Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

christopher_hamilton t1_jae5s2v wrote

Considering most of their music came out in the 60’s and 70’s I’d say their popularity has outweighed the over rated opinions.

8

CaptainCactusPunch t1_jae6dc3 wrote

I think that, for the time, the Beatles were extremely innovative and different. Controversy aside, when they started doing drugs is when they got kinda groundbreaking. While they’re not as musically complex as some modern Uber-dense Prog metal band, they still deserve to be recognized as giants in musical and artistic history. I am not really a Beatles fan, as there’s only ten or so songs of theirs that I regularly listen to.

To really answer your question I just don’t know, man. It’s like sometimes I think there’s no such thing as “overrated”. Plenty of underrated bands though.

14

TheRej1 t1_jae6rx2 wrote

I mean many of the greatest musicians since their time said they were influenced by the Beatles so I value those opinions more than randos on the internet.

23

Because_I_Cannot t1_jae750i wrote

For you to offer the opinion that The Beatles are overrated, I'd like to know your opinion on bands that, at the time, were making better, more interesting music at the pace at which they were making it. My personal opinion is that no one other than Brian Wilson rivals The Beatles in that category and even that is pretty subjective

7

shanerbaner16 t1_jae77ov wrote

My problem isn't that the Beatles are overrated (they're not). It's just that they get too much credit for inspiring bands after them and too many people act like they're in a league of their own. Other bands clearly would've figured out their sound and played music like artists had been doing for centuries without the Beatles.

1

cymbalmonke t1_jae7900 wrote

The Beatles hugely shifted the goalposts at the time, there was no popular music on the radio like what they offered - but specifically what they eventually made popular was a huge shift in popular culture and they largely spearheaded it.

Listen to Revolver 🗿🤯🐦🤌💯💯🌛🌝🌜❤️‍🔥👀💦💦

Did I sign off right? I think I signed off right. Better make sure 💯💯💪💪💪🦵🦵🦵🦵💯💯

14

noiznikk t1_jae7vif wrote

Their use of the studio and the album format were revolutionary. "A Day in the Life" was recorded on a 4-track. Try to wrap your head around that the next time you listen to it. I rarely listen to them anymore because they're so pervasive in pop culture and overplayed, but their impact on culture worldwide really can't be overstated. Don't dig their music? I get it. A lot of it is quaint and dull. But if you don't respect their role in music history, that's on you.

2

ExternalPiglet1 t1_jae7wez wrote

Rating them is overrated.

Every week somebody wants to take down the Beatles. Decades later, people are still having this debate....how many other bands have this ongoing in their press kit? ...they must have done something right.

12

xtingu t1_jae8grk wrote

"not that groundbreaking" -- spoken like a kid who can't be bothered to read even the shortest history of recording, but assumes to know all of the details. Smdh

I'm not saying you have to like The Beatles, but you have to respect how they, specifically, changed how music sounds, and with George Martin and the various engineers at the helm, changed how music was recorded. They used the first samples for fuckssake.

But please, tell us how you got to these conclusions with your musicology degree.

8

badbender14 t1_jae8j02 wrote

Kills me how bold people are in their wrong-ness these days. Say, "not my thing", or "doesn't resonate with me" To say they're overrated just makes you sound absurd. Practically every rock band since, lists them as an influence, and they're the most covered band ever. Give everyone a break with the "overrated" bullshit

17

DeadEyeMetal t1_jae8x13 wrote

Make no mistake, The Beatles were pretty much at the leading edge of production and songwriting for the time. They may not have been the most technically accomplished musicians but they were a couple of rungs up from your average pop players.

Time passes and things change so their stuff has dated, as everything does, but the influence lives on and is widely acknowledged by many contemporary artists. It is likely that some of your favourite musicians list The Beatles amongst their influences.

I was born in the 1960s but I still prefer music that is being produced now to the crude stuff we thought was cool when I was a kid. It's an evolution - stuff develops from modest beginnings and some of what that evolution has produced is fantastic. My favourite band has only existed for about 3 years yet I still sometimes think I hear Beatles influence in some of their music - even though they're a metal band.

So, I'm not a huge Beatles fan but I cannot, in good faith, deny that they largely earned their rep.

6

Because_I_Cannot t1_jae9txs wrote

Ok, so your musical taste is obviously for more subdued singer-songwriter stuff and The Beatles aren't your jam. But they had released 6 or 7 albums, including Rubber Soul in 1965, by the time Cohen, Nick Drake and Velvet Underground released their first albums in 1967, with Van Zandt releasing his first album a year after that in '68. (I'm ignoring Coltrane, Davis and Simone because they don't belong in a pop/rock conversation)

To Say that your favorite artists, or the producers that they worked with, were not in anyway influenced by what The Beatles were doing is intentionally putting your head in the sand.

Look, I haven't listened to The Beatles with any regularity since I moved out of my parents' house over 20 years ago, but I also am not going to deny their influence on most of the music we listen to today

8

goatAlmighty t1_jae9uf1 wrote

Sorry, but I don't think your argument makes any sense.

That other bands would've figured out the same sound is a) not a given, and b) irrelevant. That would be like saying Nicola Tesla gets too much credit because eventually somebody else would've had the same ideas as he.

4

Because_I_Cannot t1_jaeagq6 wrote

The only other person/band I'd like to see in this conversation is Brian Wilson from The Beach Boys. He was putting together harmonies and instrumentation rivaling what The Beatles were doing, at the same time. What held him back was his asshat of a cousin, and his over-controlling father.

3

goatAlmighty t1_jaeatkt wrote

I would strongly disagree. And it sounds to me as if you have not much knowledge about what they actually did. As others here have pointed out, they were very much on the front when it came to experimenting with new technologies and different ways to create sound. And even if there were other bands (of course there were others), most of them do not come even close to the impact the Beatles had.

None of us who didn't live in that time can fully grasp how important the Beatles were. Their songs not being "all that interesting" is a viewpoint under todays' standards where just about everything has been done before. A few things of what the Beatles did had simply never been done before.

6

cymbalmonke t1_jaeaydw wrote

You've listened to their whole discography? But you only listed Hey Jude and Come Together. Not stuff like Eleanor Rigby, Yellow Submarine, Tax Man, I mean the list goes on for tracks that pioneered multi tracking and various other recording techniques on top of making psychedelic music mainstream in a time where very few popular bands actually did much to express themselves or did anything out of the ordinary.

TLDR; they did drugs before it was cool. And they did them so hard it stopped being cool.

Which is fuckin rad 🤯🦵💯🗿

5

Forward-Good-4905 t1_jaebizs wrote

We're you around in the 60s when they started? If not, you really have nothing to base your opinion on. If yes, then you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. I'm not a huge Beatles fan, but their influence on music can't be overstated.

2

infodawg t1_jaec288 wrote

Wuuuut.... Someone is on crack

2

TheVinylBird t1_jaec42l wrote

ground breaking now? no of course not. But they were the first ones to do almost everything and every single band from that point on copied them. Without the Beatles success with experimental albums, bands like Hendrix and Pink Floyd would have never gotten record deals and would never have been able to release music.

3

goatAlmighty t1_jaec58u wrote

Ah, I see what you mean, misunderstood you, so sorry for that.

I agree, had the Beatles not been there, somebody else would've stepped up. But if they would have had the same impact on culture and music recording technology is an unanswerable question.

2

smittyis t1_jaecf8l wrote

‘…not that groundbreaking’

Soooooo, they were ‘somewhat’ groundbreaking?

What Artist/Band/Project IS groundbreaking in your opinion?

I looked at some of your past posts btw…..and Paul McCartney isn’t dead (posting that kinda crushes any credibility)

3

Puzzleheaded_Bit9469 t1_jaecyh6 wrote

So we’re now going by critically acclaimed, ok. I feel like Lucy’s moving the football on me. List their critically acclaimed songs. Now list all from the artists you mentioned. Multiply those songs by two. You probably come up with the same amount of songs from Revolver.

3

Volcano_Tequila t1_jaedcks wrote

When I read missives like this, I kind of despair for the younger generation. This poor misinformed Redditor just does not understand the tidal wave of change to the entire music scene that The Beatles caused, using their Fifties musical influences and the rising local scene to reimagine and reinvigorate popular music with a basic musicality that transcended genre. And then, they grew and reimagined the scene once again, using rising studio technology in masterful, innovative ways. Artists from all walks of life began recording their material as well, cementing their work in the public consciousness. You can't really overestimate their influence.

5

Cleppert t1_jaeds3x wrote

I would agree to an extent just because not everything they wrote was good... I'd say a good 30% of their music isn't well received just from being to experimental or just straight up boring. But when you look at each of them idividually, even though lennon was a fucking shit human being and he soils a lot of the beatles for me just 'cause of that, they were all fucking incredible musicians, paul and ringo still are. They set a standard, especially for their time.

Lennon has such a powerful soulful voice and being able to be well rounded enough to play multiple instruments and convey the sound you're going for made writing more natural. when you combine Lennon, sir Paul and his even more amazing ability with music and multiple instruments, Good ol' george and HIS singing and guitar playing and Ringo's singing and very solid and pocket style drumming it's hard to deny the huge amount of talent they all had and the extremely popular music they made and the impact it STILL HAS.

3

A40 t1_jaedvfy wrote

Not me. They're right up there with ABBA.

1

TheVinylBird t1_jaee6aa wrote

they broke up in 69..they decided to stop being a touring boy band in 64. Started doing studio records in 65 with Rubber Soul and Revolver and hit their peak in 67 with Sgt Peppers.

Because their contract was structured like Elvis's with a movie/album deal..The record company didn't want to put any money into their productions, they just wanted something cheap and fast to churn out. So everything they did was through being creative. Acts like Hendrix had access to a lot better equipment. In fact Abbey Road, their last album, was the first album they recorded with an 8 track recorder instead of 4 track and was their first album released in stereo.

2

Because_I_Cannot t1_jaeecl4 wrote

WTF are you even talking about at this point? Man, when your high wears off I hope you just delete this nonsense.

First of all, you HAVE to compare bands against their time period. And when you do, The Beatles absolutely come out on top, even 20 years after their last record. Take a look at this. It's a Wikipedia page, but it links to a book COMPILED BY CRITICS. In 1978, The Beatles held 4 of the top 10 spots on "Top 200 Albums" By 1987, they still had 3 of those spots.

3

33_bmfs t1_jaeeki1 wrote

You are a complete moron. Hope that helps.

3

UniversalMindDecoder t1_jaefa82 wrote

I would deride you for your abject ignorance and lack of taste...but I am going to stay on the high road because you probably don't know any better than to spout such idiotic folderol?!?!?

3

TheVinylBird t1_jaeffsj wrote

Dude...before The Beatles everybody was trying to sound like Elvis. Maybe bands would have gotten more creative but without the chart success of The Beatles making creativity marketable, none of those bands would have ever gotten record deals.

3

cymbalmonke t1_jaefnhn wrote

They released quite a lot of music. And did HELLA drugs.

I'd like to see you produce nothing but bangers with the resources they had available nonetheless too. Music is subjective, to some people "Good morning, good morning" is their jaaaam

Just because it's not yours doesn't really mean it's objectively bad or not good

3

Acceptable_Designer9 t1_jaeg22z wrote

I don’t really like their music at all but I do appreciated their place in rock history.

1

TheVinylBird t1_jaegaas wrote

Well, everybody definitely lifted stuff from The Beatles. Like...everybody did copy The Beatles...from Hendrix, to the Rolling Stones, to Pink Floyd, to Bob Dylan.

The only other band that had a similar effect was The Band with their album Music from Big Pink. After that Clapton and George Harrison and loads of others were trying to make albums that sounded like that.

1

Because_I_Cannot t1_jaeh2lb wrote

If you think a music critic today is going to say that The Beatles are overrated, you're flat-out wrong. They're going to say what most of us are saying, which is that they are one of the most influential bands of all time

2

shanerbaner16 t1_jaeh75p wrote

Those bands you listed were definitely not trying to copy the Beatles lol. Hendrix and the stones were obsessed with old blues artists. Bob Dylan was more into country and folk. And pink Floyd made psychedelic music early on and we're also inspired by blues music. It's even how they came up with their name.

1

TheVinylBird t1_jaei92j wrote

Where did Hendrix get backwards recording from? The Rolling Stones created their whole marketing campaign as being "the bad boy version of The Beatles". Bob Dylan went electric because of The Beatles. This is all stuff that is easily verifiable.

Also...fun fact, Linda McCartney discovered Jimi Hendrix and Paul McCartney was the one that recommended Hendrix for The Monterrey Pop Festival where Hendrix got his break through in the U.S.

1

Because_I_Cannot t1_jaeiig9 wrote

I've heard this, but I think it's taken a bit out of context. His reaction to Sgt. Pepper was because it was better-received at the time, and it's what made him stop work on 'Smile'. Both George Martin and Paul McCartney credited Pet Sounds with making Sgt. Pepper possible

2

shanerbaner16 t1_jaeir17 wrote

I'm not saying the Beatles had zero influence. Obviously they had a lot. My original comment was just about how I think they get too much credit and other bands would've been successful with or without them. It's not any deeper than that. And purely from a musical perspective, all the artists you listed had bigger influences than the Beatles. Easily verifiable

0

TheVinylBird t1_jaejn3y wrote

Also if you want to get into theory. Hendrix's famous E7#9 chord which he used over and over again was first used by The Beatles in The Taxman. George Harrison's use of the Dorian mode, from indian influence, on The Taxman solo was repeated just months later on Hendrix's Purple Haze solo...along with the E7#9 chord

1

Shot_Marionberry1436 t1_jaejs6v wrote

They were innovative and pioneered lots of recording engineering techniques used today. Sgt. Peppers and the White album inspired The Beach Boys and others. I'm a blues oriented lover but I will acknowledge their contribution to music.

3

DeadEyeMetal t1_jaenogs wrote

>Leonard cohen 🔥, nick drake 🔥, Velvet underground,🔥 miles Davis🔥, the kinks🔥, john coltrane,🔥 Nina Simone, townes van Zandt🔥

I pretty much agree with your fire rating for all the above. However, both your rating and mine are subjective and not based on a universal consensus of what makes good or interesting music. Different people value different things.

Furthermore, the parameters are very different. You're not comparing like with like. 'A Kind of Blue' can't be held up against 'Sgt Pepper' and a winner chosen. That's like comparing Usain Bolt and Pele and declaring Bolt better.

TBH, your post had L written all over it from the moment you hit send.

2