Not that I don’t like them, I’m more ambivalent toward them. I did get the white album on cassette for my birthday one year from a huge beatles fan and I did really enjoy it but I didnt’ see any genius behind it. I’ve heard all their songs.
Now don’t take this to be anti-beatle because I’m not. I just fail to see them at the same level many others do. I know it’s all subjective but they are especially loved and put in such high regard and I don’t see why.
I heard a theory, by Mr. Tarantino that you are either a Elvis man or a Beatles man (or person, I guess). I fall into the Elvis category but know a few who are very passionate about both.
I think most of it may have to do with age. How old are you, Oblong? Back when their music first came out it was a new sound and made pop music into an art form with Sgt Peppers. Compared to the music we’re used to hearing today, it’s not that big of a deal. At the time, though, when they decided to stop touring, they did things in the studio that had never been done before.
Yeah, what Crunchy Frog said. What they did may not have been that great (although I happen to think it’s really good), but they were the first ones to do it.
I believe that the Beatles greatest contribution (besides an absolute buttload of incredible songs)was the popularization of the concept of an entire cohesive album as opposed to a collection of singles. The Beatles learned many of their chops from Elvis and Buddy Holly; however, their albums from Rubber Soul onwards freed Rock’N’Roll from the restrictive idea of releasing Big Singles only and opened up an entirely new vision for modern music.
Think about it: Pop Music is, and always will be, a matter of releasing one or two songs as singles, with any resulting album being more of an afterthought. The Beatles helped make the world safe for an entire album to be considered as a work of art that can stand on its on. The important Beatles albums all have their own identity and define the Artists as they were at the time. I find it similar to various works I’ve seen by painters, sculptors, and other graphic artists.
In short, I do not believe the Beatles are overrated. They have an important place in our common culture. Having said that, I think that Elvis Absolutely Rules.
I remember seeing a clip of an old American Bandstand episode where Dick Clark showed a “short film” (what we today would call a music video) by the Beatles. I believe the song was “Strawberry Fields” but I could be mistaken about that. Afterwards Clark asked the kids in the audience what they thought of it. The consensus - not very good, too wierd.
Just an afterthought to my previous statement about what they did being new. I can’t think of anyone I know who would consider “Strawberry Fields” weird.
The problem with coming to the Beatles now is that so much of their originality has been copied so often that it doesn’t seem all that new. They pioneered and everyone followed, so that it’s hard to see what they did was as innovative and imaginative as it was at the time.
Hell, “Strawberry Fields” STILL sounds weird to me. That’s probably why I like it so much.
Yeah, I think that WAS the film that Dick Clark showed, either that one or the “Penny Lane” one, which was probably better.
I remember watching the segment in a theater in the late '70s…most of the kids on the show thought it was too weird, but one (clean-cut) guy was OBVIOUSLY entranced by it.
My friends and I giggled and passed the bowl and noted that HE was gonna be an acid-eater by the time 1967 was out.
If anyone knows how I can get my hands on the “Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields” films, let me know, okay?
The “White Album” is ok…but listen to the albums *Please, Please Me * (1963), * Revolver * (1966), and then *Abbey Road * (1969). Well at least listen to the first 2 of tracks from each one…if you have a life 2 1/2 hours of Beatles may be a bit much.
Anyway, each album is only 3 years apart, yet the differences between the three are almost generational in scale. How many other groups left such an impact in less than 7 years?
I also fail to see the “big deal” with the Beatles. It just sounds so…average. Nothing special, y’know? But, I grew up on '80s heavy metal and grunge rock, so what do I know.
That’s the point, by the time you’re used to listening to today’s music, the Beatles are nothing special. For the same reason by today’s standards the Mona Lisa is nothing special, but at the time was ground breaking. From the article by SDStaffer Dex:
This is what the Beatles did with music, but now, we’re so used to it people don’t see the big deal. The technological advances the Beatles made in the studio, freed from the constraints of performing live once they decided no more touring, broke the mold and changed pop music.
I just chalked up their reverence to the fact it was baby boomers who listened to them when they first came out and they have this air of self importance about their generation, thinking everything that they experienced was supreme and the best.
The Beatles wrote so many songs, all of them completely original and a large proportion of them pretty damn good.
Sometimes Lennon gets given the credit as being the real genius but I think its the combination of the two together. I quite like the McCartney songs - “Lady Madonna”, “Let It Be”, “Hey Jude”. I think Lennon and McCartney played an equal role. Solo, they were/are both good but together they produced some of the most original music ever, and so many different songs. Just the sheer number of them.
I dont understand the “Elvis phenomenon”.
Elvis was a fantastic singer and performer but he didn’t write his own songs.
I think Buddy Holly was more talented all round and the inventor of rock and roll. At least he wrote all of his hits.
The same is true of The Beatles.
They are more talented than Elvis because they wrote as well as performed. I’m not denying Elvis gave those songs life just saying that he gave them life in the way an great actor would interpret a film script.
Whereas The Beatles, as well as performing it, wrote the film script.
They showed up in the US only a few months (February, 64) after Kennedy was killed in Dallas, and they were fresh and different, it seemed that maybe they were a good diversion.
They were also heavily and professionally marketed, something that was in its infancy for pop music and brought to an art form through the beatless.
If you look, you can find plenty of music critics who thought the beatles were pompous, overwrought, pretentious, etc., I’m not sure why the demi-god status culminated with them, though a lot of the hype as years went by got awfully strange. I think a lot of people were pretty wacked out on some serious chemicals at the time, including the critics.
Their catalog was closely held for a long time as well, notice no “Beatles” tunes included on those 60’s Greatest Hits compilations on TV or in the stores, etc. Too expensive. Not sure who owns the songs now, probably Sony or that freak from the Jackson 5. Anyway, I like their early stuff, before they completely went grotty. They had to me among the first Pompous Asshole Rock Star; at least Elvis remained pretty magnanimous to his fans till the end, relatively anyway.
I dont’ think writing the song is necessary. It’s the performance. Rock and Roll is about the presentation.
Those Elvis songs, if sung by someone else would lose their soul and be just another bubble gum song. Being able to write the song personally doesn’t make the performance any better. It just means they were talented at one more thing involved in the process, but doesn’t mean they were better performers. That shouldn’t be what makes them better. If you think the songs are better, then that’s another debate.
Keep in mind, when I say overrated, I thinking of a 7 or 8 instead of 9 or 10.
Many of the arguments presented on the Beatles behalf are the same ones I use in defending Led Zeppelin.
Nobody markets The Beatles in the Brian Epstein era, as Brian Epstein is known by one and all as extremely naive when it comes to marketing. The Beatles market themselves during this time, using their music and personal appeal.
I am curious to know who are these critics, as I read many books concerning The Beatles, and never come across a serious critic who thinks this.
Well, The Beatles are never pompous in my book, and I am curious again about this assessment. There are bands around today, who are only here five minutes, and have more pomposity than the Royal family. Furthermore, they visit the US many times, and Elvis never thinks to visit the UK, so I do not think Elvis is as magnanimous as you say.
I remember seeing a documentary about John Lennon (Imagine, I think) where a fan goes to Lennon’s home because he thinks John Lennon is speaking to him through his songs. Lennon doesn’t throw the man out or berate him for being a nutcase. He invites the man in, feeds him and explains that the songs John Lennon writes are for John Lennon. Seems pretty magnanimous to me.
George has always been known as rather quiet and reclusive.
Ringo is one of the most affable rock stars I’ve seen. (He also has one of my favorite lines heard on morning radio. On the Bob and Tom Show, Ringo was asked who is the most famous person he’s met. Ringo thinks for a bit and then says, “I don’t know. George?”)
Paul I’ll give you. In interviews, Paul can come off as a bit pompous.
For the record, there was a thread in April which discussed this subject.
My feelings on the subject are discussed there, but for the record, I am 26, only own a couple Beatles albums, and think they’ve earned and deserve every bit of their Rock Gods status.
Yeah, I hear ya - that was what gave me the same attitude towards the Beatles. It kept me from listening to them for years, and (being the agitator I am) razzing people who liked the Beatles and gave you that parrot-like response about the Beatles being the greatest rock band ever. It’s fun to cheese off the boomers that way!
But I finally got around to seriously listening to them when a buddy gave me a cd full of Beatles mp3’s, and I finally had to admit they were pretty damn good.
