"Days of Future Passed" was released five months after "Sgt. Pepper". The concept album that was released in '66 was Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention's "Freak Out". It was Paul who wanted the huge concert to finish off the Get Back sessions, John agreed, and George vetoed it and only begrudgingly did the rooftop concert. John did not extensively tour in the early '70s -- he had a few concert appearances at specific venues. But you're spot on about Ringo being a solid drummer who played to the song. The guy's like a freaking metronome.
@@alfching2499 C'mon dude it basically was, It was about a band (sgt peppers) which starts and ends with those tracks, sure the songs didn't all fit together but you're splitting hairs really
really there's five Beatles, George Martin was a gift from god to the band. 3 great song writers and Martin adding all his beautiful tapestry thru The Songs. Genius
Absolutely - George Martin was extremely important to the success of The Beatles. Amazing that he could go from producing classical and comedy albums, to producing The Beatles through all their phases. Also Martin added orchestration when asked for it (such as I am the Walrus), but let the band shine by itself when that's what they wanted. Martin also contributed to the songs in certain ways, such as suggesting the "Please Please Me" should be played at a much faster tempo, and once they tried it that way, they had several other hits with fast tempo songs. Martin also wrote and played the keyboard part of "In My Life" (on piano, but sped up to sound like a harpsichord).
What is often overlooked is that The Beatles introduced harmonic complexity into pop/rock music, and that is one of the main reasons why their songs were so effective. When the hairs on the back of your neck stand up when music moves you it is often because of some ingenious harmonic idea within the music. Lennon and (especially) McCartney were geniuses at using harmony that way. Now that most pop music is just standard major and (if you're lucky) a minor chord, and most rock music is just pentatonic/blues scale stuff over standard changes, it's no surprise that The Beatles, and also the likes of The Beach Boys, are still hugely popular.
saxfreak01 Harmonies by the Beach Boys leave The Beatles sounding like Perry Como. Comparing these 2 bands for me is like comparing attractiveness & beauty, so similar & hard to choose between. I prefer The Beach Boys because of the complexity of their music especially the harmonies. Another band this time soooooo underrated. The Beatles are probably still my favourite band though.
@@ophanimangel3143 Neither the early, pre-Beatles Beach Boys or Everly Brothers stuff was particularly complex harmonically, and in any case the Everly Brothers wrote few of their own songs up to that time as a brief check of the track listings of their albums will confirm.
When John Lennon was alive he was disappointed that commercial radio played the same 20 or so hits (singles) and a handful of album tracks if lucky..that is the problem if you are unaware of the Beatles...for me, their best were the album tracks, especially from '65 (Rubber Soul) to '69 and 80% of the B-Sides were exceptionally good. You could easily knock together 70-75 tracks that weren't A-sides and you would have another 3 or 4 greatest hits (for want of a better term) albums. I can't think of any other band or solo artist who would come that close. Bob Dylan had a good body of work spread over three or four decades, but the Beatles did it all in seven years.
Simon and Garfunkel made the 5 best albums by any group ever, and in the space of 6 years! The best pop / rock album ever is Watermark by Art Garfunkel from 1978! I only like the Please, Please Me album by The Beatles. They do nothing for me with all their later garbage albums! I like Gustav Holst, Harrison Birtwistle and Art Garfunkel. The Beatles just don't take me to far off worlds with their music! With the possible exception of Rocky Raccoon and Mother Nature's Son from their mind blowing White Album. But The Beatles' music is dull beat noise by comparison!
You're right about the B-sides: I Saw Her Standing There, We Can Work It Out, Rain, I Am the Walrus, Revolution, Don't Let Me Down, and Come Together as B-sides?? Are you kidding me?? Those are greatest hits for pretty much any other band. And I think they are better than their A-sides. I guess it's cuz I mostly prefer Lennon to McCartney.
terrythekittie - absolutely correct. couldnt have put it better myself i always tell anyone who'll listen that i could play them 30 beatles songs theyve never heard that are absolutely awesome. not many bands you can say that for.
For ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole fucking ERA - Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and overadulated to the point of anoyance.
How could the band that sold more records on the music industry be overrated? How could a band that influenced so many artists be overrated? It's like saying the speakers invention is overrated.
Their target audience just happened to be the largest generation in history, the baby boomers. Add to that the fact that they were there when the drug culture came about and the music became totally off the wall for many years. Shit even Yoko was putting out "music" that people embraced. I look at it this way, when people will buy oversized soup can labels because they are called art by the artist, than there is no definition of what is "great" art, including music, in this generation.
Well, for ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole freaking ERA - The Beatles, Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and over adulated to the point of annoyance.
That is because all those bands you have mentioned has had a major cultural shift on the world musically, fashion wise, the way people act and behaved, drugs and were music innovators that is why people rave about them. I was like you once upon a time thinking its just oldheads force feeding us their era until I did proper research like watching interviews of that era, reading articles and listening to their music and they deserve the hype. I would go as far as saying the youth nowadays underrated them to a sickly degree and yes I agree oldheads tend to overrate them but for valid reasons
@@phistoltv5196 My real problem is that I find there are innovators from OTHER CHAPTERS of history that get effectually overshadowed and obscured because of the overinflated reputations of THOSE named acts, resulting from the incessant touting of them by the "baby boomer" Woodstock generation and "Classic rock" media establishment.
@@creepyskulldini581 I agree tho, other innovators later on took what these guys started and made it better or improved it. For example St Pepper is larely credited for the innovation in the terms of it being the first mainstream concept album but doesnt make it the best concept album in there are 30 more better concept albums than Sgt Pepper because its a vague concept
@@creepyskulldini581 But you still gotta respect your precursors, pionners regardless, that era was a very explosive creative phase after leaving the black and white no sound era. Secondly its because those people had less access to social media, technology hence why being praised for what they achieved regardless of the obstacles
How can a band with the influence and world popularity be overrated? It's like when Mozart died a couple of people come along and ask, "Is Mozart overrated?" It's silly.
@Ben Daulton - Firstly dumb fuck, the members of the Beatles were not exactly BOYS, they were young MEN in their twenties. And the term "boy band" wasn't coined till the late 90's and referred distinctly to certain groups like N Sync and Backstreet Boys.
@Ben Daulton - No ignoramous, groups like N Sync and Backstreet Boys and THOSE groups actually were much more derivative and reminiscent of r&b all-vocal groups from the 50's like The Platters, Four Tops and Temptations than The Beatles. As for BIEBER, if you need to liken HIM to music figures from past eras, HE is more along the lines of Donny Osmond, Frankie Lymon, The Jackson Five and Lief Garret - try any of THEM instead shithead. As for "young girls raving about them", THAT wasn't JUST The Beatles - ROCK music has ALWAYS been associated with YOUTH. You didn't know THAT already?
@Ben Daulton Well how about A Day In the Life, Ellenor Rigby, LSD ( Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ) and I Am the Walrus? . .. are THOSE what you'd call "boy band" songs as well?
I don't think they are overrated, but part of the reason for that is because of how their music changed my life. I have been a huge Beatles fan for many years, since I was a young kid. My Dad introduced their music to me and right from the first song I heard, I loved them. I got my first Beatles cd when I was about 10 years old and would listen to it all the time. When kids in my school found out I listened to "old music" they started making fun of me and bullying me because I listened to The Beatles, and because I didn't know who all these new artists were. I became the "weird kid" and nobody wanted to be my friend. The one friend I had moved away, so all I had was my Beatles cds. It didn't matter how bad my day was I could put on one of their cds and put my headphones on and it always made me smile, and made me forget all the terrible things people would say to me. Their music truly changed my life, and helped me through a really bad time in my childhood. I have never found another band or singer who has had such an impact on my life. And now, I play their music for my 2 year old, and whenever he sings just a few of the words, it makes me smile from ear to ear. Some people don't understand the power of music, but I definitely do, and I am so grateful for the impact it had on my life. :)
Susie Knox I'm sorry to hear you were bullied because you liked The Beatles but I'm really glad they have meant so much to your life. They meant a lot to me growing up and still do over fifty years later. Maybe more so today given the world we live in. Loving The Beatles means you get it.
The true reason for the enormous admiration they received, and continue to receive 50 years later, is the shear variety and ambition of their musical output - all 4 members brought a different flavour to the creativity of the songwriting and the emotion of the performance. Also, the fact that they achieved so much, without diluting quality (in fact, their later albums being some of the very best), in only 8 years is a feat worthy of applause for ever. Very few bands have ever had the strength in depth within the discography as The Beatles had.
THEY ALSO STOLE BOBBY PARKERS WATCH YOUR STEP RIFFS ON I FEEL FINE. ALSO LADY MADONNA IS HUMPHEREY LYTTELETONS BAD PENNY BLUES PIANO. MY SWEET LORD IS CHIFFONS HES SO FINE ETC>>>>>>>>>
dgmcl3284 This is really key. Though it is not my favorite Beatles album--that would be probably Rubber Soul--I dont think there is an album in ALL of the rock music, ever, as varied as the White Album. Hell, it even has John Cage style experimental music (Revolution 9). In fact, I will just state it right now (as an honest request): Is there an album in all of rock with as much breath and varied style as the White Album. It would be neat to go song-by-song and list all the genres covered. Maybe something by Zappa or Ween?
"The Beatles are overrated and underrated." True. Yes, they created this Beatle culture which, is same as today, where some people like bands for their looks more than their music, as an example, their hair! While, underrated for a lot lot lot lot reasons like as mentioned above, pioneers of music. As a big fan, I would say, that I get tired of their music, when I think about something to listen to, and the Beatles come up in my iPod library and I won't be down to it. That makes them overrated. BUT, when a song suddenly plays, and it's so good, I was completely mental to think I'm tired of them, and I would go on a rampage of listening my favourite tracks which ironically, the ones that are not as popular. And that makes them underrated. For me at least. One thing I know for sure, is that no matter what, I always come back to them, and would be the number 1 band in my life! My last.fm is a virtual proof. Nobody should fight who the fuck is the best or not, cos even if I don't relate to all the songs the Beatles has put out, for some reason they are my favourite and that makes a difference to me compared to the ones that gives me a emotional connection like, Joy Division. So, when asked, why the Beatles? WHY THE HELL NOT
The 1950's ended when president JFK was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22 1963. We were still mourning when the Beatles came to the U.S. in Feb of '64. I remember well seeing them on the Ed Sullivan Show. Man, they looked like creatures from another planet with their mop-top hair. That hair style was considered to be long!!! Back then, you either had a crew-cut, flat-top or the greasy ducktail "rockabilly" hair cut (if you were rebellious and many schools put a code on this). The 1960's began when The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show. The Beatles were trend setters, whether it was music, hair, recording techniques. The Beatles pissed off the older generation, especially with their long hair, but the teens sure loved it. No, the Beatles are not overrated because America was basically a conservative at that period, but it may look to be overrated these days. Thank god for the 1960's!!!! I LOVED it!!!!!
This is just about the most tired,generic, ignorant and demonstrably false musical statement one can make. Boy bands are manufactured by record execs. The Beatles were boyhood friends who literally toured nonstop for years and made a name for themselves growing an organic following before they were even 20, then they exploded. Literally the opposite of a boy band
McCartney is overrated. His name is bigger than his work. Lennon was the great composer, one of the greatest in history. Lennon´s music will age better than McCartney´s, because Lennon´s compositions have more pain and heaviness, and besides that, are more innovative. McCartney has often conventional and “vertical” melodies, and Lennon has both vertical and “horizontal” melodies”. The greatness of John Lennon´s music as i see it: -His increasing tension. For example I Should Have Known Better. Before Lennon, all pop music structure was AABA, where the tension decreased in the middle part B. But with Lennon the tension from the verse continued in the middle part. Besides that, in this song it is not only a key change in the transition to the middle part, it is even a little key change in it. The increasing tension was what first characterized The Beatles. The first single where the verse lacked this increasing tension was the vers melody in Can´t Buy Me Love. - Other ways of increase the tension by Lennon is to pack together several little songs. Happiness Is A Warm Gun consists of three or four songs, and Bring On The Lucie consists of three songs. -All You Need Is Love has another way: First talking, then repeating half singing, then singing, and finally the climax in chorus. -The melody does not changes, but the chords in the background. For example in Strawberry Fields Forever and in Julia the singing melody uses the same notes, but instead the accompaniment changes! Listen to Puccini. He got tired of his sang melodies in Boheme and in Tosca he composed a lot where the sang melodies are often on the same notes, but the background changes instead. The effect can be stronger. -Octave Leap. For example, in the middle part of Please Please Me, Lennon makes an octave run in “…it´s so hard to reason with YOU…”, the climax of the song. George Martin didn´t understand the quality in that. In his orchestration of it in Off The Beatle Track, Martin excludes the octave, the most important bit of the song! -Verse and resolve. Typical for Lennon is a melody followed by a resolve, for example in No Reply “…I saw the light!”…and in Girl “giiirl! giiirl!…”. Lennon said that “a good song must have climax and resolve”. -Only one chord. In Tomorrow Never Knows there is only one chord, or bass note, an innovation in pop music. In the Middle Ages it was common with that bordun note, an unchanged bass note. When Lennon played the song the first time for George Martin, Martin didn´t like it. -Whole-tone scale. Most scales have both whole step and half steps between the notes in an octave. In the verse in Norwegian Wood, there is most whole steps, and that´s like the impressionists, for example Debussy. It sounds very “clean”. -Church Modes. A Hard Day´s Night is written in the “mixolydian mode”, an ancient vocal scale, preserved in British, Irish and American folk song. -If you play the beginning of Please Please Me very fast, you can hear the similarities with the Westminster bells ringing. When Lennon was a little boy, he loved visiting the divine services. Afterwards he used to improvise anthem music. Westminster bells could unconsciously have inspired him to the beginning of Please Please Me. There is also anthem music in the beginning of All You Need Is Love: “love love love…”. -The lamentation second. A little half step up in the scale. And that´s to indicate a pain. In All You Need Is Love Lennon sings the refrain twice unchanged and then suddenly the third time, rises a little, a very expressive and important step up. That step up started in the baroque epoch, and was called The lamentation second. When Lennon played it the first time to George Martin, Martin didn´t understand it. He leaned towards McCartney and muttered: “It´s certainly repetitive”. -From darkness to light. Happiness Is a Warm Gun starts with a little melancholy, and ends with enthusiasm.-In the middle part of I Am The Walrus the darkness switches over to light: “sitting in an English garden…”. And the transition from the chaos and darkness in Revolution 9 to the light in Good Night. That is very typical in Wagner´s music. I think that temperamentally the two were similar. And I think Wagner would have loved the arrangement in Glass Onion. -Suggestive and hypnotic music. With small intervals between the notes in combination with some dissonance chord, Lennon can create a suggestive and hypnotic feeling in for example Across The Universe. It is more like Wagner than pop music. -Few notes. With few, but effective notes, Lennon can create more feeling than McCartney with all his notes, for example in If I Fell and Love. -A melody sang three times, in succession, with just a little change every time. When you hear it you can get frustrated or desperate not getting out from the melody. That we have in the middle part in I Call Your Name and in the middle part in And Your Bird Can Sing. And at the same time the melodies are stick together with a countermelody at the guitar. Rather hypnotic -Melodies without joint. An innovation. When repeating the verse melody in Any Time At All, the first note is the same note as the last note in the first verse: “…there is nothing I won´t DO if need a shoulder to cry on…” -The accompaniment doesn´t follow the vocal line. In the middle part of Hey Bulldog, the piano doesn´t follow the singer. An innovation in pop music. (The first one was Schumann in his songs). It´s a marvelous bit of beautiful piano music, but the recording isn´t good here, the piano is difficult to hear. That bit is much better heard in a demo! -The first rap song. The talking in the end of Hey Bulldog. -The most excellent and lovely melodies: The middle part of Bad to Me, the middle part of This Boy, the middle part of Yes it Is and the middle part of Nobody Loves You
Wow. Thank you for that extensive breakdown of Lennon's songwriting. I applaud you and agree with your sentiments about his abilities, both in general and compared to McCartney.
It should be realized and considered that some of their songs were pretty WEIRD back in their time ( in the 1960's ) - like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ( LSD ), I Am the Walrus, and Strawberry Fields - now THOSE were quite strange, unorthodox and unprecedented for 60's pop / rock songs. I mean, WHO in rock 'n roll or pop music had previously done songs like THOSE? .. . Chuck Berry ?
there were actually hella bands doing much "weirder" and much much more interesting stuff and they weren't "influenced" by the Beatles, but were aware of other genres; Beatles were TOTALLY and COMPLETELY "orthodox" in every way imaginable; that is why they were and still are so popular. And I used to worship the Beatles, but I've actually now listened to music from that era (1960's to early 1970's) and there are other bands w/ much broader spectrum, and waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy more musical talent. Beatles were partially manufactured, really. I prefer there solo stuff and I don't even care for that as much as I do other bands. They don't compare to the Kinks songwriting wise or even early Redbone (1970-1972) musicianship wise. Anyone w/ the internet/ stereo/ cd player can quickly discover the same. It's just a fandom.
Virginia Wilson, Next to Thin Lizzy, I would argue that the Kinks are probably the band most underrated by American listeners. But please, Ray and Dave were nowhere near the writers that John and Paul were. And they were booted off their own instruments in the studio by a session player named Jimmy Page. So I'm not buying the "waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy more musical talent" bit.
re: musical talent; wasn't talking about the Kinks there; was talking about just about any other band around, even bands not nearly as famous. I mentioned the Kinks re: songwriting talent. People just accept that the Beatles were/ are "all that," but they don't realize how manufactured pop fame can be, etc. Name any Beatles' song that you think is grand lyrically, Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, w/e, nice tunes, those are probably two of the more elevated songs, but for someone who actually is familiar w/ the likes of Waterloo Sunset, Shangri-La, the entire album Arthur, there's no comparison re; songwriting talent imo, but it's probably a bit of a matter of taste; I only mentioned the Kinks lyrically b/c they were also British and kind of pop-ish
Anyone who stop and listen carefully to The Beatles carefully, chronologically, all the albums, will discover that it´s a band that can´t be overrated. They are genius, Nothing on music´s earth have never got close to them, they are simply unbelivable.
Not overrated. They are alone up on a pedestal for a reason. Not only for songwriting superiority but for being innovative, musically, socially, and fashion.They were THE culture of the 1960s after they arrived. And this was a WORLD WIDE phenomenon, not only here in the US. When somebody mentions the 1960s today the first thing that comes to most people's minds is ... The Beatles! You both have long hair, you can trace that directly back to them! Back then everybody watched them to see what clothes they were wearing, what hair style they had, what instruments they were playing, and copied them. The first band to play a stadium concert. Even bands that have a wacky sense of humor and do silly or odd things in the name of fun can be traced back to THEM. And still one of the top selling acts (in record and merchandise sales) in the world, even though they haven't been around in 46 years! No, they are not overrated, and they sit alone up on a pedestal, and rightfully so. Because NO other band has ever had the worldwide impact that they did, nor will they ever. The Beatles were not a once in a lifetime kind of thing. They were a once in a WORLD kind of thing. The likes of which will NEVER be seen again! Except for maybe Justin bieber ... NOT!!
Talking to someone who screams The Beatles are over rated is like talking to a flat earther. You can throw all the facts, musical history and theory and all that goes right over their heads.
Well..to be a flat earther you have to be stupid first. To believe the earth is flat you must have a reason, observation or fact to arrive at the conclusion that "the earth is not a "ball" but flat like a pancake". The "Beatles are overrated" believers too have a reason. observation or fact to base their conclusion on. And they are stupid too. And these two (Polyphonic Press) are probably going to be the same...
My esteemed friends. Please note that John Lennon most definitely did NOT tour solo. Five or six individual fund raising concerts but nothing remotely resembling a tour.
As a 16 year old listening to Strawberry Fields Forever and a day in the life I remember thinking that my already favourite band in the world had become the best in the Cosmos, the universe and everything! My musical tastes as a 69 year old may have widened but my appreciation of the Beatles remains the same. Overrated? Don't make me laugh!
@simon templer I've looked at ur favourite u watch so many vids on the beatles its kinda sad, the stones are like backstreet boys compared to the beatles
They were at the right place at the right time- that's all. It's your parents/grandparents/boomers nostalgia and sentimental attachment to those decades that have influenced their kids, the generation(s) after them, and the industry to think and/or feel a certain way about them aka putting them on this pedestal as ''the best band ever.''
You are a naive fool. Read my comment above. There are far too many reasons that they are considered the greatest band ever. You don't have to like them to realize their impact on music. They were a phenomenon for a reason. I list quite a few things but certainly not all things that made them the phenomenon that they were.
Sgt. Pepper's was recorded Dec 1966 to April 1967. Released June 1, 1967 Days of Future Passed was recorded October-November 1967. Released Nov 10-11 1967
Dear McSpankey: At @ 7:28 the guy in the clip on the left wonders if The Moody Blues had the first "concept album" with Days of Future Passed. My comment addresses the chronology of those 2 LPs and shows that Sgt. Pepper was released 5 months before Days of Future Passed. That is the the "thing", as in the word "anything", which my comment addressed. I hope that clarifies the slightly cryptic nature of my comment from 1 month ago. If you scroll down, you will see other people addressing the same issue. I agree with one of the posts that The Mothers of Invention's Freak Out from June 1966 is the first so-called, "concept album".
Put aside the record sales. They are not over rated when it comes to the style and writing and the studio sound and album cover and which many a many other bands followed. You'll be amazed to see how many top performers from the past and present cover their songs. Fans make a band over rated. Musicians who praise their work do not.
@William Magee It feels unwarranted to justify Penny Lane and Strawberry fields style of music to at the the time kind of music at the time . I tend not too get deep into the comments but that's my point
6:40 exactly! the beatles are the most overrated band of all time because they are still put on a pedestal for no sensible reason. doesn't mean they were bad. but nothing about them was especially good, not their lyrics, not their voices, not their instrumental skills and not the combination of all those things. I mean "she loves me yeah, yeah, yeah..." or "I've got a ticket to ride..." or "I wanna hold your hand..." what the f... One can understand that thegirls of that time were going crazy for that bs just like those of today are going nuts for the back street boys and so on, but other than that... hence, overrated boyband.
Imagine trying to criticise The Beatles by only talking about songs from the first three years of their career. You also conveniently leave out almost all of their work from 1965 to 1969. Don’t talk about something you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
We now remember composers from the XV, XVI, XVI centuries like Vivaldi, Beethoven, Mozart etc. In 200 years, only THE BEATLES will be remembered. There must be a reason
You guys coined it well. People may overrate them as pure musicians. (There are, for example, many flashier technically skillful drummers than Ringo.) But then, underrate how good they actually were as musicians. (While many other drummers played beats, Ringo played songs.) That's a lesson most young hotshots need to learn. Their greatness lies in the fact that their overall impact on the music industry was staggering. Music was created, marketed & appreciated differently because of their influence. They may not have been the most skillful or first to do a particular thing [example: the concept album or trippy lyrics]. But when they did it, much of the industry followed their lead. They were also leaders of 2 R&R sub-genres: the Mersey Beat & psychedelic sound). They were the archetype for the self-contained rock combo - that writes all/most of their own music & plays all/most of their own instruments in the studio. As songwriters, they have so many high points & many of their songs have become standards on par with Cole Porter or Irving Berlin. (Ex.: Yesterday, Something, Eleanor Rigby). During Beatlemania they would literally have up to 5 songs in the top ten - simultaneously. They were more than a rock band. They were like a worldwide cultural event that lasted several years. I am old enough to remember the Ed Sullivan appearance. Trust me - it was a big deal. So was their break up. There have been many great musicians, artists & acts. Some are clearly better at certain things than the Beatles ever were. (Rush are better musicians & Mariah Carey may have broken some sales record or something like that.) But for sheer cultural & industry impact/influence, it is hard to think of an act/band/artist who can rival the Beatles. Not even Michael Jackson at his peak. And he was a pretty big deal too.
Nah Michael Jackson at his peak eclipsed the beatles. Beatles are a European phenomenon while Michael was a WORLDWIDE phenomenon. Worldwide Geniuses world records named him the most famous and most successful entertainer of all time. Outside of the U.S and Britain and other english speaking countries etc Michael was and is more well known.
In Quincy Jones opinion (27 Grammy Awards): 'The Beatles were the worst musicians in the world'. In my opinion, music productions don´t appear out of the blue. There must be a right combination of engeneering, arranging, producing, marketing and difusion. The beatles were the best-selling product of the 60s, they were a boy band, good looking guys that were loved by the media.. They were good at bringing ideas and raw compositions to the studio where a great team of musical production transformed them into megatunes. They sure changed the cultural perception of that era mostly for all the media coverage they received and not for intrinsic reasons. They do have some esplendind tunes that I enjoy but I know they didn´t crafted on their own (as geniouses) as many people think. They are not the founders of Pop or Rock, but they certainly have a place in history and should be regarded and pondered more as a cultural phenomena than a musical outspring of talent and genious.
The Beatles are not overrated, in fact they are underrated because they don't get credit for how good theirmusic is and how they changed the face of music, radio stations don't play a lot of beatles just 4 songs that they play over again, which gets me angry!
BeatlesBoy 1234 They did not make those songs just for the money. In fact, those songs were made all thanks to 4 talented musicians who made it all possible
The beatles made the first music videos, the first reverb song ( I feel fine), first sitar(norwegian wood) , the first concept album ( sgt. peppers) , the first artistic album cover( sgt. peppers) first psychedelic songs, first rock and roll group transmitted overseas ( hey jude,love). They chose not to play live because no one could hear their music( screaming fans). People were anxious to hear their next album. Never has a band had such impact on society.
The Beatles is overrated they are one of most iconic artists ever. But there is nothing special about there Music i would take almost any metal band today over The Beatles
The ignorance of Beatles fans is amazing to me The Beatles has copied so many artists that it is not even funny and all the times the Beatles have been in Court for copying other artists just proves this
When you have a tipe of music that's is played for Folk, Jazz, Blues, Pop, Metal, Prog musicians all over the world, half of century latter, as a hobby, you don't need to talk much more about It. I mean, Aretha Franklin, George Benson, Ray Charles, Marvin Gaye, Sinatra, Elvis, Portnoy, Paul Gilbert... Even in Brazil, the Brazilian Jazz musicians when are united, use to play Beatles songs to have some fun. That's all we need to know.
The Beatles were at the right place at the right time. They were good musicians and better businessmen. They took advantage of the new generations (at the time) need for a musical voice they could relate to. Not to take away the fact that they were as a group excellent musicians.
MuDfLapP And they didn't just care about the money. I do remember hearing "Wonderful Christmas time" at the Festival of Lights a couple years ago, I thought it was awesome. That song isn't about the money even though a lot of people (except me) hate it
Well, for ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole freaking ERA - The Beatles, Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and over adulated to the point of annoyance.
moody blues days of future passed was released after pepper nov 67 Lennon didnt do a major solo tour after the beatles. The Beatles were truly a phenomenon they were pioneers they produced an astonishing body of work in barely 7 years! not too shabby I think.
The fact that we are still talking about the Beatles almost 50 years after they split up tells us that there must be something very special about their music. We still listen to it today.
Its like the old saying. You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time. You will be found out eventually if you are not the real deal. You don't sell One Billion records if you're no good.
+Dick Spanner If that's the criteria for being good. Then I guess all those trashy modern singers are equally good or even better than the Beatles since they sell so well.
Dick Spanner You comment is a little vaugue what do you mean by "You don't sell one billion records if you're no good" The amount of records sold doesn't define a band. You can find much more technical bands with years of practice and study exploring new playing techniques and compositional techniques such as modal interchange and negative harmony with various exotic scales and other stuff I couldn't even beging to comprehend. To sell alot of records you don't have to make objectivley good music, you just have to be commercial and popular maybe with a record label supporting you with advertising and marketing. Pop music isn't popular because it's good, it's subjectivley good because it's popular. There is too much money involved in it; stopping people from trying anything too risky or new.
Which book did these two guys read? You cannot say the Beatles are over-rated unless you can tell me what you are comparing them to. And since you cannot compare anyone to them because what they did was so unique, we leave it all to history.
Every single fucking list they're number 1. They have the most number one singles. They're called the most influential band ever ( when they only influenced Oasis and Tame Impala in reality ). What more do you want?
Influenced the Beach boys,David Bowie,Pink floyd,Bee gees,the Who,Ramones,Elton John,Bruce Springsteen,Radiohead,Nirvana,Soundgarden,Black sabbath,Elvis costello,Foo fighters,the Cure,Blondie,Led zeppelin,My morning jacket,Beck the list goes on and on.EVERY artist after them was directly or indirectly influenced by them so they can never be overrated.
Right place, right time, right era, right talent, right image, right sound, right charisma, right message, right influence, right personalities, right characters, right musicians, right creatively: so many aspects. Everything in music has had such an impact on music and styles of rock music thereafter, innovation and re-inventing sounds. This magical formula is so elusive that few bands ever achieve such popularity and fame i.e Led Zeppelin. Same comments can be said for Led Zeppelin, but LZ had magic formula and which takes many attributes to achieve. You have created an odd debate, if they were underrated there would be little to no discussion, underrated are folks who achieve little recognition for the work and efforts they produce, if they are overrated it is because a band has become so popular that its impact cannot be ignored they become overrated because they are so popular that the minority who disagree will class something as overrated. By posting a discussion are they underrated would mean that no-one ever heard of the Beatles, by being overrated you are effectively acknowledging they are so popular even 50 years after. Few discussion would be posted about the Four Tops. The Beatles are legend which is fact that cannot be changed whether you think they are underrated or overrated is an opinion. I like Marmite which I think is underrated but many class it as being overrated. When a musical act achieves a legendary status underrated does not apply, and overrated only serves to highlight an opinion contrary to popular belief or opinion. When a legend is created, underrated or overrated are irrelevant descriptors with no qualifications.
jolludiggernick - I think I disagree. Lots of people have had records outsell Beatles stuff, but they always disappear within a short time. Beatles music has endured enough that lots of bands cover their songs every night night at bars, clubs, and onstage in front of thousands of people. We're STILL talking about the Beatles because people love their music. You don't need to be the BEST musician to be the most popular or most beloved. Maybe people have put them on a pedestal, but they put out songs that people loved and still do. EVERY band is trying to do the same.
If the Beatles had any other drummer other than Ringo, they would have sounded completely different. His signature beat was just as integral to the overall 'Beatle sound' as George's guitar work and Paul's melodic bass lines. Props for recognizing that.
One thing to consider about The Beatles is where they came from and how they started. To understand this think of early Rock n Roll in America where the greats started such as Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry etc. They had everything already there for them to develop their great music, a history of the blues with great musicians already on their door step playing in clubs and recording music. They could see great musicians play, buy their records and listen to them on the radio. All The Beatles had to learn their craft were a few records brought into Liverpool by sailors from America and replaying these on crappy old record players to work out everything themselves about this foreign music. From this The Beatles were able to develop their own great music. To say their early music was 'okay' is really not appreciating the great achievement of creating this music from borrowed scratchy records.
All musicians copy from the past, Chuck & Buddy got ideas from people like Leadbelly & Woodie Guthrie, The Beatles took ideas from ballad & musical show writers as well , they wrote so many different styles..
@bodensick yes the Beatles are way way way overrated there music is garbage I can never get there music there’s way better bands The Rolling Stones are way better no song Beatles Satisfaction Jumpin Jack Flash Under My Thumb Let’s Spend The Night Together Brown Sugar you can’t always get what you want etc etc the Beatles can never write songs like that they weren’t even around that long they only made 13 albums the stones made 31 albums and there still together the stones must be better and hard to believe the Beatles are number 1 it has to be a lie
For them, six years was a long time to tour. It must have been like one long tour, from the Cavern Club to Hamburg up to Candlestick Park they were constantly busy working(Touring/Playing Live, Writing, Interviews, Travelling...).
Most people who call them "overrated" or "suck" are punks who like thrash metal or rap / hip hop "music" or buffs of dumb shit 1950's rock and roll, and I don't consider THEM very reliable.
Rap music sucks, i agree with you. But Heavy Metal is FAR SUPERIOR to any beatles song. Are you telling me that "Love Me Do" is better than "Enter Sandman" or "Thunderstruck"? Those are real rock songs. The beatles couldn't sing rock music for shit.
Well speaking of Heavy Metal, consider the EARLY founders of that genre, like Sabath or Deep Purple, . .. THEY spoke very respectfully of The Beatles and even acknowledged them as influences.
Ian Findlay Respectful and influence are completely different words. If you listen to Sabbath, Metallica, Iron Maiden, etc, there is NO trace of beatle influence in those songs. most heavy metal was influenced mainly by the blues, but a bit more amped up and faster paced.
It is nice to see younger guys discussing the Beatles regardless of the final opinion they arrive at it is good to see open discourse about The Greatesst band that ever lived one thing folks need to realise is The Beatles didn't have alot to use as guide posts & Blue Prints for themselves Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck berry, Little richard & Everyly bro etc... amongst the list of what served as inspiration & Influence for the Beatles The beatles wound up writing music far more progressive than the music that inspired them in the first place (especially since thei music went well beyond The i-IV-V Blue progressions of the time period of 1956-1960 when the Beatles were still developing their stylistic aproach & I feel they owe as Much to Hogey Carmichael as they do to Elvis Arron Pesley, the use of 9th chourds, diminshed & Augmented chords in their song craft was unheard of in early Rock Music the use of Jazz voicings in a pop medium was ground breaking if not entirely earth shattering & really they music industry was like a tale of 2 worlds The world pre beatles & Post beatles & for amercan Music it was so damn unsettling there are video collections on youtube that give the top songs of every year dating as far back as 1949 up to present I havenet seen any that document prior to 1949 but when talking bout beatles Music all you need to do is watch the videos for 1962-1965 to see just what the Beatles actually did to the music industry just by cause & effect of the acts that followed their Lead once The beatles becam a viable & copyable band it is astounding
WTF. The songwriting is bullshit, they mostly repeat the same two lines over and over. Their production and other technical innovations were great indeed, but songwriting never...
briane ivanitski They're only doing this because Apple Corps charges people with thousands of dollars for their songs. It's like they only care about the money. Some of Paul McCartney's solo work has been in several films, and we wouldn't have that if the copyright system we're completely broken
the beatles were a GREAT live band no question about it....the bbc sessions are tremendous and I believe it trumps their studio work....those songs on the bbc were done with primitive equipment and recording the group made every second count they were an incredible live act....thanks for the video
Carlos Hernandez you called Beatles overrated because they are far away better than your favorite band be true to yourself Beatles are the greatest band that ever exist and no one came close.
Carlos Hernandez you called Beatles overrated because they are far away better than your favorite band be true to yourself Beatles are the greatest band that ever exist and no one came close.
The Beatles are the best band ever. No band has ever come close to doing what they did in 10 years & I don't think they ever will. In 10 years the Beatles changed music forever & left a ever lasting legacy. Look at albums like Rubber Soul & revolver, most bands will never ever come close to releasing an album as good as those. Their musicianship was second to none & that is why they were able to make some of the best albums ever & write countless amazing songs. Infact when many talk about the best albums of all time they include Sgt Pepper, Rubber soul, Revolver, The White Album & mabey more which can't be said for any other band. They released the first all original album A hard Days Night (my favourite) & released the most diverse album of all time The white album. They are also one of the most innovative bands of all time even tho just in their later years breaking lots of musical barriers & being the first to experiment with several genres. They have influenced just about every good band & artist that came after them & even lots at the time in one way or another. When you consider everything the'yve done for music how can you not think their the best band ever even if you don't like their music.
it wasn't a 4 Track for Sgt. Pepper it was a 8 track i've got copys of the paper work in my Recording The Beatles book, they used a 4 track from 63-66 then a 8 Track from 67-70.
'Sgt. Pepper' (1967) used multiple four-track recorders. During the 'White Album' sessions (1968), they upgraded to eight-track. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band#Recording_and_production en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_(album)#Recording
From a neutral standpoint, lets look at the facts. The Beatles have sold the most albums of any artist, they have the most number one hits of any artists ever, and they have the most number one albums of any artist ever. So they are the most successful ever. In terms of influence, they changed music more than any artist ever has in history. No one even comes close. Beyond music, their haircuts, their clothes, the drugs they used, everything they did changed pop culture and life. So no, they are not overrated. Also, look up any list of the greatest artists of all time. The Beatles are number one on every single one. its just haters that want to be cool or something. Its kind of not even a contest as who is the GOAT.
The Beatles started recording Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in November of 1966, and it was released on the 26th of May, 1967. The Moody Blues started recording Days of Future Passed in May of 1967, and it was released on the 10th of November, 1967. Sorry to burst your bubble...
2:22 There was no autotune, but there was "double-tracking" to improve the vocals. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tracking And they used cut-and-paste to make a combination of the best takes. The Beatles were pioneers in using studio tricks.
What constitutes "overrated" a song? their look? their style? their music? If it's their music are you talking about Help or A Day In The Life? Meet The Beatles or Abbey Road ? Have you ever learned to play a Beatles song or do just think you are above them?
For ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole fucking ERA - Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and overadulated to the point of annoyance.
For you two guys and the younger generations who didn't live to experience Beatlemania: The Beatles were a once in several lifetimes phenomenon. They were great songwriters, singers and musicians. Their producer George Martin was the essential component to their recording success, but they were an exciting live band as well. See Ron Howard's film Eight Days a Week. Their personalities were also critical to their appeal: they were intelligent, funny, charming. Their appearance - the Beatle haircuts, boots and suits - influenced fashion and culture. The chemistry between them was powerful. The timing of their arrival on he music scene and in the US in February 1964, several months after the assassination of JFK, was also a crucial element in their success. Their influence on countless musicians like Jeff Lynne, all the British invasion bands, Elton John, Billy Joel, simply everybody in their generation and several generations afterward, cannot be measured.
Sales numbers don't lie; they were popular (and still are), but that alone doesn't mean they were great musicians, or great composers, just that they were popular. Without George Martin's production, Geoff Emerick (etc) engineering skills, Brian Epstein's managerial skills and even Dave Dexter Jr's ability to recognize what would sell in the USA, and make changes to the albums accordingly, I highly doubt that the Beatles would have attained the success they did. They were simply the right act at the right time. Yes, they did have talent, but... read how Paul had to play lead guitar in recording sessions because George couldn't get it right, etc etc. They composed nifty pop tunes, but none of their music compares with the likes of Yes' Close to the Edge, Tales From Topographic Oceans, or I'm Running, Genesis' Lamb or Domino, any of Stan Kenton's Adventure albums and a good portion of Sting's compositions for a start. None of the three Beatle composers have ever come close to any of this. Yes, I was a fan, being a teen ager in the 60s, but have gone on to discover what great bands and great musicians sound like; such as Stan Kenton's and Buddy Rich's bands, Frank Sinatra, Cab Calloway, Yes, Genesis, etc. Paul the greatest bassist of all times? Hardly, More like Chris Squire, Eddie Safranski, Sting,.... George the best guitarist? Think again. Not even close to Andy Summers, Trevor Rabin, Glen Campbell, David Gillmour, etc etc. John on rhythm? nope. Ringo on drums? Not when you have Buddy Rich, Shelly Manne, Neil Pert, Ed Shaughnessy, Stuart Copland, etc etc. First ever music videos? Nope, those go way back to the 30s. Most great big bands as well as jazz and bebop bands were making them. Concept albums, Nope. Sgt Pepper wasn't even a concept album, even though it is often referred to as such. Nearly ever Sinatra album was a concept album. Tricks in the studio such as backwards tapes, etc? Not even close. Frank Zappa for one very much predates the Beatles' use of studio tricks. So for as much as I still enjoy listening to some of the Beatles music from time to time, they were not the greatest by a long shot. More like a very successful boy band from the 60s.
I have to say that I do think that The Beatles are quite a bit overrated, yes. Now don't get me wrong here, by "overrated" I don't mean to say that they're actually really terrible or that they "suck". You understand, I'm not denigrating them ( like some idiots here are trying very hard to do ). I still respect them as talents and do like a number of their songs. But I simply agree that they really do recieve TOO MUCH much attention and adulation! It's really superfluous, and often get's quite annoying, you know? I'm not saying that they're "the most" overrated either, cause there are plenty of other famous musical acts besides them who I think receive that same overt and annoying degree of fame and adulation ( like namely Elvis, Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Nirvana ), so it ain't just the Beatles with me.
It seems you are naming some of the most popular musicians / bands of all time as being overrated. Is that because of their wide influence on music and other musicians? That is generally why they are so highly rated and frequently talked about. What musicians / bands do you like the most? Are they less well known ? Just interested in different points of view.
Lindsy Marshal You are equating being overrated with being the most famous or popular. That's typical behaviour from someone yearning to be musically different. People want to be different so they look to the alternative and shun the mainstream. You may find it "annoying", but so does everyone else. That is not the same thing as being overrated. For you to be overrated your talent or material has to come into question (and compared to more "deserving" artists). Was Hendrix really a great guitar player? Can you name a better guitarist that had better music, look etc...
@Penelope O' Donnell Well "overrated" also often means an act who's so famous and popularly known and loudly exonerated that their overinflated reputation and celebrity overshadows and obscures others that may be as deserving, if not even more so. As for the question you pose at the end there, .. . maybe Link Wray, Rocky Erickson, Robert Fripp, and Eddie Van Halen.
Well, they had 13 albums in 7 years... and NONE of the albums were "throwaways". Plus the white album was a double album, and they had two albums worth of singles that weren't released on albums... so that's 16 albums of material in 7 years, not to mention 3 movies, a documentary (let it be) and constant touring in the early days. 2nd: They all wrote songs (ringo only a few), and three out of the four members consistently wrote NUMBER ONE singles. Their 3rd guy (harrison) was writing freaking number ones when he wasn't playing lead guitar. Meanwhile Jagger or Richards without eachother can't even write one song, let alone any of the other members of the stones. No band has 75 percent of the members writing number ones by themselves. Really crazy to think 3 members out of a four piece band all were writing hits... not just hits, but number ones. 3rd item: Some of the best harmonies ever to be produced by any band. Whether it be 3 part harmonies on many songs, or Lennon & McCartney, or McCartney and Harrison. All three of them had great voices. How many bands even have more than one member that can sing? (let alone many members writing hits). 4th: The Beatles pretty much invented being able to write about any topic you want, use any instrument you want, and experiment sonically in the studio. Nonsense lyrics, tape loops, instruments that had never been recorded on pop albums, and using full orchestras. No rock/pop band had ever used a full orchestra before the beatles. 5th: The only band ever to hold the top 5 spots in the billboard charts at the same time. Will never be done again. 6th: Harrison, McCartney, and Lennon all could play multiple instruments.. namely McCartney who played every instrument himself on his first solo album. McCartney would be considered a great pianist if that was his ONLY instrument. Lennon also could play piano very well. McCartney even played drums on a couple Steve Miller Band tracks... let alone being one of the most melodic and great bass players of all time. Yes, the bass player of the beatles could shred guitar, write beautiful pieces on piano, play drums, just in time for fish and chips and a pint. So compared to other bands accomplishments and talent... how are the Beatles overrated? Oh, cause you only like a few of their songs. I suggest having a couple glasses of wine, maybe a J if you smoke, and actually putting some effort into exploring their music, 90 percent of which is brilliant, and the other 10 percent okay to very good. (did I mention it was all done in 7 years? I suppose I did.) Even if you can't get into the music, you have to admit their talent and accomplishments in such a short period of time. Like a blink of an eye amount of time. Most bands get three, maybe four, okay albums out in 7 years.
When I was a kid I taught that the beatles were good but not amazing. But then I went to vegas and saw the love consert from cirque du soleil and it was amazing!!! I discoverd the best songs i had ever heard before like Tomorow never knows and I want you( she's so heavy) and now it's my favourite band of all time.
Every album was great. Just about every song on every album as well. That automatically puts them in outstanding territory. They're cover songs are better than the originals. They were and always will be a natural phenomenon. Rock Gods. A religion could literally develop from their art. It's that powerful.
Beatles fan here. I think they've been underrated by many people, and I also think they might have done better on some songs, but if they had we wouldn't have the music we do now. No matter what our personal preferences or likes/dislikes are in music, there is simply no denying that the Beatles are the Gold Standard of modern music. There is no escaping their influence on music. Fact is, they didn't need to be the absolute best musicians - they had to be good enough to do their songs well and make them popular, and there is just simply no ignoring that they did just that. The Beatles are actually in their very own music category and VERY few bands have achieved that in the decades since the Beatles. I mean, here we are 50 yrs later discussing their music and talents, and their music is still on the radio and being covered by other bands ! I think that if you start looking at the subject any closer that that it quickly descends into a lot of pointless stuff.
Interesting video lads! I grew up in their home town of Liverpool and they were incredibly popular here as you could imagine. I've never liked them too much in the last few years they've grown on me and become my favourite band
Sgt Pepper's was released in May of 67 Days of Future Passed was released in November of 67 They had very many firsts They introduced complex chords to pop music They used clever lyrics They offered beautiful and complex harmonies They were the first to: use music videos record an album of their own material record a song that was too complex to play live perform in a sports stadium have enough fans to fill a sports stadium I think they used feedback and fuzz before anyone else. They arrived on the world scene in 64 They stopped touring in 66 They broke up in 70 And they're still the most talked about band on the internet They still have the most #1 hits They have the most diamond albums The Stones have been going for over 50 years and still haven't caught up They were fun, and witty, and irreverent... They had three very successful films, and one bad one At least two spoof films were made about them - The Ruttles films Every album was groundbreaking. Every album introduced something new to their listeners. Especially from Rubber Soul on but even the early records. I don't know what your criteria are but, no one comes close to doing what the Beatles did. Many have tried.
I would have to say that in my opinion, they are incredibly overrated. I never listened to any Beatles album aside from Sgt. Pepper's which I borrowed from a friend in high school, and I was not really impressed with it. But what is really significant is that any time I've heard a song on classic rock radio or adult contemporary, etc., that I was, having been born in the early '80s, unaware was a Beatles song at the time, I have found them to be totally unimpressive and assumed they were songs by some marginal band from the sixties, until later discovering that they were in fact Beatles songs.
sam sender Are you kidding me? The only decent one on that list is A Day In The Life, and only if that Paul McCartney section is cut out of the middle. Coincidentally, the only John Lennon song I like that I am aware of is How Do You Sleep, which George Harrison nearly managed to ruin by way of his horrific solo in the middle of it. He should have dropped the three of them far sooner.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 McCartney was the best musician of the bunch, though Lennon had the best ideas and best voice. (Agreed, How Do You Sleep is amazing.) But, yeah, your comments are silly. The list of great Beatles songs would have about 100 names on it. They simply recorded some of the best pop/rock songs ever. Off top of my head: Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, Rain, She Said She Said, A Day in the Life, Happiness is a Warm Gun, And You're Bird Can Sing, Here There and Everywhere, Rain, Ticket to Ride, Paperback Writer, Come Together, Day Tripper, In My Life, and on and on ....
J. Maggio "But, yeah, your comments are silly." No, my comments are from someone who probably has far more of a relationship and sensitivity to music than do you. "The list of great Beatles songs would have about 100 names on it." That does not mean anything. Who determines what a "great song" is? "They simply recorded some of the best pop/rock songs ever." That is nothing more than an opinion, and I do not understand why so many of you think that yours are more valid than mine. "Off top of my head:" your opinion about the songs you list. I'll give you my opinion of them too: "Strawberry Fields Forever" - Mediocre "Tomorrow Never Knows" - Semi-okay, but not music I would listen to "Rain" - Shit "She Said She Said" - Sickening "Happiness is a Warm Gun" - Ugh! "And You're Bird Can Sing" - Again, partly okay but not something I would listen to "Here There and Everywhere" - Another one of those mediocre pieces of shit I have probably heard and thought it was the one hit of some group of nobodies. "Ticket to Ride" - Sucks "Paperback Writer" - Horrid "Come Together" - Mediocre "Day Tripper" - Terrible and corny "In My Life" - Horrible Hallmark nonsense with instrumentals that make me physically ill.
@@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 sorry this is 4 years late but your comment made me smile....I'd like to think that these people are narrow minded.... Metallica and Mastodon are my favorite bands(metal) but I also like some QOTSA, RHCP, STP, AIC, Soundgarden, Tool, Pantera, Trivium, Incubus. Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd made better music..... I understand if someone says any of the bands I mentioned is their favorite cause I see that reason behind it......The Beatles is just simple music to sing along to, appeals to everyone, it doesn't require genius to write(as many claim) the fact that they wrote 13 albums in 7 years and the first half of their albums are fucking garbage speaks for itself
Beatles fans are the absolute worst. If anyone criticizes their precious Fabbies, then they have to be stupid, have no taste, are trolls, or are trying to act superior (the article takes all these approaches). Could the Beatles play well live? Aside from recollections from people who remember the Hamburg days, there is little evidence. Could they jam? Not really. Could they play a simple blues number convincingly? Except for "Yer Blues", which sounds like a parody, no. Were they able to play jazz? Nope, unless "When I'm 64" counts, which it shouldn't. Were they the first to put feedback on a record? Nope, no matter how many times Lennon claimed it. Were they better than the Moody Blues? Probably. But not necessarily better than the Stones or Kinks. Does all this mean I hate the Beatles? No, they were good. But they do not represent the pinnacle of musical achievement (thank God), they were not perfect, and their fans' insistence in shutting down all discussion beyond fawning does the band a real disservice. Beatles fans have notoriously narrow and conservative taste too. Most haven't heard enough music to be qualified to say if something is overrated or not.
Appreciate what you have man, all 90% of people listen to today are Ariana Grande, those DJs, Drake and Rihanna. Most Beatles fans on the Internet are under the age of 25 (obviously enough), which is something that you should take into consideration. I, myself, have to confess, am not that much of a professional on music yet, but you need also to take into account that not growing up with the 60s or the 50s music is an important reason to why we stick to the more mainstream classical rocks tracks. If you were born in an earlier, decade, you probably knew a thing or two about artists of that era you didn't even like. For example, I have a clear idea of Bieber's music, heck, I know about 20 of his songs but I'm not even a fan. The gist is, you cannot blame young people for sticking to the mainstream acts when most don't know how to make their way through the less popular artists, as they weren't raised with them. Few kids get to grow up in a musical house. Now, that was kind of irrelevant in comparison to what the gist of your comment was, but, no matter what your opinion is, everyone enjoys different things and the variety in perspectives is no sin if you are being respectful. In all honestly, the Beatles are vocally more pleasing to my ears, but I got to give the Stones a point for certain things in their instrumentation and aura in general. As I previously mentioned, however, I am yet in a primitive state in terms of knowledge, so I need to do a better dig on the Stones before jumping onto conclusions. What would your suggestions be?
Answer honestly,if you just heard a Beatles song for the first time without knowing they are considered an amazing band,would be able to discern their greatness? Anyone that listens to The Beatles since, say the 80's knew beforehand that he's listening to something that society considers amazing,so obviously he was effected by it to find that greatness in it When you listen to any music you don't just listen to the music you experience the subjective reputation that music received by the society you are brought in. You know beforehand that they are considered :legend,geniuses,amazing So you look for it because it's fun to worship artists,and believe in something outstanding Music,and art in general is the most subjective thing there is sort of,so it can be malleable within you to something genius or shit so easily Therefore its really easy for fame, to change how an artist is perceived by the public For example:no one thought The Beatles are something special during all the time they played in clubs,in Hamburg,In Liverpool, they were just considered a good RocknRoll band. Even George Martin thought they were just average singers,and they didn't pass the Decca audition,That's because that the Beatles myth didn't exist then :) btw,I love them,but they are just human beings after all :) its unlikely that out of the 14 billion people that lived since the 60's those 4 are just beyond everyone...its more likely that they are just a great band that was blown up by the public because of the need to worship musicians that was so prevalent in the 60s :)
yes they are only reason they are so big is cause most of america loves them and it pisses me off that there is some much better bands that have come from britain who america have never heard of
Jim Marley Pink Floyd isn’t recognized enough honestly. Idk if you listen to them but they were around the same time and when Pink Floyd began, the Beatles were just a pop band. I truly think Pink Floyd inspired the Beatles to become what they are mostly recognized for, sgt pepper. Like so many other bands from their time are better. So I agree with you, the bands surrounding them had just as much influence
They were actually young MEN in their TWENTIES at the time you jack ass. Besides, rock and roll has always been associated with YOUTH pretty much, you didn't know THAT?
Firstly dumb fuck, the members of the Beatles were not exactly BOYS, they were young MEN in their twenties. And the term "boy band" wasn't coined till the late 90's and referred distinctly to certain groups like N Sync and Backstreet Boys and THOSE groups actually were much more derivative and reminiscent of r&b all-vocal groups from the 50's like The Platters, Four Tops and Temptations than The Beatles.
I don't think so but so what time has been the ultimate judge. If you dont like them then fair enough but they did so much in a short amount of time that most people could at least find something they like.
"Days of Future Passed" was released five months after "Sgt. Pepper". The concept album that was released in '66 was Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention's "Freak Out".
It was Paul who wanted the huge concert to finish off the Get Back sessions, John agreed, and George vetoed it and only begrudgingly did the rooftop concert. John did not extensively tour in the early '70s -- he had a few concert appearances at specific venues.
But you're spot on about Ringo being a solid drummer who played to the song. The guy's like a freaking metronome.
What makes 'Freak Out!' a concept album? What is the concept?
Sgt Pep was not a concept Album.
@@alfching2499 C'mon dude it basically was, It was about a band (sgt peppers) which starts and ends with those tracks, sure the songs didn't all fit together but you're splitting hairs really
really there's five Beatles, George Martin was a gift from god to the band. 3 great song writers and Martin adding all his beautiful tapestry thru The Songs. Genius
Absolutely - George Martin was extremely important to the success of The Beatles. Amazing that he could go from producing classical and comedy albums, to producing The Beatles through all their phases.
Also Martin added orchestration when asked for it (such as I am the Walrus), but let the band shine by itself when that's what they wanted. Martin also contributed to the songs in certain ways, such as suggesting the "Please Please Me" should be played at a much faster tempo, and once they tried it that way, they had several other hits with fast tempo songs. Martin also wrote and played the keyboard part of "In My Life" (on piano, but sped up to sound like a harpsichord).
What is often overlooked is that The Beatles introduced harmonic complexity into pop/rock music, and that is one of the main reasons why their songs were so effective. When the hairs on the back of your neck stand up when music moves you it is often because of some ingenious harmonic idea within the music. Lennon and (especially) McCartney were geniuses at using harmony that way.
Now that most pop music is just standard major and (if you're lucky) a minor chord, and most rock music is just pentatonic/blues scale stuff over standard changes, it's no surprise that The Beatles, and also the likes of The Beach Boys, are still hugely popular.
saxfreak01 Harmonies by the Beach Boys leave The Beatles sounding like Perry Como. Comparing these 2 bands for me is like comparing attractiveness & beauty, so similar & hard to choose between. I prefer The Beach Boys because of the complexity of their music especially the harmonies. Another band this time soooooo underrated. The Beatles are probably still my favourite band though.
Beach Boys and the Everly Brothers have already been doing this stuff before Beatles did. Stop revising music history please.
@@glennspringthorpe6227 I wasn't talking about vocal harmonies. Harmonic complexity and vocal harmonies are completely different things.
@@ophanimangel3143 Neither the early, pre-Beatles Beach Boys or Everly Brothers stuff was particularly complex harmonically, and in any case the Everly Brothers wrote few of their own songs up to that time as a brief check of the track listings of their albums will confirm.
When John Lennon was alive he was disappointed that commercial radio played the same 20 or so hits (singles) and a handful of album tracks if lucky..that is the problem if you are unaware of the Beatles...for me, their best were the album tracks, especially from '65 (Rubber Soul) to '69 and 80% of the B-Sides were exceptionally good. You could easily knock together 70-75 tracks that weren't A-sides and you would have another 3 or 4 greatest hits (for want of a better term) albums. I can't think of any other band or solo artist who would come that close. Bob Dylan had a good body of work spread over three or four decades, but the Beatles did it all in seven years.
Simon and Garfunkel made the 5 best albums by any group ever, and in the space of 6 years! The best pop / rock album ever is Watermark by Art Garfunkel from 1978! I only like the Please, Please Me album by The Beatles. They do nothing for me with all their later garbage albums! I like Gustav Holst, Harrison Birtwistle and Art Garfunkel. The Beatles just don't take me to far off worlds with their music! With the possible exception of Rocky Raccoon and Mother Nature's Son from their mind blowing White Album. But The Beatles' music is dull beat noise by comparison!
You're right about the B-sides: I Saw Her Standing There, We Can Work It Out, Rain, I Am the Walrus, Revolution, Don't Let Me Down, and Come Together as B-sides?? Are you kidding me?? Those are greatest hits for pretty much any other band. And I think they are better than their A-sides. I guess it's cuz I mostly prefer Lennon to McCartney.
terrythekittie - absolutely correct. couldnt have put it better myself
i always tell anyone who'll listen that i could play them 30 beatles songs theyve never heard that are absolutely awesome. not many bands you can say that for.
For ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole fucking ERA - Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and overadulated to the point of anoyance.
John Lennon's solo stuff is much better
How could the band that sold more records on the music industry be overrated? How could a band that influenced so many artists be overrated? It's like saying the speakers invention is overrated.
Their target audience just happened to be the largest generation in history, the baby boomers. Add to that the fact that they were there when the drug culture came about and the music became totally off the wall for many years. Shit even Yoko was putting out "music" that people embraced. I look at it this way, when people will buy oversized soup can labels because they are called art by the artist, than there is no definition of what is "great" art, including music, in this generation.
Because their fanbase was the largest generation in the history of the United States.
the more you sell the crappier your are
metjovi the smiths are better
metjovi mc donalds sells tonnes of shit food across the world but doesnt make it good. Bieber sells millions. He is not good
Sgt. Pepper's was released May 26, 1967. Days of Future Past was released about 6 months later, on November 10th.
Well, for ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole freaking ERA - The Beatles, Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and over adulated to the point of annoyance.
That is because all those bands you have mentioned has had a major cultural shift on the world musically, fashion wise, the way people act and behaved, drugs and were music innovators that is why people rave about them. I was like you once upon a time thinking its just oldheads force feeding us their era until I did proper research like watching interviews of that era, reading articles and listening to their music and they deserve the hype. I would go as far as saying the youth nowadays underrated them to a sickly degree and yes I agree oldheads tend to overrate them but for valid reasons
@@phistoltv5196 My real problem is that I find there are innovators from OTHER CHAPTERS of history that get effectually overshadowed and obscured because of the overinflated reputations of THOSE named acts, resulting from the incessant touting of them by the "baby boomer" Woodstock generation and "Classic rock" media establishment.
@@creepyskulldini581 I agree tho, other innovators later on took what these guys started and made it better or improved it. For example St Pepper is larely credited for the innovation in the terms of it being the first mainstream concept album but doesnt make it the best concept album in there are 30 more better concept albums than Sgt Pepper because its a vague concept
@@creepyskulldini581 But you still gotta respect your precursors, pionners regardless, that era was a very explosive creative phase after leaving the black and white no sound era. Secondly its because those people had less access to social media, technology hence why being praised for what they achieved regardless of the obstacles
John DIDN'T want to get back to being a live band... Paul did. John thought Paul's idea in that regard was nuts.
"I think water is overrated"
--- Fish
How can a band with the influence and world popularity be overrated?
It's like when Mozart died a couple of people come along and ask, "Is Mozart overrated?"
It's silly.
there must be a godwin law for naming Mozart or any classical composer when discussing music.
@CerealKiller I'm sure that most people who like the Beatles are well aware who Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is - cut the utter crap talk like THAT!
@Ben Daulton - Firstly dumb fuck, the members of the Beatles were not exactly BOYS, they were young MEN in their twenties. And the term "boy band" wasn't coined till the late 90's and referred distinctly to certain groups like N Sync and Backstreet Boys.
@Ben Daulton - No ignoramous, groups like N Sync and Backstreet Boys and THOSE groups actually were much more derivative and reminiscent of r&b all-vocal groups from the 50's like The Platters, Four Tops and Temptations than The Beatles. As for BIEBER, if you need to liken HIM to music figures from past eras, HE is more along the lines of Donny Osmond, Frankie Lymon, The Jackson Five and Lief Garret - try any of THEM instead shithead. As for "young girls raving about them", THAT wasn't JUST The Beatles - ROCK music has ALWAYS been associated with YOUTH. You didn't know THAT already?
@Ben Daulton Well how about A Day In the Life, Ellenor Rigby, LSD ( Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ) and I Am the Walrus? . .. are THOSE what you'd call "boy band" songs as well?
I don't think they are overrated, but part of the reason for that is because of how their music changed my life. I have been a huge Beatles fan for many years, since I was a young kid. My Dad introduced their music to me and right from the first song I heard, I loved them. I got my first Beatles cd when I was about 10 years old and would listen to it all the time. When kids in my school found out I listened to "old music" they started making fun of me and bullying me because I listened to The Beatles, and because I didn't know who all these new artists were. I became the "weird kid" and nobody wanted to be my friend. The one friend I had moved away, so all I had was my Beatles cds. It didn't matter how bad my day was I could put on one of their cds and put my headphones on and it always made me smile, and made me forget all the terrible things people would say to me. Their music truly changed my life, and helped me through a really bad time in my childhood. I have never found another band or singer who has had such an impact on my life. And now, I play their music for my 2 year old, and whenever he sings just a few of the words, it makes me smile from ear to ear. Some people don't understand the power of music, but I definitely do, and I am so grateful for the impact it had on my life. :)
Susie Knox I'm sorry to hear you were bullied because you liked The Beatles but I'm really glad they have meant so much to your life. They meant a lot to me growing up and still do over fifty years later. Maybe more so today given the world we live in. Loving The Beatles means you get it.
Wholesome 100
no, they are not ;)
Agreed.
The true reason for the enormous admiration they received, and continue to receive 50 years later, is the shear variety and ambition of their musical output - all 4 members brought a different flavour to the creativity of the songwriting and the emotion of the performance. Also, the fact that they achieved so much, without diluting quality (in fact, their later albums being some of the very best), in only 8 years is a feat worthy of applause for ever. Very few bands have ever had the strength in depth within the discography as The Beatles had.
dgmcl3284 YES, BEATLES RIPPED OFF CHUCK BERRYS YOU CANT CATCH ME N SLOWED IT DOWN WITH ANOTHER STOLLEN RIFF BEHIND IT. ETC>>>>>>>
THEY ALSO STOLE BOBBY PARKERS WATCH YOUR STEP RIFFS ON I FEEL FINE. ALSO LADY MADONNA IS HUMPHEREY LYTTELETONS BAD PENNY BLUES PIANO. MY SWEET LORD IS CHIFFONS HES SO FINE ETC>>>>>>>>>
dgmcl3284 This is really key. Though it is not my favorite Beatles album--that would be probably Rubber Soul--I dont think there is an album in ALL of the rock music, ever, as varied as the White Album. Hell, it even has John Cage style experimental music (Revolution 9). In fact, I will just state it right now (as an honest request): Is there an album in all of rock with as much breath and varied style as the White Album. It would be neat to go song-by-song and list all the genres covered. Maybe something by Zappa or Ween?
"The Beatles are overrated and underrated." True.
Yes, they created this Beatle culture which, is same as today, where some people like bands for their looks more than their music, as an example, their hair!
While, underrated for a lot lot lot lot reasons like as mentioned above, pioneers of music.
As a big fan, I would say, that I get tired of their music, when I think about something to listen to, and the Beatles come up in my iPod library and I won't be down to it. That makes them overrated. BUT, when a song suddenly plays, and it's so good, I was completely mental to think I'm tired of them, and I would go on a rampage of listening my favourite tracks which ironically, the ones that are not as popular. And that makes them underrated. For me at least.
One thing I know for sure, is that no matter what, I always come back to them, and would be the number 1 band in my life! My last.fm is a virtual proof.
Nobody should fight who the fuck is the best or not, cos even if I don't relate to all the songs the Beatles has put out, for some reason they are my favourite and that makes a difference to me compared to the ones that gives me a emotional connection like, Joy Division. So, when asked, why the Beatles? WHY THE HELL NOT
The 1950's ended when president JFK was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22 1963. We were still mourning when the Beatles came to the U.S. in Feb of '64. I remember well seeing them on the Ed Sullivan Show. Man, they looked like creatures from another planet with their mop-top hair. That hair style was considered to be long!!! Back then, you either had a crew-cut, flat-top or the greasy ducktail "rockabilly" hair cut (if you were rebellious and many schools put a code on this). The 1960's began when The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show. The Beatles were trend setters, whether it was music, hair, recording techniques. The Beatles pissed off the older generation, especially with their long hair, but the teens sure loved it. No, the Beatles are not overrated because America was basically a conservative at that period, but it may look to be overrated these days. Thank god for the 1960's!!!! I LOVED it!!!!!
The Beatles ... the godfather of today's boy bands. That's a fact.
no
This is just about the most tired,generic, ignorant and demonstrably false musical statement one can make. Boy bands are manufactured by record execs. The Beatles were boyhood friends who literally toured nonstop for years and made a name for themselves growing an organic following before they were even 20, then they exploded. Literally the opposite of a boy band
Well, nobody in a boy band today can play any instrument better than Paul McCartney played all of them.
McCartney is overrated. His name is bigger than his work.
Lennon was the great composer, one of the greatest in history.
Lennon´s music will age better than McCartney´s, because Lennon´s compositions have more pain and heaviness, and besides that, are more innovative. McCartney has often conventional and “vertical” melodies, and Lennon has both vertical and “horizontal” melodies”.
The greatness of John Lennon´s music as i see it:
-His increasing tension. For example I Should Have Known Better. Before Lennon, all pop music structure was AABA, where the tension decreased in the middle part B. But with Lennon the tension from the verse continued in the middle part. Besides that, in this song it is not only a key change in the transition to the middle part, it is even a little key change in it. The increasing tension was what first characterized The Beatles. The first single where the verse lacked this increasing tension was the vers melody in Can´t Buy Me Love.
- Other ways of increase the tension by Lennon is to pack together several little songs. Happiness Is A Warm Gun consists of three or four songs, and Bring On The Lucie consists of three songs.
-All You Need Is Love has another way: First talking, then repeating half singing, then singing, and finally the climax in chorus.
-The melody does not changes, but the chords in the background. For example in Strawberry Fields Forever and in Julia the singing melody uses the same notes, but instead the accompaniment changes! Listen to Puccini. He got tired of his sang melodies in Boheme and in Tosca he composed a lot where the sang melodies are often on the same notes, but the background changes instead. The effect can be stronger.
-Octave Leap. For example, in the middle part of Please Please Me, Lennon makes an octave run in “…it´s so hard to reason with YOU…”, the climax of the song. George Martin didn´t understand the quality in that. In his orchestration of it in Off The Beatle Track, Martin excludes the octave, the most important bit of the song!
-Verse and resolve. Typical for Lennon is a melody followed by a resolve, for example in No Reply “…I saw the light!”…and in Girl “giiirl! giiirl!…”. Lennon said that “a good song must have climax and resolve”.
-Only one chord. In Tomorrow Never Knows there is only one chord, or bass note, an innovation in pop music. In the Middle Ages it was common with that bordun note, an unchanged bass note. When Lennon played the song the first time for George Martin, Martin didn´t like it.
-Whole-tone scale. Most scales have both whole step and half steps between the notes in an octave. In the verse in Norwegian Wood, there is most whole steps, and that´s like the impressionists, for example Debussy. It sounds very “clean”.
-Church Modes. A Hard Day´s Night is written in the “mixolydian mode”, an ancient vocal scale, preserved in British, Irish and American folk song. -If you play the beginning of Please Please Me very fast, you can hear the similarities with the Westminster bells ringing. When Lennon was a little boy, he loved visiting the divine services. Afterwards he used to improvise anthem music. Westminster bells could unconsciously have inspired him to the beginning of Please Please Me. There is also anthem music in the beginning of All You Need Is Love: “love love love…”.
-The lamentation second. A little half step up in the scale. And that´s to indicate a pain. In All You Need Is Love Lennon sings the refrain twice unchanged and then suddenly the third time, rises a little, a very expressive and important step up. That step up started in the baroque epoch, and was called The lamentation second. When Lennon played it the first time to George Martin, Martin didn´t understand it. He leaned towards McCartney and muttered: “It´s certainly repetitive”.
-From darkness to light. Happiness Is a Warm Gun starts with a little melancholy, and ends with enthusiasm.-In the middle part of I Am The Walrus the darkness switches over to light: “sitting in an English garden…”. And the transition from the chaos and darkness in Revolution 9 to the light in Good Night. That is very typical in Wagner´s music. I think that temperamentally the two were similar. And I think Wagner would have loved the arrangement in Glass Onion.
-Suggestive and hypnotic music. With small intervals between the notes in combination with some dissonance chord, Lennon can create a suggestive and hypnotic feeling in for example Across The Universe. It is more like Wagner than pop music.
-Few notes. With few, but effective notes, Lennon can create more feeling than McCartney with all his notes, for example in If I Fell and Love. -A melody sang three times, in succession, with just a little change every time. When you hear it you can get frustrated or desperate not getting out from the melody. That we have in the middle part in I Call Your Name and in the middle part in And Your Bird Can Sing. And at the same time the melodies are stick together with a countermelody at the guitar. Rather hypnotic
-Melodies without joint. An innovation. When repeating the verse melody in Any Time At All, the first note is the same note as the last note in the first verse: “…there is nothing I won´t DO if need a shoulder to cry on…”
-The accompaniment doesn´t follow the vocal line. In the middle part of Hey Bulldog, the piano doesn´t follow the singer. An innovation in pop music. (The first one was Schumann in his songs). It´s a marvelous bit of beautiful piano music, but the recording isn´t good here, the piano is difficult to hear. That bit is much better heard in a demo!
-The first rap song. The talking in the end of Hey Bulldog.
-The most excellent and lovely melodies: The middle part of Bad to Me, the middle part of This Boy, the middle part of Yes it Is and the middle part of Nobody Loves You
Wow. Thank you for that extensive breakdown of Lennon's songwriting. I applaud you and agree with your sentiments about his abilities, both in general and compared to McCartney.
Moodie Blues 'Days of Future Past' was November 1967. 6 months after Sgt Pepper's release
It should be realized and considered that some of their songs were pretty WEIRD back in their time ( in the 1960's ) - like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ( LSD ), I Am the Walrus, and Strawberry Fields - now THOSE were quite strange, unorthodox and unprecedented for 60's pop / rock songs. I mean, WHO in rock 'n roll or pop music had previously done songs like THOSE? .. . Chuck Berry ?
Those songs changed Rock and roll forever...
McSpankey Not just Rock and roll but modern music in general pretty much.
there were actually hella bands doing much "weirder" and much much more interesting stuff and they weren't "influenced" by the Beatles, but were aware of other genres; Beatles were TOTALLY and COMPLETELY "orthodox" in every way imaginable; that is why they were and still are so popular. And I used to worship the Beatles, but I've actually now listened to music from that era (1960's to early 1970's) and there are other bands w/ much broader spectrum, and waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy more musical talent. Beatles were partially manufactured, really. I prefer there solo stuff and I don't even care for that as much as I do other bands. They don't compare to the Kinks songwriting wise or even early Redbone (1970-1972) musicianship wise. Anyone w/ the internet/ stereo/ cd player can quickly discover the same. It's just a fandom.
Virginia Wilson,
Next to Thin Lizzy, I would argue that the Kinks are probably the band most underrated by American listeners. But please, Ray and Dave were nowhere near the writers that John and Paul were. And they were booted off their own instruments in the studio by a session player named Jimmy Page. So I'm not buying the "waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy more musical talent" bit.
re: musical talent; wasn't talking about the Kinks there; was talking about just about any other band around, even bands not nearly as famous. I mentioned the Kinks re: songwriting talent. People just accept that the Beatles were/ are "all that," but they don't realize how manufactured pop fame can be, etc. Name any Beatles' song that you think is grand lyrically, Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, w/e, nice tunes, those are probably two of the more elevated songs, but for someone who actually is familiar w/ the likes of Waterloo Sunset, Shangri-La, the entire album Arthur, there's no comparison re; songwriting talent imo, but it's probably a bit of a matter of taste; I only mentioned the Kinks lyrically b/c they were also British and kind of pop-ish
Anyone who stop and listen carefully to The Beatles carefully, chronologically, all the albums, will discover that it´s a band that can´t be overrated. They are genius, Nothing on music´s earth have never got close to them, they are simply unbelivable.
Not overrated. They are alone up on a pedestal for a reason. Not only for songwriting superiority but for being innovative, musically, socially, and fashion.They were THE culture of the 1960s after they arrived. And this was a WORLD WIDE phenomenon, not only here in the US. When somebody mentions the 1960s today the first thing that comes to most people's minds is ... The Beatles! You both have long hair, you can trace that directly back to them! Back then everybody watched them to see what clothes they were wearing, what hair style they had, what instruments they were playing, and copied them. The first band to play a stadium concert. Even bands that have a wacky sense of humor and do silly or odd things in the name of fun can be traced back to THEM. And still one of the top selling acts (in record and merchandise sales) in the world, even though they haven't been around in 46 years! No, they are not overrated, and they sit alone up on a pedestal, and rightfully so. Because NO other band has ever had the worldwide impact that they did, nor will they ever. The Beatles were not a once in a lifetime kind of thing. They were a once in a WORLD kind of thing. The likes of which will NEVER be seen again! Except for maybe Justin bieber ... NOT!!
Every successful band is overrated in some way.
bENJAMIN mIDFLYING Pink Floyd is still underrated mate ...they should be bigger...#Floyd fans ...but bigger Beatles fans
Not Led Zeppelin.
Nirvana.
aka not
@@andrew19vato Nirvana is the most Overrated Band in the Fucking World
Talking to someone who screams The Beatles are over rated is like talking to a flat earther.
You can throw all the facts, musical history and theory and all that goes right over their heads.
Well..to be a flat earther you have to be stupid first. To believe the earth is flat you must have a reason, observation or fact to arrive at the conclusion that "the earth is not a "ball" but flat like a pancake".
The "Beatles are overrated" believers too have a reason. observation or fact to base their conclusion on. And they are stupid too.
And these two (Polyphonic Press) are probably going to be the same...
Random person sings over 3 chord progressions
People - meh
The Beatles sing over 3 chord progressions
People - Omg greatest musicians ever
@@sassywang4010 Well they sold over 1,000 million records in 7 years . the 3 chord trick also applies to Elvis & The Beach Boys & many others....
My esteemed friends. Please note that John Lennon most definitely did NOT tour solo. Five or six individual fund raising concerts but nothing remotely resembling a tour.
As a 16 year old listening to Strawberry Fields Forever and a day in the life I remember thinking that my already favourite band in the world had become the best in the Cosmos, the universe and everything! My musical tastes as a 69 year old may have widened but my appreciation of the Beatles remains the same. Overrated? Don't make me laugh!
@simon templer I've looked at ur favourite u watch so many vids on the beatles its kinda sad, the stones are like backstreet boys compared to the beatles
@simon templer whats with ur obsession of hating them
Boomers' Backstreet Boys
They were at the right place at the right time- that's all. It's your parents/grandparents/boomers nostalgia and sentimental attachment to those decades that have influenced their kids, the generation(s) after them, and the industry to think and/or feel a certain way about them aka putting them on this pedestal as ''the best band ever.''
This was the most genuine and perfect way to explain it
You are a naive fool. Read my comment above. There are far too many reasons that they are considered the greatest band ever. You don't have to like them to realize their impact on music. They were a phenomenon for a reason. I list quite a few things but certainly not all things that made them the phenomenon that they were.
Boomers' Backstreet Boys
Sgt. Pepper's was recorded Dec 1966 to April 1967. Released June 1, 1967
Days of Future Passed was recorded October-November 1967. Released Nov 10-11 1967
What does that have to do with anything
Dear McSpankey: At @ 7:28 the guy in the clip on the left wonders if The Moody Blues had the first "concept album" with Days of Future Passed. My comment addresses the chronology of those 2 LPs and shows that Sgt. Pepper was released 5 months before Days of Future Passed. That is the the "thing", as in the word "anything", which my comment addressed. I hope that clarifies the slightly cryptic nature of my comment from 1 month ago. If you scroll down, you will see other people addressing the same issue. I agree with one of the posts that The Mothers of Invention's Freak Out from June 1966 is the first so-called, "concept album".
Put aside the record sales. They are not over rated when it comes to the style and writing and the studio sound and album cover and which many a many other bands followed. You'll be amazed to see how many top performers from the past and present cover their songs. Fans make a band over rated. Musicians who praise their work do not.
@William Magee It feels unwarranted to justify Penny Lane and Strawberry fields style of music to at the the time kind of music at the time . I tend not too get deep into the comments but that's my point
6:40 exactly! the beatles are the most overrated band of all time because they are still put on a pedestal for no sensible reason.
doesn't mean they were bad. but nothing about them was especially good, not their lyrics, not their voices, not their instrumental skills and not the combination of all those things. I mean "she loves me yeah, yeah, yeah..." or "I've got a ticket to ride..." or "I wanna hold your hand..." what the f... One can understand that thegirls of that time were going crazy for that bs just like those of today are going nuts for the back street boys and so on, but other than that... hence, overrated boyband.
My ex would get so pissed when I told her the the Beatles were just a boy band.
Boomers' Backstreet Boys
Chris McCoyne You have no idea what you're talking about.
Imagine trying to criticise The Beatles by only talking about songs from the first three years of their career. You also conveniently leave out almost all of their work from 1965 to 1969. Don’t talk about something you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
You are missing their work from 1965 to 1969
NOOOO: The BEATLES are the Most Exceptional Band in the History of this Existence.
They will always be a Really Exceptional Band.
We now remember composers from the XV, XVI, XVI centuries like Vivaldi, Beethoven, Mozart etc. In 200 years, only THE BEATLES will be remembered. There must be a reason
you have no idea of music
On the contrary, YOU have no idea of music. I have being listening and studying music for the last 50 years!! Believe me.
Eduardo Barriga Caro. CORRECT.
Darth Armot and jollydiggernick - YOU two are some seriously articulate fellows!
Yeah just because the beatles are overrated as fuck
You guys coined it well. People may overrate them as pure musicians. (There are, for example, many flashier technically skillful drummers than Ringo.) But then, underrate how good they actually were as musicians. (While many other drummers played beats, Ringo played songs.) That's a lesson most young hotshots need to learn.
Their greatness lies in the fact that their overall impact on the music industry was staggering. Music was created, marketed & appreciated differently because of their influence. They may not have been the most skillful or first to do a particular thing [example: the concept album or trippy lyrics]. But when they did it, much of the industry followed their lead. They were also leaders of 2 R&R sub-genres: the Mersey Beat & psychedelic sound). They were the archetype for the self-contained rock combo - that writes all/most of their own music & plays all/most of their own instruments in the studio. As songwriters, they have so many high points & many of their songs have become standards on par with Cole Porter or Irving Berlin. (Ex.: Yesterday, Something, Eleanor Rigby). During Beatlemania they would literally have up to 5 songs in the top ten - simultaneously.
They were more than a rock band. They were like a worldwide cultural event that lasted several years. I am old enough to remember the Ed Sullivan appearance. Trust me - it was a big deal. So was their break up. There have been many great musicians, artists & acts. Some are clearly better at certain things than the Beatles ever were. (Rush are better musicians & Mariah Carey may have broken some sales record or something like that.) But for sheer cultural & industry impact/influence, it is hard to think of an act/band/artist who can rival the Beatles. Not even Michael Jackson at his peak. And he was a pretty big deal too.
Nah Michael Jackson at his peak eclipsed the beatles. Beatles are a European phenomenon while Michael was a WORLDWIDE phenomenon. Worldwide Geniuses world records named him the most famous and most successful entertainer of all time. Outside of the U.S and Britain and other english speaking countries etc Michael was and is more well known.
In Quincy Jones opinion (27 Grammy Awards): 'The Beatles were the worst musicians in the world'. In my opinion, music productions don´t appear out of the blue. There must be a right combination of engeneering, arranging, producing, marketing and difusion. The beatles were the best-selling product of the 60s, they were a boy band, good looking guys that were loved by the media.. They were good at bringing ideas and raw compositions to the studio where a great team of musical production transformed them into megatunes. They sure changed the cultural perception of that era mostly for all the media coverage they received and not for intrinsic reasons. They do have some esplendind tunes that I enjoy but I know they didn´t crafted on their own (as geniouses) as many people think. They are not the founders of Pop or Rock, but they certainly have a place in history and should be regarded and pondered more as a cultural phenomena than a musical outspring of talent and genious.
Grammys say nothing. The Beatles would have got 150 Grammys.
One needs a historical perspective to judge the achievements of any musician
Professional drummers have the utmost respect for Ringo. A human metronome if there was ever one. Charlie Watts is another one.
ringo wasn't just a drummer, he was a percusionest..
The Beatles are not overrated, in fact they are underrated because they don't get credit for how good theirmusic is and how they changed the face of music, radio stations don't play a lot of beatles just 4 songs that they play over again, which gets me angry!
their music is shit but its popular
Beatles music is rarely played, I believe, because it's expensive thanks to MJ and then Sony.
BeatlesBoy 1234 They did not make those songs just for the money. In fact, those songs were made all thanks to 4 talented musicians who made it all possible
@@Ucedo95 maybe u just listen to hey jude, let it be, i want to hold your hand,try something else, they had many different kind of song
@@Ucedo95 you're an idiot for sure. 50 years after their last lp and YOU can't stop talking about them. Speaks volumes. Lol
'Days of future passed' came out later than Sgt. Pepper. I would say if there was a concept album before Pepper, it would have been Pet Sounds.
The Beach Boys album 'Pet Sounds' (1966) was a huge influence on 'Sgt. Pepper'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Sounds#Influence_and_legacy
The beatles made the first music videos, the first reverb song ( I feel fine), first sitar(norwegian wood) , the first concept album ( sgt. peppers) , the first artistic album cover( sgt. peppers) first psychedelic songs, first rock and roll group transmitted overseas ( hey jude,love).
They chose not to play live because no one could hear their music( screaming fans). People were anxious to hear their next album. Never has a band had such impact on society.
@ojgom17 explain
Jimmie Rodgers was the first to make a music "video", way back in 1932.
@@juansalvadorgarcinifernnde8657 There's nothing new under the sun.
@ojgom17 best selling artists of all time, say a lot, inspired MJ, Freddie mercury, black sabbath and a lot of new artist today
@@chanevazquez3046 no they didn't
That´s an easy question: NO.
Are the Beatles overrated? No.
In music, there are The Beatles... and there's everybody else ^^
yeah they're overrated.
Yeah they’re iconic, but their music is just pop music it’s not anything special unless we’re talking about sgt pepper. Pink Floyd is superior
crap pop group who made bad copies of what was coming out of usa ,tossers
The Beatles is overrated they are one of most iconic artists ever. But there is nothing special about there Music i would take almost any metal band today over The Beatles
The ignorance of Beatles fans is amazing to me The Beatles has copied so many artists that it is not even funny and all the times the Beatles have been in Court for copying other artists just proves this
When you have a tipe of music that's is played for Folk, Jazz, Blues, Pop, Metal, Prog musicians all over the world, half of century latter, as a hobby, you don't need to talk much more about It. I mean, Aretha Franklin, George Benson, Ray Charles, Marvin Gaye, Sinatra, Elvis, Portnoy, Paul Gilbert... Even in Brazil, the Brazilian Jazz musicians when are united, use to play Beatles songs to have some fun. That's all we need to know.
The Beatles were at the right place at the right time. They were good musicians and better businessmen. They took advantage of the new generations (at the time) need for a musical voice they could relate to. Not to take away the fact that they were as a group excellent musicians.
MuDfLapP And they didn't just care about the money.
I do remember hearing "Wonderful Christmas time" at the Festival of Lights a couple years ago, I thought it was awesome. That song isn't about the money even though a lot of people (except me) hate it
Well, for ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole freaking ERA - The Beatles, Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and over adulated to the point of annoyance.
moody blues days of future passed was released after pepper nov 67 Lennon didnt do a major solo tour after the beatles.
The Beatles were truly a phenomenon they were pioneers they produced an astonishing body of work in barely 7 years! not too shabby I think.
Thanks for speaking up for Ringo and his great drumming. Never a flash player, but always setting backbeat for the beatles.
The fact that we are still talking about the Beatles almost 50 years after they split up tells us that there must be something very special about their music. We still listen to it today.
Its like the old saying. You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time. You will be found out eventually if you are not the real deal. You don't sell One Billion records if you're no good.
+Dick Spanner If that's the criteria for being good. Then I guess all those trashy modern singers are equally good or even better than the Beatles since they sell so well.
ManWhatever1 Would those modern singers have sold even half as much if you still had to leave the house in order to buy music?
Dick Spanner You comment is a little vaugue what do you mean by "You don't sell one billion records if you're no good" The amount of records sold doesn't define a band. You can find much more technical bands with years of practice and study exploring new playing techniques and compositional techniques such as modal interchange and negative harmony with various exotic scales and other stuff I couldn't even beging to comprehend. To sell alot of records you don't have to make objectivley good music, you just have to be commercial and popular maybe with a record label supporting you with advertising and marketing. Pop music isn't popular because it's good, it's subjectivley good because it's popular. There is too much money involved in it; stopping people from trying anything too risky or new.
I like the beatles when I say pop I mean todays mainstream music aka bland chart music.
Which book did these two guys read? You cannot say the Beatles are over-rated unless you can tell me what you are comparing them to. And since you cannot compare anyone to them because what they did was so unique, we leave it all to history.
I think they are underrated
Every single fucking list they're number 1. They have the most number one singles. They're called the most influential band ever ( when they only influenced Oasis and Tame Impala in reality ). What more do you want?
Influenced the Beach boys,David Bowie,Pink floyd,Bee gees,the Who,Ramones,Elton John,Bruce Springsteen,Radiohead,Nirvana,Soundgarden,Black sabbath,Elvis costello,Foo fighters,the Cure,Blondie,Led zeppelin,My morning jacket,Beck the list goes on and on.EVERY artist after them was directly or indirectly influenced by them so they can never be overrated.
ciaran fay dude are you a dumb ass or are you a dumb ass
ciaran fay sitvisjes just showed you bitch
Be honest with yourself, they're a fucking boy band
Right place, right time, right era, right talent, right image, right sound, right charisma, right message, right influence, right personalities, right characters, right musicians, right creatively: so many aspects. Everything in music has had such an impact on music and styles of rock music thereafter, innovation and re-inventing sounds. This magical formula is so elusive that few bands ever achieve such popularity and fame i.e Led Zeppelin. Same comments can be said for Led Zeppelin, but LZ had magic formula and which takes many attributes to achieve.
You have created an odd debate, if they were underrated there would be little to no discussion, underrated are folks who achieve little recognition for the work and efforts they produce, if they are overrated it is because a band has become so popular that its impact cannot be ignored they become overrated because they are so popular that the minority who disagree will class something as overrated. By posting a discussion are they underrated would mean that no-one ever heard of the Beatles, by being overrated you are effectively acknowledging they are so popular even 50 years after. Few discussion would be posted about the Four Tops. The Beatles are legend which is fact that cannot be changed whether you think they are underrated or overrated is an opinion. I like Marmite which I think is underrated but many class it as being overrated. When a musical act achieves a legendary status underrated does not apply, and overrated only serves to highlight an opinion contrary to popular belief or opinion. When a legend is created, underrated or overrated are irrelevant descriptors with no qualifications.
Just ask other musicians. Then you'll have your answer.
jolludiggernick - I think I disagree. Lots of people have had records outsell Beatles stuff, but they always disappear within a short time. Beatles music has endured enough that lots of bands cover their songs every night night at bars, clubs, and onstage in front of thousands of people. We're STILL talking about the Beatles because people love their music. You don't need to be the BEST musician to be the most popular or most beloved. Maybe people have put them on a pedestal, but they put out songs that people loved and still do. EVERY band is trying to do the same.
Karl Malone, Who's ever heard of YOU though?
If the Beatles had any other drummer other than Ringo, they would have sounded completely different. His signature beat was just as integral to the overall 'Beatle sound' as George's guitar work and Paul's melodic bass lines. Props for recognizing that.
One thing to consider about The Beatles is where they came from and how they started. To understand this think of early Rock n Roll in America where the greats started such as
Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry etc. They had everything already there for them to develop their great music, a history of the blues with great musicians already on their door step playing in clubs and recording music. They could see great musicians play, buy their records and listen to them on the radio. All The Beatles had to learn their craft were a few records brought into Liverpool by sailors from America and replaying these on crappy old record players to work out everything themselves about this foreign music. From this The Beatles were able to develop their own great music. To say their early music was 'okay' is really not appreciating the great achievement of creating this music from borrowed scratchy records.
All musicians copy from the past, Chuck & Buddy got ideas from people like Leadbelly & Woodie Guthrie, The Beatles took ideas from ballad & musical show writers as well , they wrote so many different styles..
I wouldn’t say Elvis did, he lived in a homeless family and struggled to buy his first guitar
Days of Future Passed was released in november 1967
Pepper was released on june the 1st the same year
"ARE THE BEATLES OVERRATED?"...even the question is absurd.
@bodensick yes the Beatles are way way way overrated there music is garbage I can never get there music there’s way better bands The Rolling Stones are way better no song Beatles Satisfaction Jumpin Jack Flash Under My Thumb Let’s Spend The Night Together Brown Sugar you can’t always get what you want etc etc the Beatles can never write songs like that they weren’t even around that long they only made 13 albums the stones made 31 albums and there still together the stones must be better and hard to believe the Beatles are number 1 it has to be a lie
For them, six years was a long time to tour. It must have been like one long tour, from the Cavern Club to Hamburg up to Candlestick Park they were constantly busy working(Touring/Playing Live, Writing, Interviews, Travelling...).
They are rated as the top band. That's about right. Outstanding band!
There were other bands & better ones.
Most people who call them "overrated" or "suck" are punks who like thrash metal or rap / hip hop "music" or buffs of dumb shit 1950's rock and roll, and I don't consider THEM very reliable.
Rap music sucks, i agree with you. But Heavy Metal is FAR SUPERIOR to any beatles song. Are you telling me that "Love Me Do" is better than "Enter Sandman" or "Thunderstruck"? Those are real rock songs. The beatles couldn't sing rock music for shit.
I specifically said THRASH metal ( which is usually sludge ), not metal in general.
Ian Findlay Metallica is considered Thrash metal. and they are way better than the beatles.
Well speaking of Heavy Metal, consider the EARLY founders of that genre, like Sabath or Deep Purple, . .. THEY spoke very respectfully of The Beatles and even acknowledged them as influences.
Ian Findlay Respectful and influence are completely different words. If you listen to Sabbath, Metallica, Iron Maiden, etc, there is NO trace of beatle influence in those songs. most heavy metal was influenced mainly by the blues, but a bit more amped up and faster paced.
The Beatles are not overrated. Ringo is consistently underrated.
the beatles pionered a lot of things..musically,mtv,recording techniques,album cover..etc..end of conversations..
being the first on doing something does not imply that they were good at it
none of those was pionered by the beatles though..
Yes it does you idiot.
It is nice to see younger guys discussing the Beatles regardless of the final opinion they arrive at it is good to see open discourse about The Greatesst band that ever lived one thing folks need to realise is The Beatles didn't have alot to use as guide posts & Blue Prints for themselves Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck berry, Little richard & Everyly bro etc... amongst the list of what served as inspiration & Influence for the Beatles The beatles wound up writing music far more progressive than the music that inspired them in the first place (especially since thei music went well beyond The i-IV-V Blue progressions of the time period of 1956-1960 when the Beatles were still developing their stylistic aproach & I feel they owe as Much to Hogey Carmichael as they do to Elvis Arron Pesley, the use of 9th chourds, diminshed & Augmented chords in their song craft was unheard of in early Rock Music the use of Jazz voicings in a pop medium was ground breaking if not entirely earth shattering & really they music industry was like a tale of 2 worlds The world pre beatles & Post beatles & for amercan Music it was so damn unsettling there are video collections on youtube that give the top songs of every year dating as far back as 1949 up to present I havenet seen any that document prior to 1949 but when talking bout beatles Music all you need to do is watch the videos for 1962-1965 to see just what the Beatles actually did to the music industry just by cause & effect of the acts that followed their Lead once The beatles becam a viable & copyable band it is astounding
why would anyone even watch this. The greatest songwriters of the 20th century.Over rated?
+briane ivanitski correct.
WTF. The songwriting is bullshit, they mostly repeat the same two lines over and over. Their production and other technical innovations were great indeed, but songwriting never...
briane ivanitski They're only doing this because Apple Corps charges people with thousands of dollars for their songs. It's like they only care about the money.
Some of Paul McCartney's solo work has been in several films, and we wouldn't have that if the copyright system we're completely broken
the beatles were a GREAT live band no question about it....the bbc sessions are tremendous and I believe it trumps their studio work....those songs on the bbc were done with primitive equipment and recording the group made every second count they were an incredible live act....thanks for the video
The Beatles stand alone at the top....
Of the overrated list
Carlos Hernandez you called Beatles overrated because they are far away better than your favorite band be true to yourself Beatles are the greatest band that ever exist and no one came close.
Carlos Hernandez you called Beatles overrated because they are far away better than your favorite band be true to yourself Beatles are the greatest band that ever exist and no one came close.
Please do not ever say they broke ground until you listen to the Yes Album or Close To The Edge. That is breaking ground.
The Beatles was Backstreet Boys with guitars.
Ringo Starr is a genius drummer actually, a brilliant musician, don`t compare everybody with Keith Moon, who was just a drummer -stuntman.
The Beatles are the best band ever. No band has ever come close to doing what they did in 10 years & I don't think they ever will. In 10 years the Beatles changed music forever & left a ever lasting legacy. Look at albums like Rubber Soul & revolver, most bands will never ever come close to releasing an album as good as those. Their musicianship was second to none & that is why they were able to make some of the best albums ever & write countless amazing songs. Infact when many talk about the best albums of all time they include Sgt Pepper, Rubber soul, Revolver, The White Album & mabey more which can't be said for any other band. They released the first all original album A hard Days Night (my favourite) & released the most diverse album of all time The white album. They are also one of the most innovative bands of all time even tho just in their later years breaking lots of musical barriers & being the first to experiment with several genres. They have influenced just about every good band & artist that came after them & even lots at the time in one way or another. When you consider everything the'yve done for music how can you not think their the best band ever even if you don't like their music.
Pet Sounds > ANYTHING the Beatles have done. Just accept it it's not even close.
mrkackerwacker Pet Sounds is wonderful, and I think it is better than Pepper. BUT, I prefer Rubber Soul and Revolver.
+Paul Owen hip hop
+Paul Owen Get your ears checked out. No doubt that you are not a musician.
it wasn't a 4 Track for Sgt. Pepper it was a 8 track i've got copys of the paper work in my Recording The Beatles book,
they used a 4 track from 63-66 then a 8 Track from 67-70.
'Sgt. Pepper' (1967) used multiple four-track recorders.
During the 'White Album' sessions (1968), they upgraded to eight-track.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band#Recording_and_production
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_(album)#Recording
From a neutral standpoint, lets look at the facts. The Beatles have sold the most albums of any artist, they have the most number one hits of any artists ever, and they have the most number one albums of any artist ever. So they are the most successful ever. In terms of influence, they changed music more than any artist ever has in history. No one even comes close. Beyond music, their haircuts, their clothes, the drugs they used, everything they did changed pop culture and life. So no, they are not overrated. Also, look up any list of the greatest artists of all time. The Beatles are number one on every single one. its just haters that want to be cool or something. Its kind of not even a contest as who is the GOAT.
Quantity = quality ?
The Beatles started recording Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in November of 1966, and it was released on the 26th of May, 1967. The Moody Blues started recording Days of Future Passed in May of 1967, and it was released on the 10th of November, 1967. Sorry to burst your bubble...
2:22 There was no autotune, but there was "double-tracking" to improve the vocals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tracking
And they used cut-and-paste to make a combination of the best takes.
The Beatles were pioneers in using studio tricks.
You still didn't say why or how they were overrated.
Ringo has been recognized by basically all drummers in the world as a solid and smart drummer (time keeper)
What constitutes "overrated" a song? their look? their style? their music? If it's their music are you talking about Help or A Day In The Life? Meet The Beatles or Abbey Road ? Have you ever learned to play a Beatles song or do just think you are above them?
For ME it ain't just The Beatles, it's that whole fucking ERA - Jim Morison, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Woodstock et all - that gets over hyped and overadulated to the point of annoyance.
Overhyped and overadulated? Ah, nope, not even close to that, not even remotely close.
Wow so true I wonder if the same thing will happen with greast musicians of our time like Tosin Abasi in the future.
For you two guys and the younger generations who didn't live to experience Beatlemania: The Beatles were a once in several lifetimes phenomenon. They were great songwriters, singers and musicians. Their producer George Martin was the essential component to their recording success, but they were an exciting live band as well. See Ron Howard's film Eight Days a Week. Their personalities were also critical to their appeal: they were intelligent, funny, charming. Their appearance - the Beatle haircuts, boots and suits - influenced fashion and culture. The chemistry between them was powerful. The timing of their arrival on he music scene and in the US in February 1964, several months after the assassination of JFK, was also a crucial element in their success. Their influence on countless musicians like Jeff Lynne, all the British invasion bands, Elton John, Billy Joel, simply everybody in their generation and several generations afterward, cannot be measured.
@deadvoguestar Name some artists you like.
How come the Beatles be overrated when you look at their sales
figures? They're so far ahead of other bands.
So you think Michael Jackson and Britney Spears are great too?
@@RadagastBrown420 MJ is
I used to think The Beatles later stuff was the best but now I'm not sure. This Boy is a work of genius
Moody Blues' "Days of Future Passed" was released in november '67 - "Sgt. Pepper" in june of that same year.
Sales numbers don't lie; they were popular (and still are), but that alone doesn't mean they were great musicians, or great composers, just that they were popular. Without George Martin's production, Geoff Emerick (etc) engineering skills, Brian Epstein's managerial skills and even Dave Dexter Jr's ability to recognize what would sell in the USA, and make changes to the albums accordingly, I highly doubt that the Beatles would have attained the success they did. They were simply the right act at the right time. Yes, they did have talent, but... read how Paul had to play lead guitar in recording sessions because George couldn't get it right, etc etc. They composed nifty pop tunes, but none of their music compares with the likes of Yes' Close to the Edge, Tales From Topographic Oceans, or I'm Running, Genesis' Lamb or Domino, any of Stan Kenton's Adventure albums and a good portion of Sting's compositions for a start. None of the three Beatle composers have ever come close to any of this. Yes, I was a fan, being a teen ager in the 60s, but have gone on to discover what great bands and great musicians sound like; such as Stan Kenton's and Buddy Rich's bands, Frank Sinatra, Cab Calloway, Yes, Genesis, etc. Paul the greatest bassist of all times? Hardly, More like Chris Squire, Eddie Safranski, Sting,.... George the best guitarist? Think again. Not even close to Andy Summers, Trevor Rabin, Glen Campbell, David Gillmour, etc etc. John on rhythm? nope. Ringo on drums? Not when you have Buddy Rich, Shelly Manne, Neil Pert, Ed Shaughnessy, Stuart Copland, etc etc. First ever music videos? Nope, those go way back to the 30s. Most great big bands as well as jazz and bebop bands were making them. Concept albums, Nope. Sgt Pepper wasn't even a concept album, even though it is often referred to as such. Nearly ever Sinatra album was a concept album. Tricks in the studio such as backwards tapes, etc? Not even close. Frank Zappa for one very much predates the Beatles' use of studio tricks. So for as much as I still enjoy listening to some of the Beatles music from time to time, they were not the greatest by a long shot. More like a very successful boy band from the 60s.
I have to say that I do think that The Beatles are quite a bit overrated, yes. Now don't get me wrong here, by "overrated" I don't mean to say that they're actually really terrible or that they "suck". You understand, I'm not denigrating them ( like some idiots here are trying very hard to do ). I still respect them as talents and do like a number of their songs. But I simply agree that they really do recieve TOO MUCH much attention and adulation! It's really superfluous, and often get's quite annoying, you know? I'm not saying that they're "the most" overrated either, cause there are plenty of other famous musical acts besides them who I think receive that same overt and annoying degree of fame and adulation ( like namely Elvis, Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, Rolling Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Nirvana ), so it ain't just the Beatles with me.
Lindsy Marshal THANK YOU
It seems you are naming some of the most popular musicians / bands of all time as being overrated. Is that because of their wide influence on music and other musicians? That is generally why they are so highly rated and frequently talked about. What musicians / bands do you like the most? Are they less well known ? Just interested in different points of view.
Lindsy Marshal You are equating being overrated with being the most famous or popular. That's typical behaviour from someone yearning to be musically different. People want to be different so they look to the alternative and shun the mainstream. You may find it "annoying", but so does everyone else. That is not the same thing as being overrated. For you to be overrated your talent or material has to come into question (and compared to more "deserving" artists). Was Hendrix really a great guitar player? Can you name a better guitarist that had better music, look etc...
@Penelope O' Donnell Well "overrated" also often means an act who's so famous and popularly known and loudly exonerated that their overinflated reputation and celebrity overshadows and obscures others that may be as deserving, if not even more so. As for the question you pose at the end there, .. . maybe Link Wray, Rocky Erickson, Robert Fripp, and Eddie Van Halen.
Well, they had 13 albums in 7 years... and NONE of the albums were "throwaways". Plus the white album was a double album, and they had two albums worth of singles that weren't released on albums... so that's 16 albums of material in 7 years, not to mention 3 movies, a documentary (let it be) and constant touring in the early days.
2nd: They all wrote songs (ringo only a few), and three out of the four members consistently wrote NUMBER ONE singles. Their 3rd guy (harrison) was writing freaking number ones when he wasn't playing lead guitar. Meanwhile Jagger or Richards without eachother can't even write one song, let alone any of the other members of the stones. No band has 75 percent of the members writing number ones by themselves. Really crazy to think 3 members out of a four piece band all were writing hits... not just hits, but number ones.
3rd item: Some of the best harmonies ever to be produced by any band. Whether it be 3 part harmonies on many songs, or Lennon & McCartney, or McCartney and Harrison. All three of them had great voices. How many bands even have more than one member that can sing? (let alone many members writing hits).
4th: The Beatles pretty much invented being able to write about any topic you want, use any instrument you want, and experiment sonically in the studio. Nonsense lyrics, tape loops, instruments that had never been recorded on pop albums, and using full orchestras. No rock/pop band had ever used a full orchestra before the beatles.
5th: The only band ever to hold the top 5 spots in the billboard charts at the same time. Will never be done again.
6th: Harrison, McCartney, and Lennon all could play multiple instruments.. namely McCartney who played every instrument himself on his first solo album. McCartney would be considered a great pianist if that was his ONLY instrument. Lennon also could play piano very well. McCartney even played drums on a couple Steve Miller Band tracks... let alone being one of the most melodic and great bass players of all time. Yes, the bass player of the beatles could shred guitar, write beautiful pieces on piano, play drums, just in time for fish and chips and a pint.
So compared to other bands accomplishments and talent... how are the Beatles overrated? Oh, cause you only like a few of their songs. I suggest having a couple glasses of wine, maybe a J if you smoke, and actually putting some effort into exploring their music, 90 percent of which is brilliant, and the other 10 percent okay to very good. (did I mention it was all done in 7 years? I suppose I did.) Even if you can't get into the music, you have to admit their talent and accomplishments in such a short period of time. Like a blink of an eye amount of time. Most bands get three, maybe four, okay albums out in 7 years.
Absolutely
Days of Future Passed was released after Sgt. Peppers.
When I was a kid I taught that the beatles were good but not amazing. But then I went to vegas and saw the love consert from cirque du soleil and it was amazing!!! I discoverd the best songs i had ever heard before like Tomorow never knows and I want you( she's so heavy) and now it's my favourite band of all time.
Every album was great. Just about every song on every album as well. That automatically puts them in outstanding territory. They're cover songs are better than the originals. They were and always will be a natural phenomenon. Rock Gods. A religion could literally develop from their art. It's that powerful.
Beatles fan here. I think they've been underrated by many people, and I also think they might have done better on some songs, but if they had we wouldn't have the music we do now. No matter what our personal preferences or likes/dislikes are in music, there is simply no denying that the Beatles are the Gold Standard of modern music. There is no escaping their influence on music.
Fact is, they didn't need to be the absolute best musicians - they had to be good enough to do their songs well and make them popular, and there is just simply no ignoring that they did just that. The Beatles are actually in their very own music category and VERY few bands have achieved that in the decades since the Beatles. I mean, here we are 50 yrs later discussing their music and talents, and their music is still on the radio and being covered by other bands ! I think that if you start looking at the subject any closer that that it quickly descends into a lot of pointless stuff.
instead of watching this whole video, here's a better answer:
no
Interesting video lads! I grew up in their home town of Liverpool and they were incredibly popular here as you could imagine. I've never liked them too much in the last few years they've grown on me and become my favourite band
Still talking about them 50 years later says it all. #1 and #2 top selling vinyl albums of 2017. Sgt. Pepper and Abbey road. Speaks volumes.
High sales numbers does not equal great music or musicians...... just sales,
@@dougpredmore3780 in their case, it does
Sgt Pepper's was released in May of 67
Days of Future Passed was released in November of 67
They had very many firsts
They introduced complex chords to pop music
They used clever lyrics
They offered beautiful and complex harmonies
They were the first to:
use music videos
record an album of their own material
record a song that was too complex to play live
perform in a sports stadium
have enough fans to fill a sports stadium
I think they used feedback and fuzz before anyone else.
They arrived on the world scene in 64
They stopped touring in 66
They broke up in 70
And they're still the most talked about band on the internet
They still have the most #1 hits
They have the most diamond albums
The Stones have been going for over 50 years and still haven't caught up
They were fun, and witty, and irreverent...
They had three very successful films, and one bad one
At least two spoof films were made about them - The Ruttles films
Every album was groundbreaking. Every album introduced something new to their listeners. Especially from Rubber Soul on but even the early records.
I don't know what your criteria are but, no one comes close to doing what the Beatles did. Many have tried.
I would have to say that in my opinion, they are incredibly overrated. I never listened to any Beatles album aside from Sgt. Pepper's which I borrowed from a friend in high school, and I was not really impressed with it.
But what is really significant is that any time I've heard a song on classic rock radio or adult contemporary, etc., that I was, having been born in the early '80s, unaware was a Beatles song at the time, I have found them to be totally unimpressive and assumed they were songs by some marginal band from the sixties, until later discovering that they were in fact Beatles songs.
sam sender Are you kidding me? The only decent one on that list is A Day In The Life, and only if that Paul McCartney section is cut out of the middle.
Coincidentally, the only John Lennon song I like that I am aware of is How Do You Sleep, which George Harrison nearly managed to ruin by way of his horrific solo in the middle of it.
He should have dropped the three of them far sooner.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 McCartney was the best musician of the bunch, though Lennon had the best ideas and best voice. (Agreed, How Do You Sleep is amazing.) But, yeah, your comments are silly. The list of great Beatles songs would have about 100 names on it. They simply recorded some of the best pop/rock songs ever. Off top of my head: Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, Rain, She Said She Said, A Day in the Life, Happiness is a Warm Gun, And You're Bird Can Sing, Here There and Everywhere, Rain, Ticket to Ride, Paperback Writer, Come Together, Day Tripper, In My Life, and on and on ....
J. Maggio
"But, yeah, your comments are silly."
No, my comments are from someone who probably has far more of a relationship and sensitivity to music than do you.
"The list of great Beatles songs would have about 100 names on it."
That does not mean anything. Who determines what a "great song" is?
"They simply recorded some of the best pop/rock songs ever."
That is nothing more than an opinion, and I do not understand why so many of you think that yours are more valid than mine.
"Off top of my head:" your opinion about the songs you list. I'll give you my opinion of them too:
"Strawberry Fields Forever" - Mediocre
"Tomorrow Never Knows" - Semi-okay, but not music I would listen to
"Rain" - Shit
"She Said She Said" - Sickening
"Happiness is a Warm Gun" - Ugh!
"And You're Bird Can Sing" - Again, partly okay but not something I would listen to
"Here There and Everywhere" - Another one of those mediocre pieces of shit I have probably heard and thought it was the one hit of some group of nobodies.
"Ticket to Ride" - Sucks
"Paperback Writer" - Horrid
"Come Together" - Mediocre
"Day Tripper" - Terrible and corny
"In My Life" - Horrible Hallmark nonsense with instrumentals that make me physically ill.
Your opinion is worthless
@@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 sorry this is 4 years late but your comment made me smile....I'd like to think that these people are narrow minded....
Metallica and Mastodon are my favorite bands(metal) but I also like some QOTSA, RHCP, STP, AIC, Soundgarden, Tool, Pantera, Trivium, Incubus.
Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd made better music.....
I understand if someone says any of the bands I mentioned is their favorite cause I see that reason behind it......The Beatles is just simple music to sing along to, appeals to everyone, it doesn't require genius to write(as many claim) the fact that they wrote 13 albums in 7 years and the first half of their albums are fucking garbage speaks for itself
NO,NO,NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Beatles fans are the absolute worst. If anyone criticizes their precious Fabbies, then they have to be stupid, have no taste, are trolls, or are trying to act superior (the article takes all these approaches). Could the Beatles play well live? Aside from recollections from people who remember the Hamburg days, there is little evidence. Could they jam? Not really. Could they play a simple blues number convincingly? Except for "Yer Blues", which sounds like a parody, no. Were they able to play jazz? Nope, unless "When I'm 64" counts, which it shouldn't. Were they the first to put feedback on a record? Nope, no matter how many times Lennon claimed it. Were they better than the Moody Blues? Probably. But not necessarily better than the Stones or Kinks. Does all this mean I hate the Beatles? No, they were good. But they do not represent the pinnacle of musical achievement (thank God), they were not perfect, and their fans' insistence in shutting down all discussion beyond fawning does the band a real disservice. Beatles fans have notoriously narrow and conservative taste too. Most haven't heard enough music to be qualified to say if something is overrated or not.
Appreciate what you have man, all 90% of people listen to today are Ariana Grande, those DJs, Drake and Rihanna. Most Beatles fans on the Internet are under the age of 25 (obviously enough), which is something that you should take into consideration. I, myself, have to confess, am not that much of a professional on music yet, but you need also to take into account that not growing up with the 60s or the 50s music is an important reason to why we stick to the more mainstream classical rocks tracks. If you were born in an earlier, decade, you probably knew a thing or two about artists of that era you didn't even like. For example, I have a clear idea of Bieber's music, heck, I know about 20 of his songs but I'm not even a fan.
The gist is, you cannot blame young people for sticking to the mainstream acts when most don't know how to make their way through the less popular artists, as they weren't raised with them.
Few kids get to grow up in a musical house.
Now, that was kind of irrelevant in comparison to what the gist of your comment was, but, no matter what your opinion is, everyone enjoys different things and the variety in perspectives is no sin if you are being respectful. In all honestly, the Beatles are vocally more pleasing to my ears, but I got to give the Stones a point for certain things in their instrumentation and aura in general.
As I previously mentioned, however, I am yet in a primitive state in terms of knowledge, so I need to do a better dig on the Stones before jumping onto conclusions.
What would your suggestions be?
+TLMAP Before you find something to stress about my expressional mistakes, I need to pinpoint that I am not a native speaker.
Seederman yes you are right !!!!
Seederman Finally, someone that is right
Ahhhhhhhhh WHAT, may I ask, is so important about jamming, blue or jazz that a group or musician who does not play them is "overrated"?
I lost all respect for the Beatles after I found out they stole the idea for Sgt. Pepper from the Bee Gees.
no every one else is. they are the beatles are the only band that matters.
Answer honestly,if you just heard a Beatles song for the first time without knowing they are considered an amazing band,would be able to discern their greatness?
Anyone that listens to The Beatles since, say the 80's knew beforehand that he's listening to something that society considers amazing,so obviously he was effected by it to find that greatness in it
When you listen to any music you don't just listen to the music you experience the subjective reputation that music received by the society you are brought in.
You know beforehand that they are considered :legend,geniuses,amazing
So you look for it because it's fun to worship artists,and believe in something outstanding
Music,and art in general is the most subjective thing there is sort of,so it can be malleable within you to something genius or shit so easily
Therefore its really easy for fame, to change how an artist is perceived by the public
For example:no one thought The Beatles are something special during all the time they played in clubs,in Hamburg,In Liverpool, they were just considered a good RocknRoll band. Even George Martin thought they were just average singers,and they didn't pass the Decca audition,That's because that the Beatles myth didn't exist then :)
btw,I love them,but they are just human beings after all :)
its unlikely that out of the 14 billion people that lived since the 60's those 4 are just beyond everyone...its more likely that they are just a great band that was blown up by the public because of the need to worship musicians that was so prevalent in the 60s :)
yes they are only reason they are so big is cause most of america loves them and it pisses me off that there is some much better bands that have come from britain who america have never heard of
Jim Marley Pink Floyd isn’t recognized enough honestly. Idk if you listen to them but they were around the same time and when Pink Floyd began, the Beatles were just a pop band. I truly think Pink Floyd inspired the Beatles to become what they are mostly recognized for, sgt pepper. Like so many other bands from their time are better. So I agree with you, the bands surrounding them had just as much influence
Like who
The Beatles influenced every musician, every composer and every arranger who followed -- whether they know it or not.
They are the FIRST BOY BAND!!
They were actually young MEN in their TWENTIES at the time you jack ass. Besides, rock and roll has always been associated with YOUTH pretty much, you didn't know THAT?
Firstly dumb fuck, the members of the Beatles were not exactly BOYS, they were young MEN in their twenties. And the term "boy band" wasn't coined till the late 90's and referred distinctly to certain groups like N Sync and Backstreet Boys and THOSE groups actually were much more derivative and reminiscent of r&b all-vocal groups from the 50's like The Platters, Four Tops and Temptations than The Beatles.
cole slaw WHY are WE UPPERCASING every WORD
Gran Flakes - Well, in MY case, it's just to STRESS or EMPHASIZE certain words - OOps! .. . did it again there!
nope the first boy band was originally from 30`s
I don't think so but so what time has been the ultimate judge. If you dont like them then fair enough but they did so much in a short amount of time that most people could at least find something they like.
Justly rated as the best there ever was