The Beatles are overrated

[SpencerH]

Not the greatest musicians, not amongst my favorites, but still the most influential band ever. No one else even comes close, and that includes Elvis.

[SpencerH]

The Stones (who are amongst my personal favorites) dont even come close despite their longevity.

[Agathon]

I love it. The Americans want to call the 40th anniversary of the year they finally found out about the Beatles, the 40th anniversary of the Beatles.

Remember the Quarrymen, Johnny & the Moondogs?

They couldn't really play, but wrote some nice tunes.

[BustaMike]

Originally posted by Drogue

That's not why I say there overrated. They shaped music for a generation, which gives them a lot of prestige, and an air of invincibility. However as musicians, they were not particularly great. Comparing them to a lot that has been around since, they seem almost cheesy in places. They changed the way music was, they influenced so many people since, they have had more influence and impact than any band before or since, however they're songs are not the best ever written. That is why I say they're overrated. That is not dependant on being there at the time, which I will admit their influence and impact is hard to see in it's entirity without that, but the sheer quality of their music is not dependant on that.

They may have provided the foundations, and influences for many many bands, but some of those bands, IMHO, have gone on to surpass them. "It is a poor student that does not surpass their teacher".

They shaped music for way more than just a generation. Nearly all of my favorite bands no matter what time frame cite the Beatles, either directly or indirectly, as one of their influences. The first Soundgarden album has 1 minute of silence devoted to John Lennon at the end. Both Akerfelt and Lindgren of Opeth consider A Day in the Life to be one of the best songs ever written. I could keep going, but I don't think it's necessary.

You question their songwriting ability... the Beatles songwriting is as solid as anything ever written. The difference with many of the songs of today is the production capability that we have now. If you want to learn how to write music, the place to start would be the Beatles.

If I was to rate bands solely on influence, I would probably put the Beatles at #1. It's stupid to do that though, and I rate all music based on how it sounds, not based on image or influence or whatever. With that criteria, I still put the Beatles barely in my top 5 ever.

[snob]I also feel my opinion has more merit on this issue due to the fact that I own and listen to more music that anyone on this site even Snapcase [/snob]

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Stones (who are amongst my personal favorites) dont even come close despite their longevity.

Of course they are. They had quite an influence themselves for rock. In most of those 'lists' the Stones are a solid second. Usually Zeppelin is 3rd, IIRC.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drogue
Comparing them to a lot that has been around since, they seem almost cheesy in places. They changed the way music was, they influenced so many people since, they have had more influence and impact than any band before or since, however they're songs are not the best ever written.

You do have to compare them to what was out there... comparing them to people from later era's is not really fair. At the time, some of their stuff WERE the best songs ever written. Let 40 years pass... and sure, better stuff would eventually be written. Probably your idea of best stuff ever written will pale in comparison in 40 years

[Berzerker]

That's because they weren't the Quarrymen during the British Invasion. But you make an interesting point, if they really weren't over rated, why don't Americans flock to their music before they were the Beatles?

[Guynemer]

I personally prefer the Stones, but only a great fool would deny the massive influence the Beatles had, not only on music, but on culture and Western consciousness in general.

No question, top 5 of all time. My head says best band ever, but I can't commit to that, simply because I enjoy the Stones a little bit more.

[Berzerker]

Probably your idea of best stuff ever written will pale in comparison in 40 years

Not if the last 15 years are any indicator of things to come.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if they really weren't over rated, why don't Americans flock to their music before they were the Beatles?

What? That's like saying why didn't Americans flock to Nirvana before they got big! Every band has its build up... unless they were a made up boy band.

I'd think having the 5 top singles on the US charts within a year after they were introduced to the US shows their lack of overrated-ness.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ming
You do have to compare them to what was out there... comparing them to people from later era's is not really fair. At the time, some of their stuff WERE the best songs ever written. Let 40 years pass... and sure, better stuff would eventually be written. Probably your idea of best stuff ever written will pale in comparison in 40 years

I don't doubt that. IMHO they were the best band at the time. But there have been better bands since, IMHO. I judge music based on how much I like to listen to it, how good I think it is, not on the impact or influence it has had. I'm sure what I like now will be surpassed in 40 years, which means in 40 years, they won't be the greatest bands ever. However this poll is not for 40 years in the future, nor in the past, it is for now. The Beatles, while influencial are, IMHO, not as good musicians and do not sing as good songs as many bands that have come since.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Not the greatest musicians, not amongst my favorites, but still the most influential band ever. No one else even comes close, and that includes Elvis.

Originally posted by BustaMike
They shaped music for way more than just a generation. Nearly all of my favorite bands no matter what time frame cite the Beatles, either directly or indirectly, as one of their influences. The first Soundgarden album has 1 minute of silence devoted to John Lennon at the end. Both Akerfelt and Lindgren of Opeth consider A Day in the Life to be one of the best songs ever written. I could keep going, but I don't think it's necessary.

True, but none of that makes them any better, IMHO. It makes them influencial, important, etc, but who they have influenced does not affect the songs they have written. As you've said below, on influence they'd be at #1, on personal taste they wouldn't be for anywhere near as many people.

Originally posted by BustaMike
You question their songwriting ability... the Beatles songwriting is as solid as anything ever written. The difference with many of the songs of today is the production capability that we have now. If you want to learn how to write music, the place to start would be the Beatles.

I agree, it's just an opinion I have that while good, I don't rate them as the best songwriters ever either. In technical terms, they were not particularly able musicians. Their songs are good, great possibly, and they defined the genre at first. But things have progressed since then.

Originally posted by BustaMike
If I was to rate bands solely on influence, I would probably put the Beatles at #1. It's stupid to do that though, and I rate all music based on how it sounds, not based on image or influence or whatever. With that criteria, I still put the Beatles barely in my top 5 ever.

Exactly how I feel

Originally posted by BustaMike
[snob]I also feel my opinion has more merit on this issue due to the fact that I own and listen to more music that anyone on this site even Snapcase [/snob]

While that may be true, I think taste is a very personal thing. I'm not sure you can tell the quality of music beyond consensus opinion or the ability of the performer. The former doesn't do justice to individual opinions, IMHO, and the latter will not seem to pick great songs either, as it's not just how you play, but what you play.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Guynemer
No question, top 5 of all time. My head says best band ever, but I can't commit to that, simply because I enjoy the Stones a little bit more.

Surely the last part is what matters. What do you enjoy listening to more. Isn't that the test of a good band? Whether you enjoy listening to their music, how much you enjoy it, how long you enjoy listening to it?

[Berzerker]

I'm sure Nirvana'ites do flock to pre-Nirvana stuff, but if Nirvana and the Beatles are analogous, that means the Beatles are over rated. As for 5 top singles, what was their competition at the time? Did they repeat that success later in the decade when up against good bands?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That's because they weren't the Quarrymen during the British Invasion. But you make an interesting point, if they really weren't over rated, why don't Americans flock to their music before they were the Beatles?

They were the Beatles for some years before 1964. They already had their second album out by the time you guys took notice.

They wrote good songs and were quite imaginative. But they can't hold a candle to Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. It's just that everyone likes the Beatles because their music is safe and nice.

Having said that, the White Album and Abbey Road would be on most people's favourites list. All the stuff before "Rubber Soul" is nice, but not terribly profound.