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.

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.

Good answer 👍 glad ur cooking

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.

Nah u ain't a real G 4 dis 1 😭😭🥶🥶 I SHOULD NOT let u cook again 😤

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

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.

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 💯💯💪💪💪🦵🦵🦵🦵💯💯

[deleted]

Excellent answer

[deleted]

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.

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.

[deleted]

[deleted]

"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.

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

[deleted]

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.

[deleted]

But they didn't and that's the point.

Who didn't do what?

[deleted]

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

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.

Check your dates on many of these. The Beatles formed in 1960, Cohen didn’t start recording until 67. Looks like when you play your music it’s time for everyone to call it a night. 😂

I said "their" sound, aka their own sound. Not everyone just copied the Beatles. And rock n roll and pop we're around before the Beatles.

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.

[deleted]

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.

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 🤯🦵💯🗿

Number one song on Billboard in 1964 doesn’t count then? Okey doke 🫤

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.

Wuuuut.... Someone is on crack

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.

[deleted]

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.

‘…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)

[deleted]

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.

[deleted]

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.

>I feel like Lucy’s moving the football on me.

haha, I was about to tell OP that he's talking in circles. I think he's just being contrarian at this point

My avocado emoji broke.....

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.

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

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.

Don't waste your time. OP thinks the Beatles are over-rated. Big deal.

ZING!

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.

This reply is a clear indication why your opinion is nothing but that.

You are a complete moron. Hope that helps.

I'd add The Byrds and Dylan in there with Brian

[deleted]

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?!?!?

[deleted]

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.

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

I'd add The Byrds...they blended the early Beatles sound with Dylan lyrics

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

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.

Everything except for Abbey Road was recorded on 4 track I believe

Bands would've been fine without the Beatles.

I've also read that when Brian Wilson heard Revolver he was upset because "The Beatles got there first" and when he heard Sgt Peppers he had a mental breakdown because it was beyond anything he could achieve.

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

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.

Only if you're interested in that kind of stuff? But like...why make a claim that is easily proven false?

Sure if you're into Buddy Holly and what not

Music, uhh, finds a way

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.

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

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

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

Very interesting but it doesn't change anything about my opinion

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.

yes...you are entitled to your wrong opinion for sure

Hahaha ok, hot shot

Yes, they were having a back n forth...but from Brian Wilson's own mouth it was Revolver where The Beatles broke the ground he had been trying to get to. With Sgt Peppers the back n forth was over.

lol...just being funny

Gotcha. Can't always tell on reddit

>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.

what the fuck does that even mean