I've heard this take on the beatles, well, almost since i discovered their music. But now i feel that has gained some traction, specially among young people. So, Beatles deniers, speak up, Why are they overrated?
edit: Sorry about the ¿ symbol, im hispanic
What a surprise, a thread asking for people to explain their criticism of the Beatles dominated by Beatles lovers arguing their virtues. Boring.
I am someone who thinks the Beatles are overrated so I'll actually answer OP's question.
The Beatles are often credited with things they didn't do. For example, The Mothers of Invention and the Beach Boys both released rock concept albums before the Beatles did.
Charlie Christian used feedback long before Harrison and Lennon did, although I've actually heard people say that the Beatles invented using feedback as a way to add sonic color to music.
The Beatles were a decent bar band that evolved into a somewhat interesting original rock band. They were lucky enough to have great management and PR and arrive at a time when the rock world was exploding. They were able to build on Elvis and Pat Boone, and take the challenging African-American rock and roll and sell it to white, suburban kids. They took the "threat" out of rock and roll for millions of scared, white parents. Unfortunately, in the process, they helped to further racially polarize rock and roll. Something that is still felt to this day.
That is not something to be proud of.
Now I don't blame the Beatles for this, they're a victim of circumstance. But it's something to consider.
Another thing to consider is that its simply boring to slather over the Beatles when there are far more interesting, challenging, talented, creative, and entertaining bands than the ones your boomer parents listened to the first time they smoked a joint in their dorm at Michigan.
I can see that for sure. I think what you’re reaching for can be looked at like movies. Beatles are the blockbusters and some other artists seem to have the Oscar winning pictures. Every once in a while though, the blockbusters win the Oscars. So it is possible to do both. A Number one hit like “Eleanor Rigby” is a great example. Both popular but also able to be looked at as art for the sake of art.
That's a good analogy.
That’s what I don’t like Reddit for the most part. Everyone conforms to the consensus view on all topics and anyone that has their own opinion gets blasted. Lmao I agree with what you said about them being credited for things they didn’t do. The entire musical movement of the 60’s is credited to them and they were a boy band until the hippie culture was born in height Ashbury. I like some of their songs and honestly think Harrison was really talented but the Beatles contributions are blown out of proportion due to their popularity
Most of this is fair but it doesn’t change the fact that the Beatles wrote plenty of incredible music
Interesting, i havent considered the perspective of whites stealing blacks music, since they arent american and for the most part british bands havent been accused of that, even if the whole rock scene of british invasion was constructed around blues music.
There is a compelling argument that the British Invasion bands, led by the Beatles, further segregated rock and roll, leading to separate top 40 lists for non-white artists.
That’s just nonsensical BS. Even an inversion of the reality. Race records existed long before British Invasion and segregated audiences were the norm up until the 60s. Artists like Elvis in the 50s, British Invasion bands and British blues boom bands in the 60s contributed to bring this music to a white audience that in a vast majority was not listening to black artists. They all contributed to make things change to that regards in the direction of a more mixed audience in term of music listening habits. Many white guys were introduced and discovered black artists thanks to the covers or artists like The Beatles, the Stones, Clapton, Mayall…
There's a difference between covering the music of black artists and pushing black artists out of the way. There is a solid argument that the rise of the British Invasion pushed black music out of the mainstream. It's a fact that Billboard resurrected the R&B chart a year after the Beatles' US debut.
I agree that a lot of white kids discovered the blues through UK rock bands, but it's not like John Lee Hooker was selling records anywhere near the levels of the Beatles, Stones, or Animals.
Where did you see they did “put black artists out of the way” …? There were much more back artists in the pop charts in the late 60s and 70s compared to the 50s and early 60s. And the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Clapton, Mayall and all greatly helped in that direction by introducing that music to a larger audience and helped break the barriers between segregated audiences.
Regarding the R&B charts it was stopped late 63 because there was a disconnection with its initial target (yes mostly black people at the time): there were too many white artists in it due to the way music was labeled R&B (this was BEFORE British Invasion and Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show) and Billboard decided to stop it and revived it only early 65 with a revised formula intended to target more black artists. Beatles chart success had nothing to do with it from what I’ve read. And artists could be present on BOTH pop and R&B charts.
Seems to me you are rewriting history to support your argumentation. 🤔
[removed]
That is factually inaccurate, the 60s British rock bands are well known to have stolen Black American music. Here's the basic story: late at night AM radio signals travel much farther and British teens would listen to Black American blues/roots/rock music and started imitating it. Eric Clapton & Jimmy Page are the worst offenders, as far as actual theft, but the influence was wide spread. The fact that white critics and audiences didn't account for this in their mythology concerning the British bands is a big sticking point for a lot of folks.
Racially polarize rock and roll? They refused to play segregated shows, Blackbird is about the civil rights movement, and they played with numerous black artists. Do you have anything to back that up besides, “I don’t like them because I don’t like my boomer parents.”
Have you read "How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll by Elijah Wald? He explains it pretty well.
No, but a quick google of the synopsis says the Beatles abandoned their African American influences in later albums, which separated rock music from its all inclusive rock and roll roots, thus dividing racial lines. Is there more to it than that? I’d read it if there is but it sounds contrarian for the point of being contrarian.
It's a good history of popular music and how it has changed over the years. It's not contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, but it helps to go into it with an open mind.
I definitely don’t think they are overrated. I do think they have been deified or at least over sainted. Its like every, band, artist, musician, and genre get scrutinized like ‘oh the beatles did it better’. Or god forbid a band come out and say ‘we never listened to the beatles’. Its kind of lessening the achievements of other bands to constantly be compared to them.
TLDR -Beatles arent overrated but people need to drop the Beatles Colored Glasses of Nostalgia. (+ 45 beatles perception)
I agree with this entirely. They were phenomenal. But the aura surrounding them is a little over-the-top. There were other bands of that era and genre- Stones, Kinks, Byrds, VU, just to name a few- who matched the quality and innovation of their output, IMO.
It almost turns into that episode of South Park...Simpsons did it
It's hard to have a conversation about music without being reminded of the Beatles. No big deal really, they earned their staying power...I was more a Sabbath/Floyd fanatic first though.
One thing a lot of people don’t know is how much Ringo changed the sound with his drums. It’s a very obvious thing once you hear it.
Listen to rock before Beatles, then after. Totally different. And a big part of that is the use of the high hat.
But, aside from that, they completely changed music. You can hear it pretty distinctly. I’m not going to prove it to anyone. If you want to hear for yourself, listen to rock music before beatles and after beatles. It’s a very dramatic difference.
The Beatles were the first band allowed to put a microphone directly in front of the bass drum. That and about 1000 more recording techniques that are now standard practice can be directly attributed to them and George Martin.
Do you really believe they came up with all of it? Maybe just maybe the techs, producers and engineers probably did most of that. None of them besides George were master class with their instruments. For example The drums are simple and basic
If you think pop/ rock & roll are the center of the universe, they are a huge deal. The certainly raised the bar on creativity within rock and roll.
If you understand that rock and roll at its heart revolves around some pretty basic conventions and limitations, you're left with one inconsistent singer songwriter, and an exceptional jingle writer. These two are connected with some imaginative producers/arrangers at a pivotal moment in the history of pop music.
For better or worse, they (and Dylan) established the idea of the popular singer-songwriter... which ultimately lowered the bar on both professions. If you look at the history of popular song before them- especially what is called "The great American songbook" you find much more harmonic variability, executed by higher caliber musicians.
Also, by the time they folded rock was outgrowing them with acts like Yes, King Crimson, and Frank Zappa, all of whom saw possibilities for rock beyond the pop song format.
Do I think they're overrated? IDK. I don't really care. They are. I listen to their music once or twice a year, and enjoy it a lot during that time. There's otherwise just so much else out there.
Since I was a kid their music never clicked with me and as I’ve gotten older it still hasn’t. I can appreciate their music and understand why theyre popular; but the people that praise them like they invented music or some shit turns me off from them.
The same people will also turn around and say if you dont like the beatles youre probably young and only listen rap which is just a dumb stance to take.
The Beatles are the best band of all time
👍🏽
First, this is perhaps because younger people nowadays are more likely to hear about the “greatness” of the Beatles before they actually hear any of their music. This is an issue with over-hyping certain bands/artists/composers (see also: Beethoven).
Second, the Beatles today are firmly music history, not music “present” (sorry Paul and Ringo). Young people may simply not care for historical pop music. The Beatles ARE a central touchstone for a lot of pop/rock, whether you like their music or not. I personally think their songs are better when other performers cover them 😂.
Its easy not to see how inovative they where at the time. I'm not really a fan but they changed how people made and produced music. They where ground breaking for pop music in the 60s and 70s. With so much acess to music now its easy not to see that so people think they're over rated
Because Paul and John became too egotistical and could no longer work together. Plus McCartney's "fruity little songs" as George called them
They’re not overrated, I just don’t like their music. I appreciate what they did for music, but find the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Black Sabbath to be better for my tastes.
I think they’re just overplayed.
Very unpopular take... but there is just such a large percentage of their catalog written for 14 year old girls. If you really love "I'm happy just to dance with you" or "If I fell", I can't argue with you... but, I never got it.
it’s just not my kind of music. nothing wrong with it, i just don’t like listening to it
Based on the limited number of songs I've heard from them, I find them to be overrated because to me their music lacks cohesion.
If I compare them to an artist like Paul Simon for example, it's clear that the music originates from a single source. Paul Simon would write about the world through the lens of a young man making his way through life. This goes back to even his earliest days as a duo with Art.
Perhaps due to multiple songwriters or the approach that the Beatles had towards writing songs, I feel like their identity is disjointed. Not to say that they haven't written good songs, but over the span of their career I think there major shifts in musical direction that prevent a singular foundation from being formed.
Well I heard back in the day ppl said you were either a Stones or Beatles man. And I'm a Stones man. Beatles sound so lame to me, songs don't make sense , they lack oomph. Fuego coño. (I'm Latino). Anytime I hear the Beatles in Classic rock radio I immediately change it.
[deleted]
I never really liked them that much, I think they wrote some great guitar parts and melodies but I find their lyrics and general vibe superficial and generally cheesy, nothing relatable for me personally.
I always fall back on these things. They were the first popular act to write their own material. They were the first band to gain world-wide celebrity statis. Last they were the first group to have complete artist control over the music they were making. These 3 things opened the flood gates for every artist that followed them. To say they are over-rated is beyond crazy.
Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry were very popular and wrote their own material. So did the Beach Boys, although they are chronologically contemporary.
They're just kind of okay and not that great. They have some good songs but it's not good enough to really get into. Plus people like to pretend that they were chill hippie dudes and John Lennon was some kind of martyr. A lot of people don't understand that you can just like someone's music without liking the person they are or were. Especially when it's a dead guy.
It's kind of cool that they influenced so many people, but that doesn't necessarily make the music all that good. It's catchy and different than what people were used to at the time, but since everybody's heard it all by now and there's more exposure to different kinds of music, less people like it.
John Lennon beat his wife.
And abandoned his wife and child for another woman that he later had a child with and abandoned.
Sometimes great bands are loved by shitty people and sometimes those shitty people have kids and those kids feel that those shitty parents loved that band more than their kids and hearing people expound about that band in the same way that those shitty parents used to, makes those kids feel shitty.
Not me though, I fucking love the Beatles!
I like many song by the Beatles. I think they're overrated, but my impression of their rating by others is absurdly high.
Calling people that think they're overrated "deniers" seems in-line with my general impression that their rating is just too high, possibly for any band. I know you probably didn't mean it totally seriously, but I personally read it as more serious, even if not totally serious, than calling someone an Elvis denier as an example.
It also might stem from the fact that I more often tend to view music in terms of things I like and don't like, rather than good or bad. As a result, any time there is a discussion of the "best" bands of all time (and few such discussions would leave the Beatles out without specific selection criteria), it's hard for me not to consider all of the bands mentioned as overrated by whoever is ranking them.
The Beatles are a great band but they’re overrated to me because of boy band songs like I want to hold your hand, She loves you, Yellow Submarine. That stuff is corny. Then by mid to late 60’s they got long hair and are full hippie mode and some how get credit for sparking the movement. Paul McCartney is especially overrated. Dude is the original Justin Timberlake and his solo stuff is pure garbage. Definitely took credit from Harrison and Lennon because he was the “cute” Beetle. I’ll take The Doors, Bob Dylan, The Stones and a list of other bands from that era over the Beetles
There isn’t a high enough rating for them . Simply the best . The body of work is incredible.
[removed]
They are kinda boring by todays standards but I get the appeal
John Lennon was the primary factor that influenced the popularity and song quality of the Beatles. They were a classic assembly of characters but it was more about the substance of the music and the theme more then the music itself at the time. I like The Rolling Stones Better tbh in terms of sheer hits and discography, but the Beatles are more important then the simple hits they produced. John Lennon died like 2pac did, fighting the industry that wanted to control the tone and themes of the music being made and working against those who agreed with promoting conscious impactful songs to influence positive change. Sounds corny but that is what is boils down to in my opinion.
But yeah they are over-rated entirely lol
In my experience, pretty much every single person who says/thinks that, has heard maybe a handful of Beatles songs.
That would be like seeing some normal ugly grey river rocks and saying "damn all rocks are ugly and boring" when in reality there are hundreds of unique and colorful looking rocks in existence.
The beatles cover several dozens of styles and genres within their music, the chances of not liking a single on of these styles are remarkably small, and if it rings true for you, you probably just have a shit taste for music tbh.
Incidentally it tends to be the same people who avoid/condemn entire genres of music due to their same undefined tastes in music.
I can definitely see how people who have only heard like, all you need is love, and come together, and let it be could be like "eh it's a little over rated" but they also simultaneously out themselves as haven't hearing the majority of their music.
There are very few bands that require you to listen to their entire catalogue to gain a proper opinion of, and I think that has an influence on how people feel about bands that do have this requirement. Usually you can listen to a few songs from a band and be like "eh". But with the Beatles that doesn't really work out, because their next album they might as well be an entirely different band playing an entirely different genre of music. You can't listen to a rap album, and then be like "man I guess all heavy metal sucks", and this is essentially what people do with the Beatles.
The beatles have made hip hop songs, RNB songs, rock songs, ballads, heavy (for the time) metal songs, psychedelic songs, indian sitar music, progressive music, pop music, blues music, jazz music, orchestral music, etc.etc.etc.
You simply just can't form an opinion based off of a few songs, yet most people do, and that's why people think the Beatles are over rated.
it's worth noting that I used to think the beatles were lame and goofy, until I listened to all their songs in highschool, and suddenly became an insane beatles fanatic.
At this point I have memorized every word of every single beatles song.
[removed]
I agreed with everything in your post expcept the last part. Beatles did hip hop music? The genre didn't even exist at that time. Jazz? Lennon hated it, he talked about it openly in interviews. Can you give any song names?
only technically hip hop, not like "rap hip hop" , it just technically had a hip hop beat
Look up You Know My Name Lookup The Number, the drum beat is considered by some to be the birth of the "hip hop" beat
As for jazz, there are many jazz elements in their music, but particularly the song I want you so bad (she's so heavy) has a jazz groove, as well as some heavy metal elements
It's essentially jazz-metal fusion
MUSICIAN TAKE: the Beatles were writing experimental music at a formative time in modern rock. If you want to study most common principles in music theory… there’s a Beatles song. Furthermore, if you’re trying your own stuff and there’s no Beatles song that it semi-emulates… thats an original bro 😉 Stones are pentatonic losers. Cool fake dick in your pants idiots. Figure it out.
Those people lack the context needed to appreciate the band.
Because some people are miserable and just want to be contrarians
They were probably born in the last 20-30 years and can’t appreciate music that wasn’t heavily produced
Heavily *over-*produced. :)
Yeah, I'm 22 and can't really appreciate anything that's not Frank Zappa.
Zappa is a great person to add to this conversation but I doubt Beatles maniacs will acknowledge his genius.
I love them, but "music that wasn't heavily produced" is a pretty bizarre defense of the Beatles.
WatchMoreTV t1_iy42xs3 wrote
I used to think they were overrated until I listened to the back of their catalog. There’s so much magic beyond the “hits”.