - knowing he could make the white one a star (but not the black one because racism)

Makes you wanna cry (and sing the blues - which I guess is why there is blues - the mistreatment of black people)

R70 cute enough for ordinary teenaged girls - and safe enough to have a crush on, unlike Chuck Berry and Lil Richard you know.

[quote] I can't think of any good love song by the Rolling Stones except maybe "Wild Horses" and they got THAT from Gram Parson's influence.

I think Paint It Black is a touching love song. Also Trump's fave, You Can't Always Get What You Want.

Usually a melancholy touch to their ballads/love songs.

Also "As Tears Go By"

Angie is definitely a love song. I think it’s beautiful.

Miss You in a way is a love song too.

WTF, who are these people? They look like ladies.

I love "Angie". "Heaven" from "Tattoo You" too.

R69 I personally think that The Velvet Underground is more influential as well, but you really don't like ANY Beatles songs? Not even "In My Life"?

"They are massively overrated. None of them could sing."

You're an idiot. They must certainly COULD sing, you dumb cluck.

Even "In My Life" - I like it but I can easily imagine it being a nightclub crooner song - like Perry Como or Vic Damone.

Except for the early crappier versons of Holly and Berry - like Twist and Shout, Love Me Do, and She Was Just 17, they never sound like they're doing rock and roll to me. Either music hall stuff or the "variety" hour with Steve and Eydie or Frank Sinatra - or maybe Bobby Rydell (Yesterday, And I Love Her).

Then the music hall stuff - Penny Lane, All You Need Is Love, Paperback Writer, I Am the Walrus... I mean it could come right out of a Gilbert & Sullivan musical/comedy.

Where's the grit - I think you need it for real rock and roll, blues or r&b. They're lightweights. Hell, I think the Monkees had better songs (albeit written by others - Goffin/Carole King, Neil Diamond, etc.)

The Rolling Stones come across like a novelty act no matter how catchy some of their songs are

That's funny R82 - I feel that way about the Beatles - and I feel that the Stones are almost straight-up copying southern black singers, even mimicking the accent, and yet, they do a better version of copying that the Beatles with their Buddy Holly knockoffs and the operetta stuff.

*a better job of copying THAN the Beatles....

"I think Paint It Black is a touching love song. Also Trump's fave, You Can't Always Get What You Want."

I don't think either one of those could classify as "love songs." "Ruby Tuesday" and "Angie", maybe. Anyway, they're not much in the love songs department. The Beatles were definitely more versatile.

The Beatles were the first popular band I became enamoured of, way back in early 1969. The first album I bought was a cut out copy of "Magical Mystery Tour." The only song they recorded that I cannot fucking stand is, "Got to Get You Into My Life." It really predates Paul's horrid Las Vegas shlock.

I think Paint It Black is a song about his girlfriend dying - a bittersweet love song by a grieving lover: "I see a line of cars And they're all painted black With flowers and my love Both never to come back" ... "If I look hard enough Into the setting sun My love will laugh with me Before the morning comes"

But I'll give in on You Can't Always Get What You Want. I just always imagined he was upset at his ex-lover and bitter... but yeah, that's not really a love song and maybe not even what it's based on

They were the best and Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull, Keith Richards, Brian Jones, Donovan....knew it,

I never quite the get the "the Beatles co-opted" from such and such as a way to "prove" they didn't deserve their success or earn it or whatever. Same with Elvis. Or Madonna. Or Nirvana. Or MJ.

Of course they co-opted part of their act! Guess what? Little Richard stole from someone too! As did Sonic Youth, Husker Du, NWA, Billie Holiday and every single artist, musician or otherwise, who's ever lived. Even the ones we think were the fore bearers! Someone was always doing it first...

But the Beatles, Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, Madonna, MJ, Nirvana, Tupac, and a few others just did it better and at EXACTLY the right time to change pop culture in hugely profound ways, transcending normal fame or influence - even if their music doesn't personally resonate with you.

So the Beatles' impact on modern music? That's not over rated at all and not really up for debate.

But how their music affects you personally? Completely subjective.

I've always preferred their later stuff over their earlier stuff (like from Sgt Pepper on), so I guess I would feel they can be a bit overrated in some ways and perfectly rated in others.

Even though I do love the album, as time goes on I will admit that The Beatles should've been pared down to just one album (mostly of tracks made up from disc 1).

What was interesting that EVERYONE loved the music of the mid-career Beatles. From tiny-tots to grandmothers.

A composer explains the importance of the Beatles in the history of music.

And of course, there was the beautiful Sir George Martin.

I never liked the Beatles much, but I have to concede they were a huge influence. I've always understood and liked American rock and pop (and Australian, and Canadian) more than British. That's still true. I find the Beatles' music kind of treacly and syrupy, in the ballads, and overall kind of overblown, and I don't really like Paul's or John's voices..

The first Beatles album I really listened to was Rubber Soul. I didn't listen to rock albums only 45s. But the song Michelle was on it and my parents really liked it so they bought it one day which really surprised me as they were of the Rodgers and Hammerstein generation and really didn't like rock at all. In fact when my father first bought a stereo the first record he bought was the obc of Guys and Dolls because my mother had seen it and fell in love with Robert Alda. Even though I went through a period of listening to Broadway cast recordings obsessively today it is one of the very few I can listen to. You can't get tired of it. It really is a masterpiece.

I have been buying recently the Beatles albums on vinyl which I didn't own as a kid and neither did I on cd and it really is an exhilarating revelation. Like Sinatra or Ella they are better on vinyl. I'm not kidding.

R70, Ringo was the only sexy one. In an earthy way, and he had BDF. I bet it's thick too.

Everyone can have their own personal opinion about the Beatles but the fact remains: they (most importantly Lennon/McCarney) created the most covered songs of the 20th century. Of the top 5, they hold the top 3 places.

Everyone covered their music, from Sinatra to Nina Simone.

[quote]I don;t understand the sex symbol thing. Paul was the only one who was remotely attractive, and only mildly.

The Beatles were stylish.

By the early 1960s, there were really few top 40 bands left outside of the Four Seasons and The Beach Boys. It was mostly solo singers.

To see this group of four guys all dressed in the same tight collarless sharkskin suits with long hair was something new. They were elegant, kind of feminine, no one had seen anything like it.

The FourSeasons looked like street corner guys from 1950s South Philly, The Beach Boys were wearing plaid and chinos.

[quote]Even "In My Life" - I like it but I can easily imagine it being a nightclub crooner song - like Perry Como or Vic Damone.

And that's why the Beatles were so respected.

They started with teenybopper crap like "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" but quickly evolved into writing songs that became standards. They were being compared to Irving Berlin and George and Ira Gershwin

They were brilliant composers. Singing styles may change but their compositions will last.

I really love Hyuna’s solo stuff

They were great songwriters, but I thought the Stones were much cooler. The Beatles just didn’t have many songs I’d want to jam to while driving down the highway.

Op wrong thread

"They were great songwriters, but I thought the Stones were much cooler."

I didn't think they were. They were so awful; Mick Jagger is so narcissistic and Keith Richards is such a disgusting junkie. Brian Jones was pitiful in several ways, but he was a asshole who fathered several illegitimate children (and financially supported none of the), physically abused women and was a hopeless drug addict. Bill Wyman liked to fuck girls as young as 14 and married one of his child lovers. Charlie Watts kept a low profile but heard he was a druggie, too. The Beatles had their flaws, but I think the Stones were a lot slimier.

Mick Jaggers prancing aroud stage flamboyantly is so painful to watch. The Rolling Stons always came across as huge posers.

I don't think the poster who believes the Stones to be cooler is referencing their personal lives I think he's strictly talking about the songs. No doubt the Stones were creeps and Mick Jagger often looks like a fool on stage but the music is still good. And has aged so much better than the Beatles, though their music is great too if rearranged to sound more modern.

"And has aged so much better than the Beatles."

I don't think so. That's the thing about the Beatles; much of their music sounds as fresh and exciting as it did when it was released. Of course the same can be said for the Rolling Stones, too, That's the thing about good music; it stands the test of time.

The Beatles are for bottoms and the Stones are for tops.

[quote]Elvis co-opted too.

Elvis was the real thing.

Born in Tupelo Miss. Grew up in Memphis. In poverty. That was his environment and heritage just as much as anyone else's

Had a genuinely great singing voice. Played the guitar. He started singing as a child.

He co-opted nothing from anyone. He was a product of his environment. The music he sang was his.

I've found most of the Beatles are overrated crowd are people who have only heard the Beatles when they've only heard the same few songs that are played on the radio. Their career trajectory via their albums really is extraordinary.

If someone doesn't want to listen beyond the few songs they've heard, and don't have any interest beyond that, fine, but that isn't all there is. They're not overrated. Their talents are not normal. That connection does not happen often.

And R11, The Beach Boys actually are underrated. They're disregarded as too feel good pop or whatever, but their music was quite frequently excellent. They really do create a sonic experience. Paul McCartney has said that God Only Knows as the song he wished he had wrote.

R110, I’ve owned every Beatles album and over time I’ve come to think of them as somewhat overrated. They were very good, no doubt, but I no longer think they were leagues above other bands with talented songwriters and musicians.

[quote]I've found most of the Beatles are overrated crowd are people who have only heard the Beatles when they've only heard the same few songs that are played on the radio.

Many people here probably grew up with them so they probably have heard a lot more than a few songs.

NO. For one thing, it’s pretty much the only group whose albums (remember those?) I enjoy listen to from start to finish. When you think of just HOW many songs they put out that were great, within a relatively short period of time, it’s astounding. Not just their big hits.

I love The Rolling Stones too, by the way.

[quote]The opening of the video does not have the correct narration. The guy is claiming it's going to be 1964 but that's impossible. The camera pans the Criterion theater in the Bond building. It is clearly showing My Fair Lady. The movie had its world premiere at this very theater in Oct of 1964. It would not be playing there on Dec 31 1963.

You're right. Great eye.

On that date, the British film "The Victors" was playing at the Criterion.

The narration is correct because he talks of the JFK assassination and we do see the ball drop and then "1964". It seems to me that the YouTuber who posted it cobbled two videos together. That intro was his, it was not part of the American Bandstand episode.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how great they were as artists. They didn't buck convencion, they bucked the expectation of their previous fans, and kept developing themselves in their own artistic direction. They might be one of the few that went against financial/popular trends, kept steering left, and had it work out for them.

They had a good beat.

Genius cannot be overrated.

Side 2 of Abbey Road is one of my favourite things they have done.

R110, wasn't there a moment where the two bands were creating albums in order to trump each other, like a friendly competition? I think it was Revolver - Pet Sounds - Sgt Pepper?

Why does it have to be about who's better than who? They each had their good qualities.

Agree with everyone who is saying the Beatles are overrated and the Stones music holds up much better.

Stones love song you all forgot: Memory Motel. (Well, love song of a sort.)

For those of you who are saying Beatles songs sound like kindergarten music: You are correct. I am 36. We used to sing Yellow Submarine, Obladi-Oblada and I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends in preschool and kindergarten. I was kind of shocked when I was older and found out they weren't supposed kids songs.

^^weren't supposed to be kids songs

R118 that’s my favorite too. She’s Like a Rainbow was the Stones’ attempt to replicate the psychedelic era of the Beatles. Ditto 2000 light years from home, etc. They’re fine but not nearly as good, no - that wasn’t their strength.

R118 Rubber Soul was the album that inspired Brian Wilson to create Pet Sounds, which Paul McCartney called his favorite album of all time.

[quote]For those of you who are saying Beatles songs sound like kindergarten music: You are correct. I am 36. We used to sing Yellow Submarine, Obladi-Oblada and I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends in preschool and kindergarten. I was kind of shocked when I was older and found out they weren't supposed kids songs.

This is just so dumb.

The Beatles were Brits. Those particular songs come from the British Music Hall tradition.

The Beatles worked in all kinds of genres: Music Hall, American Standard, Country , Rock, Psychedelic, Baroque Pop etc.

Their songs ranged from simple tunes to things that were very complex and sophisticated.

Yes R124. One of those incredibly bewildering things that one reads on DL from time to time that makes you think what is wrong with some people. Most people today have no sense of history or context. Well we sang this song when I was a child so it has to be a song that is so simplistic that only a child can like it. Ugh. It makes one want to smite ones head.

They had some beautiful songs. Sometimes when I clean I listen to them. It’s crazy I know the words to every song.

"And has aged so much better than the Beatles."

The music of the Rolling Stones has NOT "aged so much better than the Beatles." The best of the Beatles sounds as good today as it did when it was released. The Beatles music is just different from the Stones. The Beatles had a sense of humor, hence songs like "When I'm 64", and "Yellow Submarine" and "Ob La Di, Ob La Da." The Rolling Stones had no sense of humor at all.

They are not overrated. Unless you are an old fuck like me, you cannot know of the freshness and excitement of their sound at that time.

[quote]For those of you who are saying Beatles songs sound like kindergarten music: You are correct.

Eleanor Rigby

A Day In the Life.

Norwegian Wood

Come Together

While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Tomorrow Never Knows

Oh, shut up.

R130 is to the OP.

Thanks, R123.

Through the lens of the filmmaker, this piece captures the social phenomenon that went with the music...

R129

“Here, There and Everywhere"

“Something"

“Let It Be"

"“For No One"

“Yesterday"

“In My Life"

"“The Long and Winding Road"

"“You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away"

“And I Love Her"

And etc.

Thanks, r134. "For No One" is my favorite Beatles song.

"For No One" is achingly beautiful.

Pay attention to the lyrics. The sophisticated melody. It is such a finely crafted song.

Yes, totally overrated. No good songs, no innovation. They’ll be forgotten when the “boomers” die off because only the boomers like their boring, white music. Certainly no subsequent generations have enjoyed their music and kids today don’t know who they are. If they haven’t been cancelled, let’s do so now! I’m glad there are so many better artists around these days.

R21 Aren't Madonna and Swift pretty over and done with now!

[quote] [R25] - you're joking, right Janet Jackson did NOT change music. She's a dancer/lip syncer. She's not an artist in any sense. She had a career because she was a Jackson family member with a corporation pushing the shit out of her, not because she had any innate talent.

Yes, that was a joke.

[quote] "I think Paint It Black is a touching love song. Also Trump's fave, You Can't Always Get What You Want."

[quote] I don't think either one of those could classify as "love songs." "Ruby Tuesday" and "Angie", maybe. Anyway, they're not much in the love songs department. The Beatles were definitely more versatile.

That was a joke, too.

I just watched a YouTube video on them, and at one one point the actor David Tennant (I think that’s his name) said something about “from Love Me Do” to “Hey Jude” in eight years is extraordinary. They still sound fresh and I wish I had been around when their albums were being released to actually live through their progression. It must’ve been mind blowing. Oh well, I’m glad to have their music. They got me through the pandemic.

The video I watched was about the UK’s favorite Beatles songs and I guess there was some kind of vote. It’s funny how opinions differ. My list wouldn’t been totally different. My top 10 (and it’s so hard to pick just 10) in no order:

1. Hey Jude (probably my favorite song ever)

2. Tomorrow Never Knows

3. You’re Gonna Lose That Girl

4. Girl

5. Come Together

6. Here Comes the Sun

7. The Abbey Road medley, but especially Carry That Weight and The End

8. If I Fell

9. Norwegian Wood

10. With a Little Help....

I do find it chilling the way John mutters “shoot me” in Come Together. There are a lot of death references in his songs. I was listening to I Am the Walrus today and noticed the “oh, untimely death!” towards the end...

Early Beatles, yes, overrated. They brought a more palatable version of what black artists were doing to a white audience.

Later Beatles, not overrated. Lennon & McCartney had songwriting synergy. Then you had George Harrison to throw in a couple of gems as well.

Off the top of my head, I love:

Here, There, Everywhere.

Norwegian Wood.

Hey Jude is one of the most amazing songs ever.

[quote] The Rolling Stones had no sense of humor at all.

The Rolling Stones were one-note when compared to The Beatles. I still don't get why Exile on Main Street is considered so great--it's a chore to listen to. The vast majority of the Stones' best work was in the 60s.

[quote] They’ll be forgotten when the “boomers” die off because only the boomers like their boring, white music.

LOL I know you were joking but it is very impressive thatThe Beatles still are the best performing legacy group on Spotify. Queen are number 2 followed by Michael Jackson. That's impressive because Queen had Bohemian Rhapsody while The Beatles haven't had any major biopics or movies about them recently.

R144, I listen to Exile on Main Street frequently. It’s a fantastic album.

For Hey Jude fans...

R145 that’s cool - I didn’t know.

TG for the brilliant singer/songwriter/composer Paul McCartney. I've loved them all but Paul's talent was a cut above.

I actually don't think The Beatles overrated. I wouldn't argue about Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elvis because they are really performers and it feels were 100% marketing.

But The Beatles wrote their songs and played instruments. They really changed the game when they shifted to a more experimental sound in their last few years. They were real musicians and influenced way too many bands and artists to be dismissed.

*were overrated

R149 wins the thread. Now, can we please stop this nonsense? When the discussion devolves into, "Who's better, the Beatles or the Stones?" it's like debating about apples vs. oranges.

"Yes, totally overrated. No good songs, no innovation. They’ll be forgotten when the “boomers” die off because only the boomers like their boring, white music. Certainly no subsequent generations have enjoyed their music and kids today don’t know who they are. If they haven’t been cancelled, let’s do so now! I’m glad there are so many better artists around these days."

Everything you said is completely untrue, so I'm assuming you're just a retarded, shit stirring troll. You're really a dumb shit.

R152, I genuinely think that person was being saracstic. Unless they are Janbot. Then they weren't.

[quote]You're really a dumb shit.

More likely that you can't recognize satire.

More likely that you can't recognize satire."

Pretty lame "satire." It did cross my mind that it was sarcasm, but it's still dumb.

I don't think so. But I DO believe The Rolling Stones are entirely overrated. Horribly so. I always preferred The Who, Led Zeppelin, & Pink Floyd.

When I was in nursery school in the early 80s, my teacher used to play Yellow Submarine to put us to sleep during nap time. Worked like a charm.

"Yellow Submarine " is like an old British pub song.

Although we think of the 1960s as being all about the jet-age future, there was a huge nostalgia wave at the same time, especially toward the latter half of the decade.

My father was a very old fashioned conservative Nixonian man and we were in the car and Hey Jude was playing on the radio and he shocked me by saying 'I like that song but I wish they wouldn't go on like that at the end.'

R152 it was not very effective sarcasm. I am also R141. I can’t get enough of the Beatles and listening to them honestly changes my mood for the better.

It just annoys me that everything good has to be “torn down.”

To me, they still sound sound fresh. I never get tired of listening to them and I’m always noticing new things.

R160, your comment about always hearing new things reminds me of an interview I read with Kate Bush once, where she said that she wanted to make The Dreaming like Sgt Pepper - an album where no matter how many times you listen to it, you keep hearing new things (and I think she succeeded).

R161 amazing you said that because I almost added that Kate Bush is the other artist whose music is always a new “discovery” for me. I’m always falling in love with different songs of hers.

R159, My "Greatest Generation" father declared, after reading some of John Lennon's "In His Own Write" poetry in "The Saturday Evening Post," that Lennon was a genius.

I don't think he cared too much for the music, though!

For those who think today's musicians are so much better: If true, it is because they, as with the Beatles before them, stand on the shoulders of giants.

I think their music is timeless, and their heyday was before my time. They perfected the 2.5 minute pop song.

Two little played Beatles songs that I like very much are "I Need You" and "I'll Follow The Sun." They're both simple little ditties, but they're so beautiful, so sweet. The Rolling Stones could never come up with anything like that.

[quote]"They are massively overrated. None of them could sing."

Sure...🙄

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes!!

Paul rocks “Oh Darling”. I wonder how many takes they did in the studio before his voice crapped out. Totally understandable, as the singing part is written in the stratosphere.

Gen X here, never even remotely understood their appeal.

And you post this, r169?

"Revolver" was their last good album. Then Yoko Ono came along, wrecked John's marriage and totally destroyed the band, creatively and interpersonally.

R171 I don’t agree about Revolver being their last best album. I LOVE Abbey Road. Could listen to it every day.

Regarding “Oh, Darling,” Lennon said later he should’ve sang, not Paul, because it sounded more like one of his songs.

I listened to Revolver for the first time last year and I didn't love it that much. But from Sgt Pepper onwards I enjoy most of their stuff.

It’s funny, I may not love a song of theirs at one point but then suddenly I do. I never thought much about Paperback Writer and now it’s one of my favorites.

Never really liked The Long and Winding Road but recently heard the stripped down, Let it Be...Naked version and I love it.

"Golden Slumbers" is one that comes into my head often, I think that's an underrated one.

R175 I love the way it goes into one of my favorites, Carry That Weight. I really like how you can hear Ringo in the chorus of voices.

Can anyone name another band with 50 GREAT songs?

[quote]Can anyone name another band with 50 GREAT songs?

The Beach Boys

Linda Ronstadt (even though she didn't write them)

Miles Davis

John Coltrane

Yes R176! I just love the second side to Abbey Road and how all those songs mix together; particularly "Golden Slumbers" into "Carry That Weight" as you say.

[quote]There was a hard shift in music tastes

Nah. "Music tastes" for the masses is just whatever the music industry thinks it can sell to the kids next. There was no mass fan exodus of, for example, hair metal to grunge. The music industry and its arms (radio, MTV) decided this was the next new thing and dropped all support for a genre of music it no longer felt they could sell to the kids.

The Beatles changed EVERYTHING. And a big part of it was the mass hysteria they conjured and that the music industry latched onto for profit. Out of all the classics, The Beatles are the least overrated (and I'm not even a big fan except of some albums).

R178 I would say the 20 range, especially for The Beach Boys & Miles Davis (Kind Of Blue & Porgy & Bess)

The Stones a solid 40, but who’s counting?

Ringo’s drum solo on The End!

The Beatles were revolutionary - from a marketing standpoint. And that's all that matters, really.

Except to the people who truly 💛 them! Meet the Beatles - 👨‍👨‍👦‍👦

What about us?

I really like some of the older Beatles songs, such as "Anna," "Chains," 'Til There Was You," "All My Lovin'," "I Call Your Name," and others, whether they wrote them or not.

I like the raw, expressive quality of the songs where Lennon solos (before he started heavily post processing his vocals).

Nearly 200 posts and no mention of The Who? I think they were the best ever who played pure rock, and Entwistle and Moon were perhaps the greatest ever on their respective instruments. Here’s Entwistle isolated on the bass playing Won’t Get Fooled Again.

[quote]Can anyone name another band with 50 GREAT songs?

There is no one.

Queen, Pink Floyd, Sabbath...

R191 List the songs they've created that have been covered by other singers.

You're kidding, right, r192? (And I was responding to "name another band with 50 great songs). Here's a start if you were serious.

R193 Still pales in comparison to the Beatles. Most covered band in history.

And?

I was the dreamweaver but now I’m reborn. I was the walrus but now I’m John. And so, dear friends, you’ll just have to carry on. The dream is over.

R191, Fifty?

Try this comparison, r193.

For r193:

Sorry for the duplicate.

About "Oh! Darling"...in a Playboy interview John said he knew that was Paul's song but he thought he should have been the one to sing it. I think he may have been right. I think John could really have done an awesome job singing it.

The Beatles did everything they did in six years

The Beatles had more than 50 great songs. The second half of their greatest hits alone is about 50. They have hundreds. No one else approaches that, really.

Plus all the songs they gave away to other artists who had hits with them, nearly 200, I think.

"According to Guinness World Records, “Yesterday” has the most cover versions of any song ever written. "

"The song remains popular today with more than 1,600 recorded cover versions."

More than White Christmas?

John's marriage was wrecked way before Yoko, R170.

Talk to Cynthia Twist.

I always preferred the Rolling Stones to the Beatles from that period.

The Beatles were a boy band while the Stones were just on another level of style, maturity and sexuality.

Sure, Jan.

"John's marriage was wrecked way before Yoko."

Not exactly "wrecked." More like nonexistent. He and Cynthia basically lived separate lives, but there was no major rift between them. John made no attempt to divorce her. Yoko Ono was the catalyst that ended the marriage. John abandoned Cynthia (and his son Julian) to be with her. It would have been nice if he had given Cynthia a big divorce settlement but he didn't even do that. When John Lennon died I grieved, because his death truly meant the Beatles were over, but later on I felt a little ashamed for doing that. He was such a prick.

I don’t think John had a lot of money til Yoko started investing for him. Still, he should’ve taken care of Julian.

People assume the Beatles made tons of money on those posters and lunchboxes but they didn’t.

R208, A "Boy Band" is properly a group of male singers (Backstreet Boys, Boyzone, 'NSync, One Direction, etc.) who are not the primary instrumentalists. That's why many Boy Band acts can include choreography.

The major British Invasion groups comprised both singers and primary instrumentalists; hence NOT "Boy Bands."

Perfection:

I was a kid when Eleanor Rigby was released...it sounded like nothing you had ever heard before.

McCartney wanted the violins to sound jarring and stacato like the Psycho theme.

A Day In The Life is sublime.

Tomorrow Never Knows fascinates me, from Lennon’s lyrics to Ringos’ bongos to McCartney’s distorted seagull laugh. Great song.

Revolver definitely took a sharp left turn from the standard "rock n' roll" everyone was used to hearing. And every track sounds completely unique.

Listen to Eleanor Rigby and remember that just five years earlier, pop music was Frankie Avalon, Bobby Rydell and Fabian.

Hey Jude is one of my least favorite songs of all time, and it drags on for ever. As a Brit growing up at that time, I think we had a lot of much better bands than the Beatles. My regret is not discovering the harder side of Sweet in the 70s because I was too busy studying. Much better voices, and looks.

I tried Revolver but didn't like it as much as I was expecting, or that everyone else lead me to believe. Not that I think it was bad. But Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road are the top Beatles albums for me.

Revolver grew on me.

R220 I too dislike Hey Jude. I think Lennon's songs have aged much better than McCartney's.

It’s hard to choose who had the better voice. McCartney’s voice is very sweet and melodic but Lennon’s was perfect for rock and roll. I can’t explain why, exactly, but listening to him sing is very satisfying. When they sang together and with Harrison, it was magic.

They were great self-promoters

They had Brian Epstein behind them, r225. But they definitely were revolutionary. Every album they put out was ground breaking in some way. They may not be your cup of tea, but you can’t deny their influence, even today.

R226 people don’t deny now, because it’s in vogue to shit on any talented white person, especially when it comes to musicians.

It’s one thing to say you don’t like their music, that’s fine. It’s asinine to say they weren’t extremely talented innovators.

But whatever. Their music will endure.

People DO deny it now, I meant.

Because people are stupid, r228.

Not-Boomers like to say that So-and-So's current music is light-years "better" than the Beatles', which opinion never accounts for the social context and milieu; the extant recording technology; or the now-accepted but then-innovative approaches to their songs by the group, George Martin, and Brian Epstein.

But Boomers know, because we not only are here now, but we were there then.

The Beatles' appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show," less than three months after the JFK assassination and the televised murder of LHO. I don't think the combined effect of these events on the collective psyche of a generation has been fully analyzed.

Mariah's number ones are NOT that memorable and I say that as a somewhat fan. Really, I think Madonna's 8 or 9 number one hits from 1985 through 1992 destroy Mariah's 15 or so number-one hits from 1990 through 2000. It's ironic that two of Mariah's most remembered older hits are two songs that never hit number one in America in their original run (Without You and All I Want for Christmas). And let's not even TRY to compare Mariah's number one hits with those of The Beatles.

What is it about Lennon's raw vocals? They just slice right through me. This one was influenced by his "Dylan period" although some thought it was secretly about his holiday in Barcelona with Epstein.

MASSIVELY overrated

none of them were great singers

some of their songs are great. Not every Beatles song is a fucking masterpiece as their baby boomer stans would have you believe

The real story of what happened between Lennon and Epstein according to his childhood friend Pete Shotton...

"I visited John at Aunt Mimi’s a few days after his return to England. And when he started in about how much he had enjoyed Spain, I could hardly resist taking the piss out of him. “So you had a good time with Brian, then?” I smirked. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

I was somewhat taken aback when John didn’t so much as crack a smile. “Oh, fuckin’ hell,” he groaned. “Not you as well, Pete!”

“What do you mean, not me as well?”

“They’re all fucking going on about it.”

It’s OK, John. Don’t take it so serious. I’m just joking, for Christ’s sake.”

“Actually Pete,” he said softly, “Something did happen with him one night.”

Now that wiped the grin right off my face. Had I even dreamed there might be any truth whatsoever to the rumors, I would never have made light of the subject in the first place. Still – as John surely knew – I would have stood by him, and let the rest of the world handle the business of passing moral judgement, even if he had just told me he’d committed murder. And John would surely have done the same for me. Which, after all, is what true friendship is all about.

“What happened,” John explained, “is that Eppy just kept on and on at me. Until one night I finally just pulled me trousers down and said to him: ‘Oh, for Christ’s sake, Brian, just stick it up me fucking arse then.’

“And he said to me, ‘Actually, John, I don’t do that kind of thing. That’s not what I like to do.’

“‘Well,’ I said, ‘what is it you like to do, then?’

“And he said, ‘I’d really just like to touch you, John.’

“And so I let him toss me off.”

And that was that. End of story.

“That’s all, John” I said. “Well, so what? What’s the big fucking deal, then?”

“Yeah, so fucking what! The poor bastard. He’s having a fucking hard enough time anyway.” This was in reference to the “butch” dockers who, on several recent occasions, had rewarded Brian’s advances by beating him to a bloody pulp.

“So what harm did it do, then, Pete, for fuck’s sake?” John asked rhetorically. “No harm at all. The poor fucking bastard, he can’t help the way he is.”

Pete Shotton (John Lennon: In My Life)

R231 one of my favorites. I can’t pinpoint why his vocals are so good.

Another amazing thing is how different the songs are. Come Together, If I Fell, Eleanor Rigby...all from the same band in 6 years.

R233 that’s hot.

Brian Epstein was in love with John Lennon. But Lennon tended to treat him like shit. When he asked what might be a good title for a memoir he was writing Lennon suggested "Queer Jew." He eventually called it "A Cellar Full of Noise"; Lennon said it should have been "A Cellar Full of Boys." Lennon was very cruel to him, full well knowing how Epstein felt about him.

[quote]Not every Beatles song is a fucking masterpiece as their baby boomer stans would have you believe

No, but their hit to shit ratio was higher than pretty much anyone else's.

No "baby boomer stans" have ever said that every Beatles song was a masterpiece. Like any other musical act they had duds. But the number of good/great/classic songs did they come up with were substantial.

They made dorky people feel cool with their great friendship and sense of humor. Their songs were ok, but the band friendship story sold it.

R219 Say thanks to drugs.

R236, I'd heard things like that too, how one of the lines in "Baby You're A Rich Man" John sung as "Baby you're a rich jew fag" or something like that, can't remember the exact words.

Poor Epstein, you just want to go back in time and tell him to get himself some self-esteem, pronto!

R232, How does it feel to be in a minority group? I mean, you must be aware of the many tomes of brighter minds that disagree MASSIVELY with your overwrought and unsubstantiated opinion.

As to your observation that you no doubt think is trenchant: There is not a group or performer who has had nothing but musical triumphs, so your strawman points at your faves, too.

[quote]MASSIVELY overrated,none of them were great singers

Sure, Jan...

I remember my grandfather in the '90s saying that their music was pretty simple and lyrics pedestrian, and that the only reason they're notable is because they were the first British band to hit it big in the U.S. Thus, ushering in the British Invasion of the mid to late '60s. But they were very much inspired by Americans like Elvis, Buddy Holly and The Crickets, and the Everly Brothers. He said they were not doing anything new. They were just British.

Well, if your GRANDFATHER said it......

I'll bet he was a clean old man.

Helllooooo, Grandfather!

He's a villain - a real mixer!

Many bands have huge screaming fan bases, but none have transcended like the Beatles. They have dozens of timeless classics that have been covered by thousands of artists. They will live as long as there are humans invested in music, no different than Bach or Beethoven. The Beatles were masters, lightning in a bottle and we are enriched as a society because they once were and always will be the Fab 4.

R248 the Beatles were knock-off rock-n-roll bands who benefited from American Anglophilia. Yes, they contributed some great songs ("Hey, Jude" is one of my favorites), but they were not that life-altering. Things were changing as they came along. JFK's assassination a few months before their Ed Sullivan debut paved the way for escapism.

R247 and the poor head tremblin’ under the weight of it!

R259 From Love Me Do to Hey Jude in eight years. They innovated at light speed. No other artist has done that. Even if you don’t like them, you cannot deny their influence.

[quote]the Beatles were knock-off rock-n-roll bands who benefited from American Anglophilia. Yes, they contributed some great songs ("Hey, Jude" is one of my favorites), but they were not that life-altering.

You obviously were not around then.

[quote]I remember my grandfather in the '90s saying that their music was pretty simple and lyrics pedestrian, and that the only reason they're notable is because they were the first British band to hit it big in the U.S. Thus, ushering in the British Invasion of the mid to late '60s. But they were very much inspired by Americans like Elvis, Buddy Holly and The Crickets, and the Everly Brothers. He said they were not doing anything new. They were just British.

R244 Sorry but your grandad sounds pretty dumb.

Yes the early Beatles did include covers of their American idols and imitated their sound but their first smash hits sounded NOTHING like "Elvis, Buddy Holly and The Crickets, and the Everly Brothers."

To say that "they were not doing anything new." is ridiculous.

[quote] their music was pretty simple and lyrics pedestrian

Pop music and lyrics have always been a relatively simple endeavor. They're derived from the universal human emotions of heartache, frustration and longing, all to elicit mass appeal, not the existential musings of Dostoevsky. Classical music or jazz was never intended to or will ever have that type of broad engagement.

The Beatles were the perfect storm, so to speak, of four uniquely talented individuals coming together at just the right moment in time: the embryonic stages of the social upheaval of the 1960s. They were acutely sensitive to the change occurring in the world around them, and their unprecedented global fame allowed them to experiment and tap their creativity like no other musical group before them.

In that context, I don't think the Beatles are overrated. Collectively speaking, they had an uncanny savvy and an extraordinary ability to reflect in their music the times in which they lived.

Their music really enhances my life.

I know, I know - (Mother) Mary!

The Beatles are not overrated. Want to know who is overrated? Fleetwood Mac.

I can't believe this is true but I read somewhere that someone in the Wilson family said they made more money off the Beatles Till There Was You than all the royalties together of The Music Man.

R256 yes and yes. Stevie Nicks should have never been the first woman in the hall of fame twice, either.

The lyrics were no simpler any other blues or pop music of the era.

Get A Job (by The Silhouettes)

Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip

Sha na na na, sha na na na na

Sha na na na, sha na na na na

Sha na na na, sha na na na na

Sha na na na, sha na na na na

Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip

Mum mum mum mum mum mum

Get a job, sha na na na, sha na na na na

Ev'ry morning about this time

She get me out of my bed

A-crying, get a job

After breakfast ev'ry nay

She throws the want ads right my way

And never fails to say

Get a job, sha na na na, sha na na na na....

R257 I read that Paul was a big fan of Peggy Lee and so wanted to record Til There Was You because of her version. The Beatles and Lee versions are both great, much better than the MM one.

[quote]their music was pretty simple and lyrics pedestrian

Compare the lyrics to "Yesterday", "Elenore Rigby", "'In My Life'", 'A Day in the Life', 'Let It Be', 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', 'Here, There and Everywhere', 'You've Got to Hide Your Love Away', 'For No One'...with other pop songs written between 1965 and 1970.

These four guys were the coolest of the coolest . Intelligent , experimental and super talented . No one can touch them!

I did!

I don't know how the hell my tourist post made it onto the Beatles thread.

R249, You are being deliberately obtuse. The Beatles changed everything. Sure, other battles helped win the war, but first there had to be the invasion at Normandy.

First there had to be the Beatles.

But r249 (r265 here), it really and emphatically is true that "you had to be there."

No amount of reading, of being given reasons or examples or comparisons or videos, or even of listening to the Beatles' oeuvre, can offer you the experience, the visceral and immediate thrill of connection to Ringo's brief drum roll to open "She Loves You" on "The Ed Sullivan Show," February 9, 1964. Teens across the U.S. felt an earthquake, and its tremors remain with us still.

"Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive,

But to be young was very heaven!"

I think people resent not being part of significant so it annoys younger people that an artist before their time is still held up as the best. People want to feel as though they living through a time of historic change RIGHT NOW. I get that.

However, I don’t see it that way. They were well before my time but I’m glad I have their music. I love the music of my youth, 80s bands, but the Beatles were something singular and without peer.

I admit, I would have loved to be around to follow their course from the first to last albums - THAT must’ve been something!

[quote]I think people resent not being part of significant so it annoys younger people that an artist before their time is still held up as the best. They were well before my time but I’m glad I have their music.

I feel the same. I wish I could have been here, with them .....

[quote] Want to know who is overrated? Fleetwood Mac.

You triggered half of DL with this comment. The half that even finds Stevie's solo music impressive. Let's face it--she started sounding like a goat after the early 80s or so and she has never sounded great since then.

I don’t know, but it sounds as if the cicadas are going to get their due this summer.

R269 Me too! Imagine hearing that for the first time!

R268 I meant lol

I was too young to have felt the cultural earthquake from '63-'64 but the later part of their career from St Pepper on was an important part of my awareness of the outside world and of those of everyone else under the age of 30 it seemed.

My oldest sister had teen magazine photos of the Beatles plastered all over her bedroom walls in 1964, and to her and her friends they were the absolute rage.

My childhood friend and I would make cardboard guitar cut-outs and stand on the ledge of a giant brick factory window and pretend we were John and Paul on stage.

My father and mother could make no sense of the Fab Four phenomenon at all and the song "She Loves You" (yeah!, yeah!, yeah!) sounded completely ridiculous to them. To my father, they were corrupting the minds of young girls and causing them to go insane. All of their other hits at the time including "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "A Hard Days Night" were played on the radio endlessly, night and day. As a young kid who was too young to understand or care about most of the world's current events, I remember them seemingly being front and center for the longest time. You really had to be there to grasp it all.

And this was just the beginning. The spectacle of the effect they were having on pop culture and social mores as the 60s evolved is incomparable to anything before or since in modern times.

R274 even WAP?!?

A Hard Day's Night was hardly revolutionary. They were a straight skiffle band at that point, albeit with great melodies and commercial appeal. The Beatles changed music forever with Rubber Soul. Such a dramatic change in sound and image in a relatively conservative industry was a bold move. It was like if The Every Brothers became Pink Floyd. The Beatles weren't the first anglophone musicians to introduce non-western (or non-African) music styles. Dick Dale who was Lebanese-American invented surf rock when he played Arabic scales on electric guitar. The Beatles just had the perfect mix of talent, charisma, and willingness to experiment that made them the right bands for the right time.

R276, Whoever made the "non-Western...music styles" claim, re: the Beatles, that you refute?

R276 A smash hit in 1953 long before Dick Dale.

And Rosemary Clooney with her signature song "Come On-a My House". Another smash from the early 50s. The tune is based on an Armenian folk song.

BTW: that Clooney number is bona fide rock. 1951.

R278 R279. Dale's version of Missirlou was special because it blended modern recording techniques and ELECTRIC GUITAR. It became the blueprint for hardrock. Com On-A My House influenced no one cool or influential. It's an old lady song.

[quote]Fender introduced the Stratocaster in 1954 and its solid body construction became popularized by Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens not much later, yet Dale is who really pushed the limits of the Strat, not to mention Fender’s amplification. Leo Fender heard tale of Dale’s riotous concerts at the Rendezvous Ballroom in Orange County, where the guitarist continually pushed his amps to the point of destruction in pursuit of a throttling sound that emphasized the low end. Soon enough, Fender was working with the guitarist to develop one of the first “stacked” guitar amps, where the amplifier box rested upon the speaker cabinet; Leo named the Showman in tribute to Dick’s skills as a performer.

[quote]Echo wasn’t unheard of in popular music in the early ’60s, but it usually was a product of the studio. Sam Phillips slapped on a doubleback echo at his Sun Studio, creating a delay by recording a playback while cutting a group playing live, while Duane Eddy’s trembling tremolo on 1958’s “Rebel-’Rouser” opened the door for the kind of guitar instrumental that would become Dale’s specialty. Inspired by the swirling sounds of the Hammond organ’s reverb tank, Dale wanted to bring that kind of enveloping echo to the stage. Through some trial and error, Fender channeled this into a pedal that drastically expanded Dale’s tonal options. Where he once slashed and stabbed with his Strat, Dale could now paint with reverb. Famously, this effect was dubbed “wet,” which was all too appropriate for surf rock. The term also captured how the music seemed warm and alive, dripping with colors.

[quote]This twin innovation of crushing volume and mind-expanding effects was an immediate sensation in the region. Countless SoCal bands coveted this charged, electric sound, snapping up Stratocasters and offshoots like the Jazzmaster and Jaguar, running them through Fender amps and reverb boxes. And many of these groups went onto greater commercial success than Dick Dale.

[quote]Dale's version of Missirlou was special because it blended modern recording techniques and ELECTRIC GUITAR. It became the blueprint for hardrock. Com On-A My House influenced no one cool or influential. It's an old lady song.

You wrote: "The Beatles weren't the first anglophone musicians to introduce non-western (or non-African) music styles."

As if anyone claimed they were the first.

I'm simply pointing out that others did in popular hits long before the Beatles or Dick dale.

Your other comment: "A Hard Day's Night" was hardly revolutionary"

Once again, who ever made the claim that the song "A Hard Day's Night" was "revolutionary"? The Beatles certainly were but not every song was.

]quote]Com On-A My House influenced no one cool or influential. It's an old lady song.

And there you go again.

Please point out where I wrote that Com On-A My House influenced anyone?

It is what it is. A novelty song with a non-western melody that became a big hit. Stan Freeman's arrangement was something new for the time. How influential that arrangement was or wasn't, I have no idea. I mentioned the song because it too had a non western melody.

And speaking of surf: The Surf Punks did a version of it in the 1980s.

What inspired using the sitar, according to Harrison...

[quote]"When we were working on Norwegian Wood it just needed something and it was quite spontaneous, from what I remember. I just picked up the sitar, found the notes and just played it. We miked it up and put it on and it just seemed to hit the spot. " (Roylance, 2000).

One of my favorites. The sitar really makes it. Again, another example of their canny knack for developing their sound.

People today hear a sitar of all of those 60s inspired 90s songs and assume rock stars just always picked up unusual (to their own culture) instruments.

Wasn't around for Beatles in their heyday, but enjoyed lots of former members solo efforts.

I think people bought Paul McCartney's solo records primarily because he used to be a Beatle. So much of what he put out was dreck, but it got to be big hits anyway. "My Love", "Silly Love Songs", "Someone's Knocking At The Door", those stupid duets with Stevie Wonder ("Ebony and Ivory") and Michael Jackson ("The Girl Is Mine")...whew, what a bunch of clunkers.

Love this one by George - works so well for the movie.

As for McCartney, he’s had some “clunkers” as you say that were “of their time” and sound dated. He’s also had a LOT of great material, too. There is / was an excellent thread on just McCartney’s solo work.

Here’s the song -

I keep thinking that a lot of Beatles/McCartney stuff sounds like Burt Bacharach. Some others sound like Gilbert & Sullivan - and still others like kindergartners' songs.

And there's nothing wrong with that, per se - Gilbert & Sullivan and Bacharach were great. What they weren't is "rock and roll." The Beatles don't seem like any sort of rock and roll to me - not traditional rock (after the cheesy Chuck Berry or Fats Domino ripoffs like Twist and Shout) - not glam rock, not bluesy rock - just not rock at all. More like operettas and little Vaudevillian ditties. Oh and the Sinatra/Bacharach stuff like Yesterday.

R290 Some of his output is bland pop songs, yes. But he has some experimental stuff as well. Ram is great album, as is mcCartney II - really ahead if it’s time!

And for some great plain old pop songs, Tug of War is excellent.

Always loved this duet with Carl Perkins.

Mccartney seems to make music to please himself, not because he cares what sells. I like that about him. He seems like a genuinely happy man.

The Beatles had a lot of rock and roll songs, though. Helter Skelter, A Hard Day’s Night, Taxman…

Do you know who is overrated OP ? BEYONCE....I read an article this morning about her daughter Blue Ivy being worth 500 MILLION in her own right and that she already has a Grammy and an NAACP award...AT 8 YEARS OLD. Talk about bullshit hype that the public just eats up...its like the Kardashians...became billionaires FOR WHAT ? Aside from Single Ladies, I cant name a single Beyonce song off the top of my head. To this day you hear songs by The Beatles on the radio, in films, in commercials. They left a mark in the music industry, thats for sure.

R294 you’re not really allowed to say that because “vague racism.”

It’s become fashionable to say, “the Beatles weren’t that good, they were terrible musicians because Saint Quincy Jones said so, George Martin wrote their music, they weren’t innovators, John Lennon was a women beater so let’s cancel him…” I’m waiting for the inevitable “and they were racist” lie,” as we saw in the Elvis Presley thread.

I've always had a pathological hatred of Paul. John can be brilliant. George Harrison was always my fave.

R296 Hatred? Why? I can understand not liking his music or singing voice but as far as being a celebrity and person, he seems like a good guy - not obnoxious, attention seeking or in your face. He also does a lot of charity work. He seems like a content man. I admire that.

R297 Paul has no edge. He's a huge pussy. His solo work reflects that. He may have been the most popular but I loathe any song he writes or sings. He also elbowed John out of rightful credit for his brilliant work. Paul is the equivalent of all U2's work. That is, U2 are rightfully hated and seen as untruthful.

The Beatles were legends in their own time , plus they probably would never have seen success had it not been for their gay manager Brian Epstein

Somebody thinks they are still relevant….60 years and running and their albums are still selling

I'm not a McCartney lover but I don't hate the guy. It was Lennon's edginess that made the Beatles innovators after their early, fluffy pop tunes. Their "new sound" was all Lennon and his voice was always distinctive, raw and sexy.

R298 I don’t think being “edgy” was ever his priority, though I would imagine (and sadly I wasn’t around to have experienced this) the Beatles WERE edgy when they came out. Certainly Paul’s Helter Skelter was.

Not a fan of U2 but I don’t the comparison is apt. I don’t know who writes their songs, but they’ve never put out anything close to Hey Jude or Eleanor Rigby. As for that last, I read that the strings were intended tj sound like the jagged violin score to Pyschio. I’d say that’s pretty edgy lol.

I do adore Lennon’s work (the song God moves me to tears) but the Beatles as a whole had an incredible synergy, and much of it was due to Paul’s talent.

“Raw and sexy” - perfect description of Lennon’s voice.

R152 A member of Generation M. Miserable.

Hey Jude is one of the worst fucking songs EVER. Five fucking minutes of nah nah nah nah. That song makes me want to stab everyone on the planet.

R305 I see a posters on here saying that but for many people (myself included) it’s a perfect song. If it’s not my absolute favorite song, it’s in my top 3.

I’m not familiar with U2 after the 90s, but I’ve never heard any of their songs come close. To me, they’re pretty bland.

In any case, even if you don’t like McCartney’s contributions to the Beatles, you’ve still got Lennon. And Harrison wrote quite a few lovely songs as well. Here Comes the Sun is another favorite of mine.

Praise for Lennon's vocals on the 40th anniversary of his death...

R303 This illustrates what I'm talking about.

I like the Beatles, but don't love them. I don't "care" about them like a huge number of people do - there are many other bands and artist I'd rather focus my passion for music on.

But, I don't think they're "overrated" in the slightest.

Bad to Me was a Beatles composition (attributed to Lennon but probably written by Lennon and McCartney) commissioned for Billy J Kramer. Lennon mentions demoing it to Brian Epstein during their trip to Spain:

[quote]"We used to sit in a cafe in Torremolinos looking at all the boys and I’d say, ‘Do you like that one, do you like this one?’ I was rather enjoying the experience, thinking like a writer all the time: I am experiencing this, you know. And while he was out on the tiles one night, or lying asleep with a hangover one afternoon, I remember playing him the song Bad To Me. That was a commissioned song, done for Billy J Kramer, who was another of Brian’s singers." -- John Lennon (All We Are Saying, David Sheff)

On this video you can hear Lennon's soulful version and then Kramer's soulless version...

R308 I hear you. Love it.

Can't resist posting another Lennon belter, back when they were covering R&B hits. This Live at the BBC version highlights his vocals better than the studio track on the album...

No….they were legends in their own time…and they’re still killin it!

Nothing can surpass Lennon’s vocals on Twist and Shout……Take it , take it , baby now….masters of double entendre.