Latest on MJJC

The Beatles. Are they really as great as they are made out to be?

analogue

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8,334
Points
113
I'm posting this here, because I know for a fact that if I post this on any other forum I'll be ripped apart by a bunch of music snobs. I often find that The Beatles attract the biggest music snobs on the planet

OK first things first I don't hate The Beatles. I do like a few of their songs (Here Comes The Sun is a classic IMO), and I'm aware of the impact they made on music but I wouldn't call myself a fan of them. Many people say that The Beatles are these untouchable geniuses and no one in music will ever top them in terms of talent. I disagree with this because the years after The Beatles I feel that many artists and bands have come along who have made better and more interesting music than The Beatles ever did. I'm not saying The Beatles were not talented, of course they were talented and they wrote and composed some fantastic songs in their career, but I just don't seem them as these ''untouchable geniuses'' like so many other people seem to
 
The Beatles were great and influential but I personally could never really get into them. I tried but their music is just not what captures me. I find 60s R&B a lot more exciting and interesting music than the Beatles - if we are talking about the music of that era. I do think they are a bit overrated which doesn't mean they are bad. It's just that they are hyped so much as if you should feel crazy if you don't like them. They have an incredibly good and supportive press, for sure. For example, my e-mail is on Yahoo and when I enter I can see the Yahoo News page and I can see so often something about the Beatles there. I'd say I see news about them more often than any other artist and they are not even a current act. I even had to adjust my settings so that I don't get spammed by Beatles news, LOL, but they still pop up from time to time. No wonder they still sell with that kind of propaganda for them. But they do sell and you have to give it to them. I think their secret is in the simplicity of their music to which a lot of people can relate to. It's the kind of light music that you can hum along so it appeals to masses of people. Another advantage they have is that they were the band of the baby boomer generation and that is the generation which then set the tone in music magazines such as Rolling Stone etc. so they always got a good press.
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting post about them
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

Like Respect already touched the subject simplicity.
"The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic."

I personally like their fluffy 3 minutes songs, but cannot say they are the greatest band in the world.
Greatest?
As in technically gifted musicians? No.
As in gifted song writers? No.
As in gifted composers, to some degree but definitely not the greatest.
As in gifted lyricists? No:)
 
To be honest,(even though I love them.) they really weren't what people made them out to be. I was watching one of their performances from the 60's..and..well..it wasn't all that appealing. I'm thinking they're overrated..but hey..that's just me. 'Untouchable geniuses.' :glare: people overexaggerate sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I love the Beatles as well but some people or media make them to appear the greatest band of all the time which isn't the case. Part of their success was thanks Chuck Berry, Little Richard, George Martin and the racism it prevail at that time. I grew up with their music, their songs were catchy and easy to learn, I don't deny the legacy they gave to popular music but there are better bands IMHO. Queen, The Rolling Stones for example.

It pisses me off media treats the Beatles catalogue like the jewelries of the crown when Michael's songs for the most part are better, deeper and meaningful. It pisses me of they don't acknowledge Michael achieved everything The Beatles couldn't, braking all the geographical, racial and cultural barriers. It gives me the impression TB are more famous in the western part than in the rest of the continents. I might be wrong though.
 
just compare Michael's come together with there version
, hope to hear Michael's rendition of 'strawberry fields forever' in the future.
 
if Mj covered a beatles song and bought their catalog, HE must have thought they were the shit
 
At the moment, they're my favourite band to be honest... actually bought some of their CDs today :p

You can certainly see their influence in many artists and they have continued to remain reasonably popular half a century on (I'm a teenager and I know a number of people my age who like their music. Not sure how big fans they are but I know they like at least some of their stuff). They're also responsible for arguably the most iconic album artwork in the history of music. I could recognise the 'Abbey Road' artwork before I even knew who The Beatles were. I think they were all pretty talented too (I know Starr is very respected among many drummers) and I do like a lot of their songs. I don't think some of their music being 'simple' makes it any better or worse - in fact many of their later songs weren't as simple because they often experimented with many techniques that would've made those songs impossible to play live.

I hold the same opinion for 'deepness' to be honest. I'm sure there are some Beatles songs that have depth to them, and that a good number don't (in fact that's why John wrote 'I Am The Walrus', to screw with anyone trying to look too far into their lyrics :p) but it never really matters personally to me how deep a song is. I think it can benefit if it's got some depth to it - and I certainly appreciate it - but so long as I like the sound of the song and the lyrics aren't too shit, I'm personally pretty happy. That doesn't apply to just The Beatles, it applies to pretty much every artist.

Greatest band of all time though? Meh I reckon that's pretty subjective. Certainly the biggest-selling band of all time (in the sense that no other artist has outsold them) but everyone's going to have different opinions on who the best band is. Some will say Queen, some will say Beatles, some will say Rolling Stones etc etc. I don't feel I know enough bands well enough to say which is the greatest band ever (I do listen to bands often but a large proportion of my iTunes library is single artists). Would be quite interesting if a massive survey was conducted though, to see which band is most thought of as the 'greatest' though.

Just my personal opinion ^_^

Oh and I'd love to hear MJ's version of Strawberry Fields Forever. That's one of his unreleased tracks I'm most holding out to hear :D
 
HIStoric said:
Oh and I'd love to hear MJ's version of Strawberry Fields Forever. That's one of his unreleased tracks I'm most holding out to hear :D
Click to expand...

Same here!!! sounds exciting and given the Come Together cover, I'd say it'll be awesome. Fingers crossed

Zakk said:
just compare Michael's come together with there version
Click to expand...

The day I listened to his version, there was no turning back, ha. It's soo much better.

And well, yeah they are quite overrated, not saying that they suck, because they didn't, it's just Paul and John are seen as these musical gods /geniuses today. I doubt they took it seriously though, it's people or music snobs, as you call it, who make it such a rule that they think the rest of us should follow. I mean there was a time I was so into their songs, thanks to my dad, but eventually grew out of it. Despite that I never considered them THE greatest band of all times and I sure don't to this day. I don't think any band holds that spot in my book, for some reason.
 
Bubs said:
Here is an interesting post about them
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

Like Respect already touched the subject simplicity.
"The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic."

I personally like their fluffy 3 minutes songs, but cannot say they are the greatest band in the world.
Greatest?
As in technically gifted musicians? No.
As in gifted song writers? No.
As in gifted composers, to some degree but definitely not the greatest.
As in gifted lyricists? No:)
Click to expand...
Okay, what?

Fluffy 3 minute ditties?

That is completely and utterly incorrect.

The Beatles are the greatest band of all time because if you listen to their albums chronologically, you can hear their sound mature.

Indeed, "Love Me Do" is a 2 minute, 21-second long ditty that was easy for people to digest and was widely enjoyed and acclaimed.

But by the end? 3 minute ditties? No creative depth? No technical innovation? What the hell kind of drugs was the writer of this article on when he made this claim?!

The Beatles decided they no longer wanted to tour in 1966, so they went ahead and wrote music that would be impossible to perform in a live setting in 1967.

Nothing complex? Have you heard "A Day in the Life"?


Have you heard "Strawberry Fields Forever"?


Have you heard "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?


Have you heard THE ENTIRE ABBEY ROAD ALBUM?! EVERYTHING THERE IS MUSICALLY COMPLEX AND FANTASTIC!


The Beatles can be easily credited with the creation or popularization of:
The music video ("Paperback Writer"/"Rain" in 1966)
The hidden track ("Her Majesty" in 1969)
The concept album (the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967)
The outdoor stadium concert (Shea Stadium in 1964)
The self-contained record label (Apple Records in 1967)
The live television global broadcast ("All You Need is Love" in June 1967)
Artificial double tracking ("Tomorrow Never Knows" in 1966)
Back masking (the album Revolver in 1966)
Lyrics printed on/with the album (the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967
Music on FM radio, instead of AM radio ("Hey Jude" in 1968)
Tuned feedback, spliced audio loops, distortion, equalization, stereo effects, multitracking, compression, phase shifting, "microphoning"

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

The Beatles are the single greatest and most influential band of all time.
Lennon/McCartney is the greatest songwriting team of all time and wrote some of the greatest music of all time.

They are VERY technically gifted musicians
They are VERY gifted songwriters - ALL of them, INCLUDING GEORGE HARRISON AND RINGO STARR
They are VERY gifted composers
They are VERY gifted lyricists.

EVERY SIGNIFICANT POPULAR MUSICAL ACT SINCE THE BEATLES HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY THE BEATLES.
THIS INCLUDES MICHAEL JACKSON.

The downplaying of the Beatles as a culturally and musically significant band is incredibly disturbing to me. There is the reason the Beatles are the Beatles. And it's not because society overrated them. Music would be NOTHING like it is today without them. Michael Jackson probably would not have made the same music without the Beatles.

How dare you say they are not gifted musicians?
How dare you.

Realize that some of this stuff may seem unimpressive to you because everybody has copied the Beatles since they broke up in 1970.
Back then? THE BEATLES WERE THE FIRST BAND EVER TO DO THINGS LIKE THAT.

This is almost as bad as those "Beliebers" saying Justin Bieber is more important than the Beatles.
I am just stunned.
 
^ Well, I wouldn't exactly say the Beatles music is more mature than Nirvana-- but then again, that's just me. They are a bit overrated when you think about it, and I'm sure some artists would still be here making music had they not existed. The only thing we wouldn't have is Beatlemania. Michael... 10 times out of 10 would have, because Jackie Wilson and James Brown were his influences. I haven't seen Michael or any other artist for that matter copy the Beatles yet.

As for the Beatles being the single greatest band of all time -- That's not exactly true if you wanna get to the point.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney aren't really what I'd call 'the greatest', not saying they weren't good, because they were. But the greatest? Nah.

I've seen musicians that are waaay more gifted, so I wouldn't go and give the Beatles that title so loosely. But then again, my musical tastes are different.
 
How dare you say they are not gifted musicians?
How dare you.
Click to expand...

No one said they were not gifted musicians. Read that comment that Bubs quoted again!

I personally like their fluffy 3 minutes songs, but cannot say they are the greatest band in the world.
Greatest?
As in technically gifted musicians? No.
As in gifted song writers? No.
As in gifted composers, to some degree but definitely not the greatest.
As in gifted lyricists? No:)
Click to expand...

It just stated the opinion that they were not the greatest musicians, not that they were not gifted at all. It's not fair to say they weren't innovative, but IMO it's fair to say there were/are more gifted musicians than them. But apperently you cannot even say that about the Beatles because some take it as blasphemy. This is exactly what makes them overrated IMO. That you have to think they were the greatest ever in everything or else...
To be clear, overrated is not equal to bad. Nor did anyone say in this thread they were "shit" (@Dark Sidious). I don't know why some think in extremes, that if you think they weren't the greatest ever then you must think they were "shit". That's not so. I think they were a great band and one of the most influential bands ever. But music at the end of the day is subjective. What is the greatest ever songwriting in Lennon/McCartney to some is not that impressive to others and people will have to accept that and not say things like "how dare" you have a different opinion.
 
Its all a question of taste really. I actually come from Liverpool. No one from liverpool would admit to not liking The Beatles. :')
I wouldnt say i'm the biggest fan in the world but, if you listen to stuff like The White album, you cant deny that they were great artists.
 
xosweetseducingsighsxo said:
I'm sure some artists would still be here making music had they not existed. The only thing we wouldn't have is Beatlemania. Michael... 10 times out of 10 would have, because Jackie Wilson and James Brown were his influences. I haven't seen Michael or any other artist for that matter copy the Beatles yet.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Beatles had their influences as well, which includes Chuck Berry, Elvis and black R&B. If anything can be named as the originator of modern pop/rock music it has to be black music. As far as I know the Beatles said had not been for Elvis then the Beatles would not exist. But in turn who was Elvis influenced by? Exactly. By the black pioneers of his era who could not become as popular as him because they were black, but their influence on Elvis (and the Beatles) was undeniable. The Beatles on their first albums did a lot of covers of black music (such as Please Mr. Postman, You've Really Got a Hold On Me, Roll Over Beethoven etc. etc.) Of course, later they added their own elements.

MJ himself cited the Beatles as one of his influences, but I'm not sure his music would be significantly different without them. I mean, like you said, I can see a lot more influence by Jackie Wilson, James Brown, of course Motown (which also influenced the Beatles), other early R&B and jazz (the latter esp. through Quincy) on him than directly the Beatles. It does not mean they did not influence him at all, but I'm not sure his music would be THAT much different without them. There are other bands and artists who were a lot more obviously influenced by the Beatles IMO and you could say they would not exist without the Beatles, but MJ would not be that much different without the Beatles IMO. He'd still used James Brown, Jackie Wilson, early R&B, Motown etc. as his influences.
 
I remember John Lennon once said that Elvis Presley was his idol but Chuck Berry was his teacher
 
I don't like the Beatles. I don't get into their music, and ive listened to a lot of it.
They are well over exaggerated.

Queen is better imo and so is Michael.
 
My reaction to everybody else:

Bwz95B9R.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top