The Beatles are overrated

[Agathon]

But Ming, you like the Blue Oyster Cult, so you have zero cred on this issue,

[yavoon]

the beatles are only overrated if u consider the inevitability of the #1 band of all time being overrated.

but they most certainly are #1

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

EVERY musically band in analogous in that sense. Is every band overrated then?

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?

They blew away the competition. Later in the decade they in no way released the same number of songs as they did earlier, but every album they released went straight to #1.

[Berzerker]

But they can't hold a candle to Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd.

Or the Moody Blues (what album was that with Nights in White Satin?), I'd have to look at my CD's.

[Berzerker]

EVERY musically band in analogous in that sense. Is every band overrated then?

Nirvana undoubtedly does have a fan base for their early stuff, just not a big base. Do the Beatles have a base for their early stuff worthy of the greatest band of all time? I don't see any "Quarrymen" fan club of note out there...

They blew away the competition. Later in the decade they in no way released the same number of songs as they did earlier, but every album they released went straight to #1.

Obviously they blew the competition away if they had 5 #'1's, but what was their competition? And yes, the reason they never duplicated that success is because they did have competition later in the 60's.

[Berzerker]

Days of Future Passed - great album

[Berzerker]

Or was it Days of Future Past? Ugh...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do the Beatles have a base for their early stuff worthy of the greatest band of all time? I don't see any "Quarrymen" fan club of note out there...

How many Beatles fans do you know? Obviously not many. I mean, did you see the movie 'Backbeat'? Why do you think they made it if people didn't care about the early Beatles?

And yes, the reason they never duplicated that success is because they did have competition later in the 60's.

Bull... once again manipulating the facts to fit your conclusion. EVERY ALBUM they put out went to #1. They didn't release anywhere near the number of singles they did in the early 60s.

Obviously they blew the competition away if they had 5 #'1's, but what was their competition?

Elvis and Motown (Temptations, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Diana Ross and the Supremes, and Gladys Knight, etc) mostly. Rock music was basically Elvis at the time they came in, and then they kicked the doors down, started a totally new sound that people just loved, and that killed all competition.

[Berzerker]

How many Beatles fans do you know? Obviously not many. I mean, did you see the movie 'Backbeat'? Why do you think they made it if people didn't care about the early Beatles?

I know plenty, but I don't know of any Quarrymen fans. They made it because 1) they didn't have much competition at the time and were more a novelty than great musicians, and 2) lots of teen age girls fawned or fainted over them. The manager of Frank Sinatra admitted paying girls to swoon at his performances...

Bull... once again manipulating the facts to fit your conclusion.

EVERY ALBUM they put out went to #1. They didn't release anywhere near the number of singles they did in the early 60s.

Changing the facts to fit your conclusion? You went from 5 #1 singles to #1 albums.

Elvis and Motown (Temptations, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Diana Ross and the Supremes, and Gladys Knight, etc) mostly. Rock music was basically Elvis at the time they came in, and then they kicked the doors down, started a totally new sound that people just loved, and that killed all competition.

They didn't replace Elvis with his fans and Elvis did all sorts of music. But did Elvis have a good new album out to compete with the Beatles? You're right, it was a "new" sound, a new genre. What happened later in the 60's? The Beatles had more competition and no more successes like they had in the early 60's even though their albums got better. The reason the Beatles are over rated is because when they were up against decent competition in the same genre they lost their superiority...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I know plenty, but I don't know of any Quarrymen fans. They made it because 1) they didn't have much competition at the time and were more a novelty than great musicians, and 2) lots of teen age girls fawned or fainted over them. The manager of Frank Sinatra admitted paying girls to swoon at his performances...







Changing the facts to fit your conclusion? You went from 5 #1 singles to #1 albums.



They didn't replace Elvis with his fans and Elvis did all sorts of music. But did Elvis have a good new album out to compete with the Beatles? You're right, it was a "new" sound, a new genre. What happened later in the 60's? The Beatles had more competition and no more successes like they had in the early 60's even though their albums got better. The reason the Beatles are over rated is because when they were up against decent competition in the same genre they lost their superiority...

I dont have the fervor u two have. but to say the beatles lost their superiority is a lil pushing it. they completely stopped touring and released #1 albums. their pop culture popularity easily dwarfed any other band even if they no longer made enuff music to keep a song atop constantly.

[monolith94]

Hell, I like the moody blues, led zeppelin, the who and pink floyd too! In fact, I even love them. But, there's one fact that they all have to face up to. One small, little fact that shall always keep them from the number one spot.

THEY WEREN'T THE BEATLES

Undoubtedly my favorite band of all time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They made it because 1) they didn't have much competition at the time and were more a novelty than great musicians, and 2) lots of teen age girls fawned or fainted over them.

Do you know anything about music? They blew all competition out of the water. There were plenty of sounds out there, the Beatles came and everyone had to reorganize and come up with the new stuff the Beatles were doing.

You went from 5 #1 singles to #1 albums.

Indicates one of the BIGGEST changes the Beatles brought in. They created the first 'albums'. Before albums were just one hit single and a bunch of filler. Albums became much more important because of the Beatles.

What happened later in the 60's? The Beatles had more competition and no more successes like they had in the early 60's even though their albums got better.

Let's take 1965 onwards, shall we?

#1 singles:

Eight Days a Week (1965)
Ticket to Ride (1965)
Help (1965)
Yesterday (1965)
Day Tripper (1965)
We Can Work It Out (1966)
Paperback Writer (1966)
Yellow Submarine (1966)
Elenor Rigby (1966)
Penny Lane (1967) [PS, Strawberry Fields was the B-side (or rather 1a)]
All You Need Is Love (1967)
Hello, Goodbye (1967)
Lady Madonna (1968)
Hey Jude (1968)
Get Back (1969)
The ballad of John and Yoko (1969)
Something (1969)
Come Together (1969)
Let It Be (1970)
The long and winding road (1970)

And that was with the Beatles churning out LESS albums and singles in the later years. They had 4 #1's in 1969, when the competition was at its height.

They never lost superiority. When they broke up, they just had a #1 album and were by far the biggest money maker and 'best band in the world'.

Album releases:

1965 - Beatles VI
1965 - HELP! (Original Soundtrack Album)
1965 - Rubber Soul
1966 - "Yesterday" ...and Today
1966 - Revolver
1967 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
1967 - Magical Mystery Tour
1968 - The Beatles (White Album)
1969 - Yellow Submarine (Original Soundtrack Album)
1969 - Abbey Road
1970 - Let it Be (Original Soundtrack Album)

(PS, there were less American albums, IIRC, because the earlier albums, before Sgt. Pepper, were different in the US and England).

[Soul Survivor]

I can see how someone can argue they aren't the best band of all time.... but it is impossible to argue they aren't top 5. So many brilliant songs, genius albums - and each member of the group contributed to them. They set a standard for pop and rock music that no one has been able to match, much less surpass. A lot of bands had more technically skilled musicians, hendrix, allman, clapton, bonham, moon all come to mind... But none of them were able to write songs as well and as consistently as the Beatles. For every great album or great song that any other band produced, the Beatles have one which is at least as good, if not better. (with the possible exception of the Stones)

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by 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.

Perhaps they had something else to commemorate 3 or 4 years ago? Superbowl 25 or something....

it IS very concieted though non the less.....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only if what Aggie was saying is true. NO ONE is saying this the 40th Anniversary of their founding. It's the 40th Anniversary of the British Invasion.