Are the Beatles Overated?
- Thread starter crimsonfloyd
- Start date
Black Winter Day
Member
You antibeatles are missing the point. Of course there were much better bands AFTER the beatles, of course the beatles werent the best musicians and were a bit simplistic. THE BEATLES however popularized rock and roll- thus they never can be overated as they are the foundation, the reason rock still exists.
Rock was the black mans music, the general public didnt go for it. Buddy Holly popularized it with the white people until he died, but it still wasnt totally culturally accepted until four english guys with funny haircuts stepped off a airplane and did Ed SUllivan.
Not only did the beatles write catchy rock music, but they were one of the first bands to experiment. I was listening to Rock Line, and they had Pink Floyd on, Roger Waters was explaining how they were signed to the same label as the beatles in the beginning. Before the Beatles, the recording equipment was complete crap,because of the beatles with their own wish for better equipment and innovation, basic recording tecniques and editing were mastered, and the beatles were the first to use and popularize these technques, allowing the records we now enjoy, to be recorded.
If one asks any influential musician from the lat 60's on- from Ozzy Osbourne, to Pink FLoyd to anyone else, what group or band had the most impact on them- the Beatles are always the answer.
I think the real problem here is elitist metalheads resenting the Beatles for being so popular, and writing simple catchy songs- that have touched the lives of billions of people.
Rock was the black mans music, the general public didnt go for it. Buddy Holly popularized it with the white people until he died, but it still wasnt totally culturally accepted until four english guys with funny haircuts stepped off a airplane and did Ed SUllivan.
Not only did the beatles write catchy rock music, but they were one of the first bands to experiment. I was listening to Rock Line, and they had Pink Floyd on, Roger Waters was explaining how they were signed to the same label as the beatles in the beginning. Before the Beatles, the recording equipment was complete crap,because of the beatles with their own wish for better equipment and innovation, basic recording tecniques and editing were mastered, and the beatles were the first to use and popularize these technques, allowing the records we now enjoy, to be recorded.
If one asks any influential musician from the lat 60's on- from Ozzy Osbourne, to Pink FLoyd to anyone else, what group or band had the most impact on them- the Beatles are always the answer.
I think the real problem here is elitist metalheads resenting the Beatles for being so popular, and writing simple catchy songs- that have touched the lives of billions of people.
Ayeka
Hell Bent For Leather!
Synthesised flatulence could have made rock music popular, but that doesn't mean it's any good, much worth wanking over 40 years later. If I create a new form of music by recording myself throwing televisions out of windows while shouting Welsh, I may have pioneered something but that don't mean I'm any good 
at least that would be more interesting than early Beatles stuff.
They have some good songs but other bands are more consistently interesting, I'd say. Hooray for the Beatles making rock popular. They still suck more often than not.
at least that would be more interesting than early Beatles stuff.They have some good songs but other bands are more consistently interesting, I'd say. Hooray for the Beatles making rock popular. They still suck more often than not.
bloodfiredeath
kaiju eiga
Underrated... overrated... I don't really care. They were good, and they certainly have an enormous place in musical history, but for my money, when it comes to brit bands from the 60s, I easily prefer The Kinks or The Zombies.
Ayeka
Hell Bent For Leather!
I think it should be pointed out to everyone that it's not about whether you care or careth not! Nobody cares about how much one cares debate the point or bugger off!
debate the point or bugger off!
autumnsphere
Dreamer
ok, this is silly, really silly has anyone of you guys the slightest clue what "music harmony" means? have you taken music theory lessons for years and years? then you could repeat such nonsense! i bet not a single one of you knows what a parallel fifth is. it's something unique and extraordinary, something no one has ever done before the beatles! (except classic composers like bach) just because they don't sound "complicated" and "deep" doesn't mean they are not genius. i've met many really good musicians who know a thing about music theory and all of them worship the beatles because they understand their melodic and harmonic inventions...
do me a favour... go buy a little book about music theory...read what a parallel fifth is, read what a diminished fourth is, then play a song like "i want to hold your hand" or "8 days a week" and then you will understand how genius the whole thing is.
R.I.P.2
just say hi
- Jan 22, 2002
- 6,875
- 54
- 48
Stop pretending you have a clue. You said it yourself; perfect fifths are all over the place in classical music. You're trying to say that noone had done it before the Beatles, when it had been done for over 400 years before that? Melodic and harmonic inventions...please. Perfect fifths, diminished fourths...they're just intervals, this is very basic theory.autumnsphere said:
autumnsphere
Dreamer
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
crimsonfloyd said:
Oh. my. god.
How old are you out of interest?
Please enlighten us. I'd love to see you try and quantify something so subjective.
autumnsphere
Dreamer
parallel fifths and diminished fifths/fourths are absolutely against the harmony rules, they just don't sound good. they are dissonant intervals. and the only artists who MADE them sound good were the beatles.
and btw a parallel fifth is not a series of perfect fifth intervals. what you're saying is absurd - you can't have a parallel fifth between two successive chords.
and btw a parallel fifth is not a series of perfect fifth intervals. what you're saying is absurd - you can't have a parallel fifth between two successive chords.
MadeInNewJersey
nursing my wounds
Ok so they were the first rock band to play with a parallel fifth or whatever, who gives a fuck. Does that make them worth being worshiped by everyone? No! I think its sad that you think that you like them just because they were innovative, because after all thats the whole reason you seem to think its so crazy that we don't like them. Have you ever heard of like a band because they move you emotionaly? You are typical of so many musicans I've met who are so obsessed with theory that they don't care about emption any more, I hate talking about music with people like you. Even if I understand a diminished 4th and a paralell 5th is its not gonna change my mind that "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "Eight Days a Week" are nothing but pop tripe (btw I have no respect at all for the Beatles early works). Its sad that you think that would change anyone's mind, and if it would change yours you really don't know what music is all about and I don't care how many classes you have taken.autumnsphere said:
Obviously you didn't read the post I was refering to very closly otherwise you would understand what I was saying about emotion in music. Your not a baby, so I'll let you read it again and see if you can understand this time. Ok? If you still can't I'll explain.JayKeeley said:
Oh. my. god.
How old are you out of interest?
Please enlighten us. I'd love to see you try and quantify something so subjective.
Now I meantioned Necorlust by Mayhem (and I was refering to the Live in Lepzig version) as it is an extreemly emotional song. I mean heres a guy, refering to Dead, who is singing about his obsession with death just a short time before he kills himself. You can seriously feel his pain and anguish in that song, its pretty intense. So I was simply saying anyone who listens to that is not afraid of emotion. Now I'll agree the lyrics to that song are laughable, but were not talking about lyrics, we were talking about emotion at that point.
autumnsphere
Dreamer
crimsonfloyd said:
dear you, you just made fun of yourself. of course i care about emotions! how couldn't i? and your disrespect for recognised things in the music world is hilarious.
now, let me give you a small example... you're talking about musicians who are obsessed with music theory and don't care about emotions... i'm sure that if you make a research on the whole um board and ask people - "what's the most emotional song you've ever heard", 10% like will answer "One last goodbye" - Anathema. You know who wrote it? Danny Cavanagh - a Beatles worshipper.
Listen to a song like "Across the universe" or "A day in the life" and OPEN YOUR MIND A LITTLE BIT FFS! An emotional song is not only a song that makes you break down and cry!
Alright, so the Beatles were innovative. But so were soo many other bands at that era. Instrumentally they weren't anything special. Their lyrics are what drove them. Autmnsphere, you are one of the few out of billions who spends the time to go through music theory classes and can take appretiation for that 5th parallel etc, but hundreds of millions if not billions have heard the Beatles and say they take a liking to them because they are "great musicians." Most of the Beatles's fans now days know nothing about the Beatles or what they were like during the 60s. You ask the average fan what Abby road is many will just give you a blank stare despite the fact thats the name of one of their albums and their record label, same goes with their stunt on top the Apple Recording Studio which is one of the reasons they are considered "innovative." The big number of Beatles fans these days are age 15 - 25. The Beatles are the number one selling band to kids these days, even 30+ years after their prime. The fact that the Beatles are the number one selling band in this day and age says that they are overrated and also so does the lack of genuinity of the fans. The Beatles fans now days are the same people who say they listen to raggae and when you ask them who they listen to they say "Bob Marley" and no one else.
How many times do I have to say I don't give a fuck who the Beatles influenced! My favorite musican in the whole world, Robert Fripp, was influenced the Beatles. So what? Does that change the way their music sounds in any way? No! I still feel that the first portion of their carrer was medicore trite pop, and the second half was highly overated.autumnsphere said:
Ok and another thing, now I'm gonna make you feel real stupid ok? Where in the whole thread did I say I thought the Beatles were an un-emotional band or lacked emotion? Read closly. Thats right, never! Btw I actually love "Across the Universe" and think its a very beautful (and emotional haha) song, probably my favorite Beatles song.
One more thing, you said:
"you're talking about musicians who are obsessed with music theory and don't care about emotions... i'm sure that if you make a research on the whole um board and ask people - "what's the most emotional song you've ever heard", 10% like will answer "One last goodbye" - Anathema. You know who wrote it? Danny Cavanagh - a Beatles worshipper."
Even if I did say the Beatles lacked all emotion, what would a guy writing a song three decades later, who just happened to be influeced by the Beatles music have to do with weather or not the Beatles were overated or not? Would it somehow change the sound of their music? No!
autumnsphere
Dreamer
i have the feeling that no one here is listening to the others.
a big cheers for robert fripp btw!
i feel sooo stupid right now!
does this make them less great?
of course it does! how could you even think it doesnt?
a big cheers for robert fripp btw!
i feel sooo stupid right now! first of all (again) IT DOES CHANGE THE SOUND of their music. in many ways. and second - I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE INFLUENCE, i was talking about musicians who care about emotions and not only about music theory.
another unenlightened comment. beatles were the first band to use a hammond organ, a sitar or a harpsichord... my god....
it's ABBEY ROAD dear - ABBEY. now i doubt YOU know the songs on the album... which is a true masterpiece...
this sentence doesn't make sense
so? what's wrong with bob marley... hes brilliant!
does this make them less great?
Similar threads
