Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I am totally BEATLE CRAZY!! I love the music no matter how old it is. I think that they have got to be one of the greatest bands in history!

-but thats just my opinion


Anyone else here a Beatle fan?

ME!!!!! Best thing in music in the last 100 years. Hail to THE FAB 4!!!

Amen 2 that!!

early days....

http://george-harrison.info/beatles/beatles_114.jpg

Just sailing...

http://george-harrison.info/beatles/beatles_112.jpg

PILLOW FIGHT!!!!!!


(couldnt get a larger pic)

awesome pic!!!

they are good but i aways liked the stones better

stones are good too...

I like stones too...I like them both. One of the first Stones hits was "I wanna be your man" a Lennon/McCartney song...

The Beatles are just great.

What's everyone's fave track? Today mine is....."Blackbird" I think.

Beatles= overrated
But I like some of their songs. Yellow Submarine, Obladie Obladah, all the whack stuff.

i would say that my fav. beatles song is Real love. John's voice...though processed..sounded beautiful

Well my fav album is Abbey Road...

Did anyone get the new cd, Let it be...naked. if u did tell me how it is.

I am curious too.

ohmigod!!! i love the beatles! they are sooooo cool!!!!!!

yes, one of the gretest bands in history besides zeppelin and stones

The beatles were great between '67 and '70

and they are still great now...millions of people today still love their music

and also...they were great between '63 and '70 because 1963 was when their first hit Love me do came out and stared beatlemania

started***

I think they were good between '63 and '67
and they were great between '67 and '70

It's odd because their music doesn't do much for me but I'm fascinated by photographs of them and the history of them. A couple of years ago I went to Abbey Road studios and it was probably the most moving moment of my life.

it's as my friend said...."everyone has a beatle gene"

who else here likes the beatles......and if you do whats your favorite song.

my favorite song is a hard days night

Well I like them a lot, but to give you a favorite song, pfff, I wouldn't know. But I'm quite fond of Rocky Raccoon .

i respect the Beatles but i dont listen to their music

i agree with hockey horror

HH> I never use to listen to them either until my music teacher had us learn there music....now I love them

who? > I dont think I ever heard of that one.

hdn has the hardest goddamn starting chord in a song!!! can anyone here actually reach a modified F#maj 13?

Phenomenal- simple as that

Kate xx

Rocky Raccoon is badass, off the White Album. an unfinished 'Western' song that McCartney wrote. It kind of represents the fractured White Album, where nothing was really finished, noting really gelled to make one definitive sound to make a great album. That's why the album comes off with almost no flow--some great songs, but some songs that should have never made a Beatles album.

My favorite song by the Beatles is probably "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"

my mom just bought a two beatles CDs. one is all there number on hits and the other is a double disc and it has all there songs from 1967-1970. I listen to them all the time........oh, boy I just love the beatles!!!!!!

raven, you have to get their original CDs.

The greatest hits compilations and past masters and whatever else compilations they decide to have are fine and all, but The Beatle's music is best listened to in the original context--except The White Album, that album is so disjointed, it really doesn't have a theme.

But hearing a song from Abbey Road out of context...just seems weird.

i respect the influence they had on music, but i dont like their music

kk, thanx I will look for one of the original cds.

whats your least favorite beatles song?....I really dont know if I have one

my favorite song is the taxman

My mum got into trouble by saying she liked to look at the Beatles, but listen to the Stones... oh, and just to make you jealous.... 45rpm, black vinyl, "love me Do..." performed by lennon, McCartney, Harrison and best... The Quarrymen.... and I have it in my collection....

Beatles 4 ever !

I LOVE THE BEATLES


I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAAAAAND

Ive always liked the Beatles alot of their non-mop top stuff is the best the wrote. I think my favorie song is While My Guitar Gently Weeps or Blackbird.

While My Guitar Gently Weeps is such a pretty song

yeah it is, i love that song

My fave one is Hey Jude

my favorite is While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Everyone likes the Beatles! Especially at my school, people at my school like the old stuff like that, it's awesome! But yeah, I think my favorite song is probably Yesterday

I like Helter Skelter. If it wasn't for that song you wouldn't have had Iggy and the Stooges. If you didn't have Iggy and the Stooges you wouldn't have had the Sex Pistols. If it wasn't for the Sex Pistols you wouldn't have had The Smiths. If it wasn't for The Smiths you wouldn't have had The Stone Roses and if it wasn't for the Stone Roses you wouldn't have Oasis. God bless The Beatles.

I like loads of there songs every time I find a fav Beatles song..it changes..but sum of my favs are
Hard days night
We can work it out
Sargent peppers lonely hearts club band
all you need is love
Yellow submarine
Elanor Rigby

i feel people say they are better than they are. the dont have any music that impressed me that much. what do you guys think.

i agree tbh

Beatles overrated? Maybe in a slight way, no; not even by that much. The Beatles have influenced pretty much the entire musical landscape in almost every way imaginable. The music before the Beatles and music afterwards are on completely different planets.

OK they weren't great musicians (Harrison excluded) and some of the production on their songs was a bit ropey. Have you ever noticed how a lot of Beatles cover versions sound better than the original? Having said that though, in songwriting terms they were nothing short of geniuses and without them we'd still be listening to Bing Crosby.

The Beatles wrote amazing music. True.

But let's speak for ourselves when we say "Without them WE would be listening to Bing Crosby."

I wouldn't. I listen to the greatest bands on Earth, not because of The Beatles.

Yes they are overrated in the sense that alot of people believe antiquity is equal to talent. The older they get..........the older they get. They don't get better with age. If anything people should be realising that the biggest thing they did was give birth to boy bands.

-AC

im sick of people saying that they are the best band ever and that they are the only band they listen to. ya they WERE a great band, and the did have some good songs. but seriously, that was in the sixties, were in the 2000's, im sick of people that only listen to the beatles, pisses me off, theres better music to waste your time on than the beatles. buy on ozzfest cd rather than a yellow submarine cd.

He's saying and I'm saying that without what the Beatles accomplished during their careers, the state of music wouldn't be where its at today. Hell, the greatest bands on Earth right now are in one way or another influenced by the Beatles. Its not an opinion, but fact when you hear that the Beatles are the most influential band of all time.

without the beatles we wouldnt have the annoying kids in my school who still think its the 60s. damn kids listen to there moms cd collection.lmao

sorry about the real long post

Who cares if they listen to music from the 60's or 70s or any time in the past? Is it only cool to listen to albums that have just been released? If it's good music it's good music. As far as people just liking them because they are old, I still think they are more advanced in the knowledge they had in music and eagerness to try new things. Especially in today's music scene when most bands (even independent music) have boundaries that they are just not allopwed to cross because people are so afraid they'll bomb. A ton of people hate the White album, which I think is cool that a band is willing to put themselves out there on something that isn't safe for the sake of trying something new. Also a ton of people absolutely love the White album.

The first question I have for this thread is what do you mean by overrated? Do you mean the die hard Beatle fans, the ones that primarily only listen to the Beatles and worship Lennon-McCartney like Gods? Because those people are such a small minority.

I understand if their music isn't exactly your cup of tea. But they were brilliant, because they tried things that were so amazingly different from everything else in popular music and a ton of people dug it. And they didn't do it for one or two albums but for most of their albums.

Also, who cares if every member in a band is the greatest drummer, bassist, guitarist in the world. It's great when a musician can really play his instrument with the very best in the world, but if the songs aren't great the songs aren't great. They should be artists before strictly musicians. There's already enough mastaubatory guitar solos out there, there's nothing wrong with well constructed songs in which the instruments and vocals all compliment each other.

How many really great and new bands are there? I mean 99% of all bands are molded to fit a niche, they have a certain sound and do a certain thing that a thousand other bands do in a similar way (just not as well). Almost all of their music is very similar at the core. Most bands I like fit into that too. That's why truly unique mainstream bands like Led Zeppelin and the Beatles are so highly revered by so many people.

After all many artists are compared to the Beatles just based off of 3-4 songs the Beatles made while another artist is also Beatle-esque based off 4 or 5 other songs. They tried new stuff and it was quality.

And the statement on Bing Crosby is a good point but a little drastic. What I take the guy as saying, is that without the Beatles we would still have all completely uniform music and nothing really unique and different. I disagree with going that far, but without the Beatles things would be a lot different today in music.14

The Beatles had wonderful messages of hope/happiness in their songs.I grew up lisening to their music.Whenever we were riding in the car on a trip,the Beatles came with us.Now that im older,i like them for more than their bouncy tunes and memories of my daddy.I really like all their music,they were great pioneers.
So not really,i don't think they are overrated,they just touched millions of people..like me lol

one word, NO

The Beatles aren't overrated, but it is hard to imagine the same type of band being made today.

Many people think about The Beatles being a big band like Linkin Park is a big band or another popular artist; but this is totally different. The Beatles were a great unifying factor. People from all walks of life listened to the Beatles. Those who listened to Motown, those who listened to Zeppelin, those who listened to Black Sabbath also listened to the Beatles.

Let me try to put it another way. The Beatles were in an era of great bands; there were the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, The Who, The Kinks, the great bands go on and on and on. And the Beatles were the best out of all of these. Lennon-McCartney have some of the best lyrics ever written, and they did this in bulk during a relatively short career in which they constantly reinvented themselves. Look at Meet The Beatles (With The Beatles if you're on the other side of the Atlantic), then compare this to Revolver, then compare this to Sgt. Pepper's. Three albums totally different within a span of six years.

Most bands today find that niche like scabby mentioned; The Beatles created their own niches like few bands before or after have ever done.

And McCartney was a really underrated bassist, though he could have been better if he wouldnt' have spent so much time trying to play every instrument ever made; he is a pretty good pop pianist also, so to say that Harrison was the only musically talented Beatle is a common misconception.

"Hell, the greatest bands on Earth right now are in one way or another influenced by the Beatles. Its not an opinion, but fact when you hear that the Beatles are the most influential band of all time."

Tool, Radiohead, Any Mike Patton band including Faith No More, System Of A Down, Weezer, NIN, The White Stripes, Metallica, Audioslave.

So it's fact that all of those were influenced solely or mainly by The Beatles? No, no it's not. Certain bands exist because of Faith No More. The Beatles gave us bands like Oasis and Black Sabbath. Faith No More gave us System Of A Down, Slipknot, Incubus and many more. Yeah...

"Look at Meet The Beatles (With The Beatles if you're on the other side of the Atlantic), then compare this to Revolver, then compare this to Sgt. Pepper's. Three albums totally different within a span of six years.

Most bands today find that niche like scabby mentioned; The Beatles created their own niches like few bands before or after have ever done."

Radiohead have put out 6 masterpiece albums and an EP since 1993. The change between each has been unlike any other seen in music. Suddenly The Beatles 3 albums in 6 years with changes doesn't seem so much, if of course you were holding it up to all time.

"Now that im older,i like them for more than their bouncy tunes and memories of my daddy.I really like all their music,they were great pioneers.
So not really,i don't think they are overrated,they just touched millions of people..like me lol"

Not to take away from your reasons of liking them but had you not owned the mental connection to your father and childhood I doubt you'd think they were that good at all. Nostalgia is a big part of music but it also adds unworthy acclaim to bands. It's like an old video game. You may think it's awesome coz of all the memories that came with it but when you get it now on an emulator you think "What the hell?".

"The first question I have for this thread is what do you mean by overrated? Do you mean the die hard Beatle fans, the ones that primarily only listen to the Beatles and worship Lennon-McCartney like Gods? Because those people are such a small minority. "

You'd be surprised just how major that supposed minority is even on these forums.

"How many really great and new bands are there? I mean 99% of all bands are molded to fit a niche, they have a certain sound and do a certain thing that a thousand other bands do in a similar way (just not as well). Almost all of their music is very similar at the core. Most bands I like fit into that too. That's why truly unique mainstream bands like Led Zeppelin and the Beatles are so highly revered by so many people."

Depends what you mean by new. From the mid to late 80's to now we've seen such radical changes in Rock music and seen the world's greatest bands emerge. Granted, with them has come so much BS. However the ones that normally have the "Bah, new bands are lame" opinion are usually those with their heads stuck in the 60s. Like Guns N Roses fans who wont accept that they're gone and so is the time they owned. So in spirit of keeping them alive they decide to insist that they are the world's best ever.

"After all many artists are compared to the Beatles just based off of 3-4 songs the Beatles made while another artist is also Beatle-esque based off 4 or 5 other songs. They tried new stuff and it was quality."

Serj Tankien of System Of A Down was inspired to become a singer because of one Faith No More song. Brandon Boyd of Incubus was inspired by another. Both of them were two different worlds. So if it's inspiration and comparison beyond compare. Mike Patton is the one with that crown.

"What I take the guy as saying, is that without the Beatles we would still have all completely uniform music and nothing really unique and different. I disagree with going that far, but without the Beatles things would be a lot different today in music."

Indeed but The Beatles didn't so much change music as just opening it up. It's like going to a concert. The entrance to the hall has loads and loads of doors but if only one is open you can only let a small amount of people through. Eventually they'll all get in it'll just take a long time. The Beatles just walked along and opened all the doors. Allowing alot of great music to come through but alot of shit also.

-AC

Well as for me my dad liked Glen Campbell and Glen Miller and my mother liked Neil Young.
I really like the Beatles but that is out of my own doing, my brother introduced me to Deep Purple my sister was a huge Bowie fan I took to those, but as for the Beatles well I started listen to them out of my own will.

The Beatles were as AC said a door opener, they ewre at the right place at the right time. Numerous bands popped up in the wake of the Beatles. It was just Beatles hit the limlight ,like big time, first.

The Beatles ARE the most influential band of all time. If you didn't have Helter Skelter then you wouldn't have Iggy and the Stooges, if you didn't have Iggy and the Stooges then you wouldn't have punk and without punk you wouldn't have any of your half decent bands today.

You use the example of Radiohead as being a band that makes drastic changes in trying new things from album to album. That's my point, though they are one of the very few that really try new things and sound so different from everyone else in the mainstream.

What's with the constat Faith No More references, obviously a great band and obviously influential. But they were influential to a set group of bands. The Beatles influenced a ton of bands. Most band members today aren't going to mention the Beatles as being back there in their influences because it's passe. Eventhough a lot of these artists don't sound exactly a certain set of Beatles songs they are still very often influenced by them.

Tool, Radiohead, Any Mike Patton band including Faith No More, System Of A Down, Weezer, NIN, The White Stripes, Metallica, Audioslave.

So it's fact that all of those were influenced solely or mainly by The Beatles? No, no it's not. Certain bands exist because of Faith No More. The Beatles gave us bands like Oasis and Black Sabbath. Faith No More gave us System Of A Down, Slipknot, Incubus and many more. Yeah...


No one said anything about most bands being solely influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles are one of many influences artists have (otherwise they would all be cover bands), but the thing with the Beatles is that they occur as one of many influences for more bands than any other. You keep bringing up Faith No More as this huge influence. They were/are influential to a certain set of musicians. It seems that you think influence only goes to music you really dig, that other bands aren't important.




Radiohead have put out 6 masterpiece albums and an EP since 1993. The change between each has been unlike any other seen in music. Suddenly The Beatles 3 albums in 6 years with changes doesn't seem so much, if of course you were holding it up to all time.


The Beatles changed a lot from album to album and more importantly from song to song. They wrote different kinds of stuff in a time when they didn't have allof the studio toys that are around now. As far as Radiohead goes they are exactly what I'm talking about. They are one of the very very few bands that have gone out and done completely different things on different albums and sounded so much different from everyone else at the time. Eventhough, there have been some smaller bands that carved out similar sounds around the same time.




"The first question I have for this thread is what do you mean by overrated? Do you mean the die hard Beatle fans, the ones that primarily only listen to the Beatles and worship Lennon-McCartney like Gods? Because those people are such a small minority. "

You'd be surprised just how major that supposed minority is even on these forums.



Do you know what "minority" means? There a ton of Beatle fans, therefore you'll have more crazed fans of the Beatles than you would have for Band X. But it's still a minority, if you look at all of the people that like the Beatles, the people that are crazed fans like that make up a very small percentage.




Depends what you mean by new. From the mid to late 80's to now we've seen such radical changes in Rock music and seen the world's greatest bands emerge. Granted, with them has come so much BS. However the ones that normally have the "Bah, new bands are lame" opinion are usually those with their heads stuck in the 60s. Like Guns N Roses fans who wont accept that they're gone and so is the time they owned. So in spirit of keeping them alive they decide to insist that they are the world's best ever.


Most bands of every era are lame. The changes in music since the late 80's have not been nearly as radical as the changes from the late 50's to early 70's. Since the early 70's music has evolved from past music with a few artists that really changed things. But starting in the 50's the entire way popular music worked was turned around and made different.



-AC

Thom Yorke, during the time Radiohead was in the studio recording "Hail to the Thief," was listening to "St. Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band" (can't remember if it was exactly that album but it was a Beatles album)not so much to copy, but to study the fluidity of that album. And that is just one example of the best band you listed. The others you mentioned can in some way or another trace their music lineage back to the Beatles in the same way that studio artists of today recognize that Andy Warhol is probably the most influential artist of the 20th century.

six albums and an ep in 10 years? The Beatles released 18 LPs from 1964 to 1970, and at least five of those are among the top albums of all time; Revolver, Sgt PEppers, Let It Be, Abbey Road, Rubber Soul and arguably the White Album.

also, Thom Yorke would love to release any one of those previously mentioned albums--especially in the place of The Bends. Damn, that was a horrible album.

Also, as for Weezer, Rivers has remarked how he would love to be like the Beatles and be able to release so many great albums in such a short time. Of course when Weezer tried this, we got the amazing piece of crap that was Maladroit.

"The Beatles ARE the most influential band of all time."

Let's calm down on the putting across of opinion as fact now. I accept that you think they are. Accept that I think they aren't.

"What's with the constat Faith No More references, obviously a great band and obviously influential. But they were influential to a set group of bands. The Beatles influenced a ton of bands"

Better to influence a couple of the greats than loads of mediocre. Not insinuating they never influenced greats.

"And that is just one example of the best band you listed."

Just one listed or the only one there? I never said any of them didn't like The Beatles. I just said I don't believe their style is supremely influenced.

"It seems that you think influence only goes to music you really dig, that other bands aren't important."

Not at all. I just note what influence matters. If I'm not affected by the influence then why should I pay such deadly homage to it?

"Most bands of every era are lame. The changes in music since the late 80's have not been nearly as radical as the changes from the late 50's to early 70's. Since the early 70's music has evolved from past music with a few artists that really changed things. But starting in the 50's the entire way popular music worked was turned around and made different. "

Well we went from Glam Rock to Hard Rock N Roll to Grunge to various other types. It's not as many changes but they are drastic. There are loads of amazing bands out today. So many, you just gotta have faith in today's elite artists.

"The others you mentioned can in some way or another trace their music lineage back to the Beatles in the same way that studio artists of today recognize that Andy Warhol is probably the most influential artist of the 20th century."

He was a right place/right time artist though. He came along when people were so easily impressed and did things so simple that people thought there MUST be more to them.

-AC

Reading this thread, it just proves that The Beatles WERE the most influencial band. Whether you like the band or not is irrelevant. Just look at how het up and opinionated people are getting about this subject, this is because they've really affected people's lives. That, in my opinion, is what i call influencial.

On the musical side, they evolved over time which is a necessary thing for any band other wise most people dont want to know. The fact that they could grow as a band shows talent and determination to continue making music. If you watch footage of the band you can see they were people who lived and breathed music. I suppose, for some people, they were role models and again, this shows they were influencial. They changed music for the better but i thin its fair to say that if they hadnt, some other band would have.

As for the previous comment about them being responsible for boybands, i dont think thats true. The people who should be held responsible for churning out those excuses for music are the record companies and the blind public for swallowing all their shit.

Kate xx

there have always been bands and artists that are made solely for their looks rather than their musical prowess, and actually the era directly before The Beatles had some of these 'musicians'. Blaming boy bands on the beatles is stupid.

^True. Although i dont think you could ever say they were stunners. Especially since my Dad used to look like George.

Kate xx

they kicked out their best looking member because he was TOO good looking and got Ringo instead.

"Reading this thread, it just proves that The Beatles WERE the most influencial band. Whether you like the band or not is irrelevant. Just look at how het up and opinionated people are getting about this subject, this is because they've really affected people's lives. That, in my opinion, is what i call influencial."

The Beatles haven't affected my life. In any way.

"They changed music for the better but i thin its fair to say that if they hadnt, some other band would have"

Exactly. Right place, right time.

"As for the previous comment about them being responsible for boybands, i dont think thats true. The people who should be held responsible for churning out those excuses for music are the record companies and the blind public for swallowing all their shit."

I said they were, if anything, the first boyband. I never said they were completely and totally responsible for the shit.

-AC

beatles were popular because of the screaming girl factor. that proves they were a boy band

I seriously have to know, did you design that post to make as much sense as it does or did it just fall out that way.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but at first glance it looks like english and might be a reasonable argument, but NONE of it makes any sense at all. I am in awe.

I have had to print it out and put it up on my wall.

It's hard to get a little perspective with the Beatles because they are so huge: they became more than the sum of the music they made. The claim that we wouldn't have the musical landscape we enjoy now without them is true, but no more true than saying things would be different without any major band.

They have been a huge influence on many many contemporary bands, but they themselves were influenced by the acts that came before them. They didnt invent harmonies - and it's a stretch to say that we wouldn't have radiohead if not for the Everly Brothers.

When the Beatles broke the landscape was already changing - communication meant that sooner or later someone would become a global phenomenon - and the advent of the sexual/drug revolution meant that when they were at their peak music changed - they were not the only band to be experimenting with sound: Pet Sounds came out around the same time as Sg Pepper.

So - are they overrated? not by me - but appreciated, hell yes.

well put mr zero

they are not overated, they are just recognized as being the first band to do the many things that they were the first to do. The beatles also experimented in may tones of music, and are still one of the only hand full of bands able to survive maturity as a band and musicians. They always stayed true to whatever form of music they were producing at the time. They were able to escape redundancy with trying to be diverse . Now are they overated? They deserve all the praise they recieved and still do as musicians, but this is it. I know many people glorify them as being motivational speakers, especially lenon. Though lenon was a cool cat he was still nothing more than a hippie with a dream, and mccartney is an arrogant prick, and ringo believes he is the greatest drummer ever born. As musicain s they are amongst the most memroable and innovative bands, but as the greatest of all tiae NO, just a band who wanted to play some music no one heard before

THeir music is great. However I still don't understand how they got so popular.

because they were a new thing that appealed to the young people at that time

they invented the album format in their albums and gave the world the real fisrt "3-4ish minute length songs, 15ish song in length" albums

"they are not overated, they are just recognized as being the first band to do the many things that they were the first to do."

Wait. So....by that rationale, a band who does something first regardless of anything else, deserves major praise? As Mr Zero pointed out, the landscape of music was already changing so they did nothing but tap into what was already gonna happen sooner or later. They did it well, very well and I totally appreciate them. However, it's nothing another band could have done.

"because they were a new thing that appealed to the young people at that time"

Britney Spears made an impact on music and appealed to young people at the time. She sucks though.

I appreciate The Beatles and everything they did for music but I recognise that they were only doing stuff another band could have done. They opened doors that sooner or later were gonna be kicked down or opened anyway. They weren't hugely innovative like Radiohead, they were just avenue explorers. They explored SO many avenues that, as they knew, by law of averages one had to make them stars. Trial and error.

-AC

Um. The White Album? Nothing like it had ever appeared before - thus innovative.

Much as I like Radiohead, they aren't doing anything new - Hail to the Thief is just free-jazz with a techno sensibility: The only reason it looks innovative is because it's by a "rock" band - and therefore you chart huggers who get your musical taste spoon fed to you by the TV and radio get to hear it.

Those of us who groove on free-style jazz and minimalist music have been listening to this stuff for years. Innovative my fuzzy pooper!

Damn I'm hot.

she appelaed cause she sort of challange the dominant R&B scene, kind of like a new Madonna, and cause pimpled face teenage boys willi turned hard whenever she was on the tube

The BEatles did do things first--and things that have not been equalled since. Any list of top all time albums without at least two Beatles albums in teh top ten is probably a sham; Sgt Pepper's and Revolver are 1-2 in my opinion, and only Pet Sounds comes close

Saying they aren't innovative but did things first is kind of an oxymoron.


As for the boy band thing, saying screaming fans makes the boy band is stupid. They were not a boy band. Yes, their image was played up at first, but unlike a boy band, thier music can stand the test of time; they weren't chosen for their good looks--they were all musicians from teh same scene who MADE THEIR OWN BAND.

"Um. The White Album? Nothing like it had ever appeared before - thus innovative. "

Let's go read what I wrote. No seriously lets. Well erm.....as you can see I said they weren't hugely innovative like Radiohead. Which they weren't. I never said they were not innovative did I? Nooo. You pick one album out of 6. Which is still miles infront of most bands today.

"The only reason it looks innovative is because it's by a "rock" band - and therefore you chart huggers who get your musical taste spoon fed to you by the TV and radio get to hear it. "

You chart huggers? Actually I know you weren't referring to me there so I'll move on. It looks innovative, speaking generally about Radiohead, because nobody else does anything like them. Over their whole career they have been alone in their innovation. Levels of anyway.

"Those of us who groove on free-style jazz and minimalist music have been listening to this stuff for years. Innovative my fuzzy pooper! Damn I'm hot."

Now now my friend. No need for arrogance, no need at all. You're not hot. No reason to claim you are. Anyhow, just because you have been listening to that for years does not mean there are no new ways of doing it or applying initiative to it. Radiohead found ways and have done so.

"she appelaed cause she sort of challange the dominant R&B scene, kind of like a new Madonna, and cause pimpled face teenage boys willi turned hard whenever she was on the tube"

You said that's why The Beatles were so popular for appealing to young people at the time. I merely said Britney Spears is popular for that same reason. Popularity rarely means anything.

"Sgt Pepper's and Revolver are 1-2 in my opinion"

Do you mean places? Like 1st and 2nd greatest albums ever?

"Yes, their image was played up at first, but unlike a boy band, thier music can stand the test of time; they weren't chosen for their good looks--they were all musicians from teh same scene who MADE THEIR OWN BAND."

How boybands are now aren't how they started. The reason why Beatlemania was so huge was because of the female attention. Their music can stand the test of time but their reputations as icons for status has taken over and more importantly, been blended in with their musical ability and people assume that the reason they were popular was because of their music solely.

-AC

it was initially thier music that gained them fame; people didn't see the beatles, didn't know who or what they were, they just heard this brilliant thing from England was coming this way. When they saw them, they thought they were 'cute' (a nice way of saying 'not the greatest looking band in the world'), but htey played an easily accessable type of music and became popular for a number of reasons.

One was the Kennedy assassination; the nation was still reeling from the death of one of the most popular Presidents in the history of the US. They were looking for SOMETHING to hold on to...and the Beatles came along at the right time.

Granted, their early stuff was not the greatest, but it wasn't exactly horrible. It was just par for the time. Anytone who thinks that it was thier musical ability alone that made them popular needs to study musical history a little better; musical ability alone does not a great band make.

and upon further review, I'd actually put Abbey Road #1 album of all time followed by Pet Sounds. But lets not turn this into a 'best album of all time' thread, we have enough of those. I'm just saying that on practically any viable list, there will be a number of Beatles albums in the top 10.

hmm Radiohead, the Pink Floyd of recent times. Yeah they influenced a bunch of bands, but so did the Beatles

Sure The Beatles are overrated but considering the time they were so popular and the unbelievable talent they had and of course the major influence they had on popular culture in terms of fashions, trends, and the influence they had on other artists and bands to come, I think their being overrated is definatly justified.

i don't think they are overrated at all.

beatles overrated my arse
cant believe people sometimes

^That could easily be the end of this thread

Overrated... nope

Every band of the 60's and on had/has some Beatles in them.

Or the Beatles at least influenced the bands that influenced the bands that influenced the biggest bands of today.

The Beatles are the ultimate pop messiahs, best albums are Revolver and Rubber Soul, and The Past Masters cds are the best compilations of their singles and bsides.

The Beatles are the most inspirational source of music to any and all genres including my faves MF Doom, Radiohead, and Led Zeppelin witch then inspired another favorite RATM. Iits all connected. I love it. Am i the only one who sees this? Any one else escape the Matrix?

I forgot to tell u the reasons. If you listen to The Beatles "Number 9" and "Blue Jay Way" you can swear your listening to a Radiohead song. MF Doom sampled "Glass Onion" and others. You can hear that Led Zeppelin type music in "Helter Skelter" witch was one of the first crazy rock songs like that. Ghost Face Killer sampled some beatles songs. The Beatles are heavily "covered" band. PLease take time to listen to them. Most of their most obscure stuff is usually the best. They are really diverse so I cant recommend what to listen to first.

err, to say they inspired ALL music is a pretty ridiculous claim, considering music has been around since basically the beginning of humanity, and the Beatles were what...the 1960s? Now, to say that they were influential to most music that came after them is a more realistic claim.

well its pretty obvious what he meant by all music...i'm sure ppl understand that beatles had no influence on Beethoven, pretty ridiculous to be critical on a claim like that don't you think? i'm sure you made him feel like a jackass...


anywho yeah they have inspired a lot of music, you can see it in the more experimental bands that really tend to go for different sounds with their music, they kick some major ass

guess the opening of the rock scene was the inspiration to start bands so Everly Brothers got a load of followers including Beatles........ but for all means Beatles was very influential themself

I love the beatles, and I know there are alot of members who do too. So, what are your favorite songs, moments, albums, member, haircut?


no flaming the band though, please

Favorite Song: While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Favorite Album: Abbey Road (the extended medley is as close to perfect as one side of an album has ever been)
Member: George Harrison. The cool one.

Favourite Song(s): Across The Universe & You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
Favourite Album: The Beatles: 1967-1970
Favourite Beatle: Mr Lennon

Greatest Hits/Compilations don't count...cheater

says who ? it is a beatles album is it not ? & dont call me a cheater, theres no need for it

Because the songs are outside the context they were supposed to be in.

Because it isn't truly an album that that band made.

Greatest Hits albums aren't truly Beatles records, but rather their record company cashing in.

fine then how about Rubber Soul, that ok with you ElectricBugaloo ??

Jumpy Cool! a Beatles thread!

I dont know what to say in it though...

do any of you belive the "George is dead" conspiracy theorys?

if he isnt dead ....then where did he go cry

GEORGE is dead conspiracy theories?? I thought it was just Paul they were making stuff up about


And greatest hits dont count

Yeah supposedly they put little subliminal messages in their records so when you turn them backwards they'd say paul is dead. It was just something they did to get people interested I think.

Favorite songs: A day in the life, strawberry fields, while my guitar gently weeps.
Favorite beatle: lennon
Favorite album: If I had to pick I'd probly pick Sgt Pepper's.
Favorite haircut: the long hair hippy thing they eventually grew.. I didn't like the bowl cut thing they had at first.
Favorite moment: I don't really know cause I wasn't alive back then.

Greatest Hits albums are just that, the greatest hits.

The singles that did the best. Not necessarily the best songs.

There's rarely a "Best of" that truly lives up to or near the hype. The Smiths being one of them.

-AC

Yeah...it's Paul is dead. And we all know that GEorge is dead.

The walrus was Paul...I buried paul...etc etc. There are whole books on the subject.

Favourite song: Hey Jude

Favourite album: I cant choose between white album, revolver, help and sargent pepper's.

Favourite member: John Winston Lennon.

One question more, best solo career after beatles?

I think that Lennon did the best things like imagine or a jelous guy of give peace a chance or woman or working class hero.Althougth George and Paul had very good things.

Paul and George made the best pure rock songs post-beatles. Even though John hade a confusing solo career, it made the most spiritual impact on our society. Paul and Ringo are still touring today with their own bands

George had by far the best album: All Things Must Pass. this is an album that would have been great among the ranks of The Beatles albums. While Lennon wrote Imagine and Jealous Guy and Mother...he never really put together an entire cohesive album.

Double Fantasy is truly an underrated album. Mostly becuase its so much associated with his death

But Let it Be is their #1 most underrated album-Its incredible

I like Let It Be...Naked better. The way they wanted it to be before (was it Spector?) someone came in and added all the over-the-topness.

shaved fish by the plastic ono band wasnt too bad, and it wasnt i buried paul it was cranberry sauce, listen to the version on the 2nd anthology and you can hear it plain as day and even george martin says on the insert that its cranberry sauce

Darth, I know that it isn't I buried Paul, but that is part of the "Paul is dead" mythos.

Yeah, Let it Be...Naked, thats the one I got, I've never even listened to the original let it be

Beatles=overrated musicians

They're ok song writers though.

They aren't overrated musicians because nobody ever gives them credit for being good musicians. They just say something like "well the beatles had a big influence" and that's about it. Most people don't give them credit for their music.. they give them credit for their legend. They are good musicians, and they are amazing songwriters.

I heard they were in all kinds of "best musicians" top 100's or something.

I'd like to actually see the list... you know which one it is? And I meant they aren't overrated musicians by the general public.. when it comes to music critics I could see them being considered overrated. But a lot of people seem to think they aren't even good musicians... they are.

Well Prince has been praised as a guitarist by Steve Vai, praised by great drummers and is great on the piano.

Yet you'll hardly ever find someone willing to admit how awesome he is.

"Top 100" lists always annoy me.

-AC

Paul is an underrated bassist
George is a very underrated guitarist
Ringo honestly isn't as bad as people say he is, but he is by no means unique or great; George Martin really hated him, that could have held him back a little.
Lennon was a competent rhythm guitarist - but to say that they are one of the best musically? No. I think you might be referring to a 'best bands' top 100 list.

They pass. I mean I hold musicians to a different standard. When you do just enough to pass, and they did for the most part (especially Ringo), then you are mediocre. The Stones drummer is good. Matt Cameron (pearl jam) he's good.

dave grohl imho is the best drummer ever

ah, and these drummers were, of course, in the beatles

Lets see:

1: The beatles are one of the best bands ever, if not the best. Most influential, more innovate, more talent together, etc. The Beatles and Elvis Presley were the people who break the rules and bring new forms of music and start the road for another bands and musics. Many bands like the stones, queen , the who, the doors or pink floyd wouldnt be the same without the beatles, they were the start of all. Same with Elvis. To post that they were overrated is clearly ignorant and without music culture.

2: Paul was a very underrated bassist, yes. George was a very underrated guitarrist, yeah. John was a good guitarrist, ok. But Ringo was a good drummer too, he hadnt the same talent than the other three, but he was good. To say that Ringo was bad is stupid and ignorant in music. Paul is one of the most complete music artists that i have ever seen. John was one of the best composer of all time. George was one of the most talented music artist in story.
To resume it, to say that the beatles were overrated is clearly nonsense.

"To say that Ringo was bad is stupid and ignorant in music"

I love The Beatles but I think to claim they are the best band in the world ever with the most talent together is more ignorant than saying Ringo is bad.

-AC

Now see, half your statement I like. The other half is iffy...RIngo really wasn't a good drummer at all. I mean compared to like Tony Williams, Art Blakey Elvin JOnes even as m'man Darth_Decimator mentioned above Dave Grohl. But I guess as far as rock drummers go, he's good which is a sad,... sad thing

So, say to me a band with more talent together. And say to me a band more influential and innovator than the beatles.

Please, Ringo was a good drummer. Not the best drummer ever , even not one of the best, but yes a good one, wich isnt a sad thing, i think.

Miles Davis Quintet 62-67

have you even heard the people I've mentioned above?

Yes, some of them, and they are really good. Better than ringo, but , i have said before, ringo wasnt the best or one of the best, only a good one.

"So, say to me a band with more talent together. And say to me a band more influential and innovator than the beatles."

Rush whoop The Beatles all over the place in terms of talent on their instruments and innovation.

-AC

That would be in your dreams. Rush more talented than beatles? you must be joking or dreaming.

"That would be in your dreams. Rush more talented than beatles? you must be joking or dreaming."

Leave the Music forum. You know nothing.

-AC

The Beatles still made better music than Rush.

I don't think so, by a long shot.

I'm not trying to ruin this thread, it's a Beatles fan thread. I was just answering his question.

-AC

they dont interest me, but i respect them as artists

I wont answer that centaury person, he has showed what kind of poster he is. Im not interested in what he is posting .