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
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
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
__________________ If you dont like Frenzal Rhomb, your a whore!
I am aware that "your" should be "you're," and while I know I should change it as not to offend the grammar fans around the boards, school always said not to bow to peer pressure so it stays as it is
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
__________________ "What have you bought into, how much is it gonna cost to buy you out?" - Saul Williams
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.
__________________ "What have you bought into, how much is it gonna cost to buy you out?" - Saul Williams
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 28th, 2004 06:24 AM
The Beatles:Source Of ALL Music
