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
__________________
*~Just keep rockin'~*
Nana will keep on playin'
All we have left to believe in is ourselves baby
*~Were a generation of idiots without dreams~*
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.
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.
__________________
Post in the Indiana Jones forum.
Gender: Unspecified Location: in with the green trees of the Pac
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.
Last edited by scabby mcgee on Jul 27th, 2004 at 05:15 PM
Gender: Unspecified Location: in with the green trees of the Pac
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 27th, 2004 05:03 AM
