The Beatles always played with superb taste and feel, something that “virtuoso” types often lack.
So, no - they were not overrated as musicians unless you think that notes-per-second is a valid measure of musicianship.
This here.
mmm
My sons version of Rock Band Academy also did Beatles songs at age 10.
No, they weren’t overrated as musicians. Once Sutcliffe left and they replaced Best, they were as great as they needed to be. I always thought I could hear Harrison improving on leads from the early days through the middle and later Beatle days. And it’s unfair to judge their musicianship on their performances in huge stadiums and indoor venues where there were thousands of screaming fans and insufficient sound systems.
In a strictly musical sense, I think of George Martin as the “5th Beatle”. He certainly helped with some of the arrangements and brought out the best of them on their early recordings. And later on, when the Beatles would ask to do something new/different, Martin went from saying “We can’t do that” to “Well, we’ve never done that before… let me work on it” and he’d then deliver.
WordMan, I know you know this, and I get what you were saying, but for anyone else following along–George could, of course, play extemporaneous solos. But they weren’t his forte, and he was a great composer (not ad libber) of guitar solos and leads (think “All My Loving,” “Hard Day’s Night,” “Can’t Buy Me Love,” “Nowhere Man,” “Something,” etc.). But if you had dropped him in front of a band and said, “12-bar blues, key of A, you have the solo…” he’d have knocked off a competent lead.
George wasn’t a virtuoso or shredder–thank God. No, he was just the perfect guitar player for the Beatles. Not a bad legacy!
Bear in mind they never played a formal concert after 1966, so for much of their existence and through many of their significant works, their instrument work was all in studio. There was no tour to support Sgt. Pepper’s or the White Album or Abbey Road, etc. It’s hard to judge studio work in terms of how you’d do live.
But yeah, they weren’t virtuosi, but they were right for their music. Flea is objectively a more talented bassist than Paul McCartney, but give me a call when Flea writes one song as good as Paul McCartney’s tenth-best song.
All well stated - thanks.
I don’t know that “overrated” is the word to use. For the type of music that was around in popular music at the time they came to prominence, they were decent; sort of like the garage bands that came to prominence during the “grunge” movement. I think it’s undeniable that they improved over their careers. “Get Back” and “Come Together” are performed much better than “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” or "“Love Me Do”. Even so, Their performance abilities never really achieved the level of skill that some of the bands that came after them did, like Led Zeppelin, The Who, or Yes.
But that’s not what makes The Beatles great. It’s been argued here that what made them great were their compositional abilities. I think it goes much deeper than that. They were not merely great songwriters (although they were that, too). What made them great was the transformative nature of their careers. They went from being basically a glorified cover band to the leaders in psychedelia and planted the seeds that would become progressive rock. They took a musical form that was simply fun for kids and commercially viable and raised it to a true artform. It was The Beatles, mroe than anyone before or since, that showed what was possible in rock music.
If you’re talking about musicianship in terms of skill and aptitude, there have certainly been better groups. If you’re talking about musicianship in terms of artistry (i.e. saying something profound, either in the lyrics or music) then they are unsurpassed.
I can’t stress how important this is, because I’ve experienced it myself (although not to the same level). I’ve been the bass player on my church worship team for going on 19 years now, and have played with the same core group of musicians for that entire time: the leader/pianist, two synth/organ players who take turns each week, a trumpet player, and me (we’ve never had any luck finding a steady guitarist or drummer).
We’ve played together for so long that we can get away with our entire rehearsal routine being nothing but showing up an hour before the Sunday morning service to run through that morning’s songs. That includes learning new songs. We’re so intimately familiar with each others styles and tendencies that our leader doesn’t even need to instruct us. She’ll just start playing and singing the new song, and the rest of us join in and create our own parts, and everything fits together seamlessly.
My huge overstatement of the week: “Underrated? They invented Heavy Metal as a lark, with Helter Skelter”
Thank you!
It’s hard to look back now at the old video footage and understand all the frenzied and creaming teen crowds. The hysteria that followed them everywhere. What caused that?
They had followed the path of any established band. Paid their dues working clubs in Liverpool and Germany. I’m sure they had many fans but AFAIK they were normal live music fans. Everything changed when the got off the plane in America and were met with the screaming.
I like the Beatles and used to play their double hits CD regularly. I’d agree they were stronger and better musicians working together. Those years in Germany made a big difference. It’s a shame they couldn’t perform live in the US without being drowned out by the screaming fans.
Don’t get me wrong guys. I like the Beatles. I have all their albums and think the murder of John Lennon just when he was becoming a mature adult and arguably truly happy for the first time in his life was a horrible loss to the world and not just music fans.
However, they were hugely prolific though and there was bound to be a formula, at least some of the time. They pounded out a lot of albums in a very short period of time. Inspiration wasn’t always there, sometimes they were just writing for the swimming pool.
Regardless of how much I like their music as a whole, I don’t think of them as exceptional poets. Nonetheless, I won’t call anyone else’s opinion “absolute nonsense”.
But it’s not really an opinion that is being called “absolute nonsense.” You said “Almost every song has the same predictable format of 4 lines of verse/4 lines of chorus.” That is demonstrably not true. Yes, they have some songs like this, but part of the reason I really like the Beatles’ songwriting is that they don’t follow the usual verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus type of songwriting. It’s all over the place. Many songs, as mentioned, don’t even have choruses, they just have a verse-bridge structure. Some have little short refrains at the end of a verse which are not traditional choruses . Some intertwine various music sections that can’t really be called verses and choruses, but more like an A section, a B section, and a C section. Their pop songwriting is quite varied, and the statement “almost every song has the same predictable format of 4 lines of verse, 4 lines of chorus” is factually incorrect.
Eh, I’m not sure about that. Katy Perry certainly had a musical background. Ke$ha’s is even more extensive, and led to her not only being a performer, but a rather large songwriter in the industry as well.
They may not have been playing shitty clubs, but many modern acts at least have church choir/high school band/family musician sort of backgrounds. Of course, we can argue that Ke$sha and Katy Perry (especially the latter) are somewhat artificial and not that amazing in comparison to the Beatles, and I’d absolutely agree, but they still had backgrounds.
No. The screaming began in England after they had had a hit or two, well before anybody in America ever heard of them.
Anyway, they were far from the first pop performers to have fans screaming at them at their concerts. They did take it to a whole new level, I will grant you, but that was largely a matter of the sheer numbers of fans (of the screaming type) that they, before long, attracted.
I know a lot of skilled musicians who can reproduce other people’s music extremely well. Possibly better than the original artists. But not one of them can write an original tune to save his or her life. IMO writing original music is the bulk of any technical talent. Being able to play a guitar really fast is akin to typing really fast. It doesn’t make a typist an author.
The Beatles produced a tremendous amount of original music. What’s amazing is that it was all so different yet still retained a group sound. their greatness is in their body of work.
You know, it is pretty tough to consider them strictly as musicians and compare them with other groups that were backed by big, big money.
Remember, they had to do practically everything on their own.
. play, compose, organize their tours, … essentially almost everything.
I know they had some help from a few sources (like B.Epstein and G. Martin) but I have no idea exactly what they did.
All I know is that they did all the rest. And that must have been plenty!
So, to compare them with a big studio group is just not fair. Like, for example, The Monkees. If I am correct, that group was backed by some “big money” interests and even though they were extremely talented, they could focus mostly on just playing music and maybe also acting. All their business activities were handled by other people.
Besides, at the time, how could any other group compare with the music they turned out? It was just “epic”. It could not be beat. There was just no comparison with any other groups. At least, not IMHO.
Oh, yes indeed! Yes indeed!
I’m not an expert by any means, but Ringo’s drumming and Paul’s bass seem to me to be as good as it gets if not outright awesome. John’s singing on Twist and Shout? I can’t even remember who had that as a big hit before John covered it. He owns the damn song.