am I the only one who thinks the beatles are overrated?

[Yue_Han]

CalMeache: Haha, I know the quote you were referencing. It’s damndest thing, I was sitting in class today and I suddenly had an idea of a short story connecting the quote about God’s fondness for Beatles and the greatness/popularity of the Beatles. I wasn’t sure exactly how it was going to work and then I got distracted by something and forgot it until I read this thread.

–John

[Tedster]

I’ve often wondered how the beatles would have fared had they a decent drummer and guitarist. Say, Keith Moon on drums and Chet Atkins or somebody like that on lead guitar.

[Feynn]

There seems to be quite a few good people (as young as 15) discussing the Beatles here and how they feel they impacted the music we hear today.

If they had only come into existance last week I think people would be paying them some serious attention.

Over-rated? I think not.

George Harrison is definately a legend in his own right, the writer of songs such as “I Need You”, “Taxman”, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”, “Something”, and “Here Comes the Sun”. He is a tremendously talented guitar player.

He has released the following albums since the Beatles disbanded, does anyone recognize any of these?

1.Wonderwall Music (original soundtrack) -1968
2.Electronic Sound - 1969
3.All Things Must Pass - 1970 (3LP/2CD)
4.The Concert for Bangla Desh - 1971 (3LP/2CD)
5.Living in the Material World - 1973
6.Dark Horse - 1974
7.Extra Texture (Read All About It) - 1975
8.Thirty-three & 1/3 - 1976
9.The Best of George Harrison - 1976
10.George Harrison - 1979
11.Somewhere in England - 1981
12.Gone Troppo - 1982
13.Cloud Nine - 1988
14.The Traveling Wilburys, Vol. 1 - 1988
15.Best of Dark Horse 1976-1989 - 1989
16.The Traveling Wilburys, Vol. 3 - 1990 (Note: There is no Vol. 2)
17.Live In Japan - 1992

“All Things Must Pass” was just re-released.

I think that McCartney fellow and Ringo Starr (Richard Starkey) have been pretty successful on their own as well, and if Lennon had lived, who knows what more he might have given us.

[blur]

*Originally posted by Mythos45 *
**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. **

Ozzy has stated that the Beatles were the reason he got into music. I think it was in his Behind the Music.

[Chaosopher]

*Originally posted by spoke- *
**Chaosopher wrote:

The Beatles were the first rock band to use classical instruments in some of the compositions.

Nah. Buddy Holly utilized strings before them. Give a listen to “True Love Ways” or “It Doesn’t Matter Anymore.” Buddy was the first.
**

I didn’t say ‘strings’. I said classical instruments. Like a full orchestra. Buddy Holly (whom I love by the way) used some small classical instruments. Like a solo violin or violin and cello. He never had the London Philharmonic behind him. Buddy cannot claim to marry classical and rock and roll like the Beatles can. The Beatles were first.

Chaosopher also wrote

The Beatles were the first to fuse non-western music with rock and roll.

Well, they were the first to use the sitar, anyway. But “non-western” music? When you get right down to it, rock and roll is based ultimately on African rhythms, and so the entire genre utilizes “non-Western” music (at least to the extent that “non-Western” typically is used as shorthand for “non-European”).

I’m not talking ‘derived from’ here. I’m talking a re-fusing of western and eastern music styles. Again, the Beatles were the first to do this.
I agree with what you said about Dylan, but Dylan has NOT had the overall influence on artists that the Beatles did. The Beatles had it all. The Beatles carried Rock and Roll into more new territories than any other artist.

Again I agree that Dylan taught them that there could be real poetry in rock. Paul never really picked up on that. Lennon and Harrison did.

[Spoke]

Chaosopher wrote:

I didn’t say ‘strings’. I said classical instruments. Like a full orchestra. Buddy Holly (whom I love by the way) used some small classical instruments. Like a solo violin or violin and cello. He never had the London Philharmonic behind him. Buddy cannot claim to marry classical and rock and roll like the Beatles can. The Beatles were first.

Chaosopher, while I appreciate your passion for the Beatles, you are just plain wrong on this point. Do you have Buddy Holly in your music collection? If so, go listen to “True Love Ways” and “It Doesn’t Matter Any More.” I’m not talking about a solo violin or a violin and cello. I’m talking about a full set of orchestral strings. Buddy Holly was the first to utilize orchestral arrangements in rock and roll.

Don’t believe me? Don’t have the songs in your collection (and shame on you if you don’t)? Then take a look at this site. Quoting from the linked article:

In New York he [Holly] took acting lessons and recorded several songs with strings and orchestral backing.

[Spoke]

Incidentally, you might also want to rent The Buddy Holly Story from your local video store. I believe I recall a scene from that film covering Holly’s experimentation with orchestral sounds.

[Spoke]

Oh yes, and Phil Spector was also using orchestral arrangements before the Beatles.

And for that matter, so were the Beach Boys. In fact, the Beatles acknowledged the Beach Boys’ album Pet Sounds as a huge influence on their own work. Quoth Paul:

It was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. I love the album so much. I’ve just bought my kids each a copy of it for their education in life… I figure no one is educated musically 'til they’ve heard that album… I love the orchestra, the arrangements… it may be going overboard to say it’s the classic of the century… but to me, it certainly is a total, classic record that is unbeatable in many ways… I’ve often played Pet Sounds and cried. I played it to John so much that it would be difficult for him
to escape the influence… it was the record of the time. The thing that really made me sit up and take notice was the bass lines… and also, putting melodies in the bass line. That I think was probably the big influence that set me thinking when we recorded ‘Pepper’, it set me off on a period I had then for a couple of years of nearly always writing quite melodic bass lines
[my emphasis]

[Chaosopher]

*Originally posted by spoke- *
**Chaosopher, while I appreciate your passion for the Beatles, you are just plain wrong on this point. Do you have Buddy Holly in your music collection? If so, go listen to “True Love Ways” and “It Doesn’t Matter Any More.” I’m not talking about a solo violin or a violin and cello. I’m talking about a full set of orchestral strings. Buddy Holly was the first to utilize orchestral arrangements in rock and roll.

Don’t believe me? Don’t have the songs in your collection (and shame on you if you don’t)? Then take a look at this site. Quoting from the linked article:

In New York he [Holly] took acting lessons and recorded several songs with strings and orchestral backing.

**

I love Buddy Holly. Yes, I have him in my collection. Yes, he used orchestras. But, those songs you are talking about are hardly rock n roll. Buddy Holly wasn’t just a rock n roll artist.

Maybe it’s my opinion, but do YOU consider those tunes rock n roll?

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Tedster *
**I’ve often wondered how the beatles would have fared had they a decent drummer and guitarist. Say, Keith Moon on drums and Chet Atkins or somebody like that on lead guitar. **

First of all, Keith Moon could never have played in a band like the Beatles, or any other band which required some concept of dynamics and restraint. Ever. Ringo was a more than adequate drummer by any measure. And a decent guitarist? Give me a break.

Anyhow, I’m not sure how much more successful you would like them to have been, or how much better they could have fared. An eight-year recording career that included 11 albums (one of them a double album), several EPs, many non-album singles, four motion pictures, continued success for four years after they stopped touring completely, the Top 5 singles on the Billboard chart at once, and a number-one album of previously released material thirty years after they broke up? Is it even conceivable to be more successful than that?

[Ukulele_Ike]

*Originally posted by Feynn *
**8.Thirty-three & 1/3 - 1976 **

Oh, thank you SO bloody much. Now, how do you propose I get “Crackerbox Palace” on continuous repeat out of my head?

[Fish42]

*Originally posted by Nostradamus *
**

*Originally posted by Tedster *
**

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.

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, jazz critic Leonard Feather commented after the Beatles went 0-for-9 at the 1965 Grammys: “America’s musical tastes are finally creeping upward. Any organization that presents 47 Grammys for ‘artistic merit’ without acknowledging the Beatles can’t be all bad.”