I don't see this as a bad thread and I don't want to sound patronising but this probably will.
It's just that having an opinion isn't enough.
It isn't the case that all artists and music belongs to one great mass of pop music and anyone is as good as anyone else, and it's all just personal taste. There is a cultural history to pop music and some artists and music has played more important roles than others in that.
For example, you don't have to like Jazz but you cannot dismiss it's cultural significance.
The Beatles and their artistic legacy is just too significant to ever be considered 'overrated'.
The post- Beatles work of McCartney and Lennon and the diverging paths they took is a different story really.
according to you,that is.
nothing absolutely nothing is universal in music.
'the beatles' may be the rock of ages for many including perhaps me and you..but to many others they are pretty meaningless.
music in general is completely subjective to the listener.
as a human being who makes his own mind up ,i actually prefer mccartneys work post beatles to his work in the beatles....i know that is not a populist opinion.however it does give me some empathy with those who dont particularly care for 'the beatles' and get sick of being preached rock history by the law of the 'fab four'....i mean even though i own every single beatles album ,i would rarely play anything pre 1965 as a whole..apart from mccartney's odd ballad like 'yesterday' or 'here there everywhere' it all sounds a bit two toned and samey to me.
post 1965 kind of 'rubber soul'/'revolver' onwards its a different story of course....but hey thats my opinion and im keeping it!
according to you,that is.
nothing absolutely nothing is universal in music.
'the beatles' may be the rock of ages for many including perhaps me and you..but to many others they are pretty meaningless.
music in general is completely subjective to the listener.
as a human being who makes his own mind up ,i actually prefer mccartneys work post beatles to his work in the beatles....i know that is not a populist opinion.however it does give me some empathy with those who dont particularly care for 'the beatles' and get sick of being preached rock history by the law of the 'fab four'....i mean even though i own every single beatles album ,i would rarely play anything pre 1965 as a whole..apart from mccartney's odd ballad like 'yesterday' or 'here there everywhere' it all sounds a bit two toned and samey to me.
post 1965 kind of 'rubber soul'/'revolver' onwards its a different story of course....but hey thats my opinion and im keeping it!
You or anyone else listening or not listening for that matter to The Beatles back catalogue is irrelevant to assessing the cultural influence of The Beatles. That's the criterion I am using to assess why The Beatles are overrated or not. It's the cultural and social history of the 1960s and those who research and write about it that suggest that conclusion not just me.
Also you are quite wrong to assume that listening to music is entirely subjective, you bring with you all the personal bias of your own listening history plus all the social filters that mean you get to hear what you hear. Do you read reviews? Do you listen to what your friends say? Do you catch all the subtleties intended by the writer? Do you consider a song within its social context as well as what it means or sounds like to you?
Seldom is a person not influenced by what you have read or heard and the framework you have acquired to assess music.
And that's not just my opinion....
You or anyone else listening or not listening for that matter to The Beatles back catalogue is irrelevant to assessing the cultural influence of The Beatles. That's the criterion I am using to assess why The Beatles are overrated or not. It's the cultural and social history of the 1960s and those who research and write about it that suggest that conclusion not just me.
Also you are quite wrong to assume that listening to music is entirely subjective, you bring with you all the personal bias of your own listening history plus all the social filters that mean you get to hear what you hear. Do you read reviews? Do you listen to what your friends say? Do you catch all the subtleties intended by the writer? Do you consider a song within its social context as well as what it means or sounds like to you?
Seldom is a person not influenced by what you have read or heard and the framework you have acquired to assess music.
And that's not just my opinion....
sorry mate,you have lost me.
as a massive beatles fan im only saying that there could be some truth in the theory that they are 'overrated' thats all.
my reasoning being that to some people who might actually prefer other artists far more.
i certainly wasn't talking about the cultural impact of 'the beatles'...that cannot be diminished ,its there in history as fact.
however wether a song is good or great to a particular person can never be fact.
as a massive beatles fan im only saying that there could be some truth in the theory that they are 'overrated' thats all.
my reasoning being that to some people who might actually prefer other artists far more.
i certainly wasn't talking about the cultural impact of 'the beatles'...that cannot be diminished ,its there in history as fact.
however wether a song is good or great to a particular person can never be fact.
Just because someone prefers someone else does not mean the Beatles were/are overrated.
All the reasons why they are not have been mentioned here, and you acknowledge that.
They were my favourite group in the 60s, and everything they did was incredible in the context of that time.
I prefer some other bands now, but would never consider the possibility of them being overrated.
as a massive beatles fan im only saying that there could be some truth in the theory that they are 'overrated' thats all.
my reasoning being that to some people who might actually prefer other artists far more.
i certainly wasn't talking about the cultural impact of 'the beatles'...that cannot be diminished ,its there in history as fact.
however wether a song is good or great to a particular person can never be fact.
surely youve defeated your own argument there... how can you seperate the cultural impact of the beatles from their body of work whilst trying to give an overall appraisal?
i prefer other 60's artists more, the yardbirds being my obvious choice. much as i love and respect what the yardbirds acheived, much as i prefer their material on a personal level, the beatles were greater. id never call the beatles overrated, i dont know how the most successful, influencial and creative band of all time can be overrated.
I like to listen to a bit of the Beatles but am not familier with all thier music so my opinion is a bit sweeping. I think some of their most famous songs by Paul are just pure cheese and are very overated because they arn't the Beatles at their best, yet tracks that i really enjoy like Strawberry fields and I am the Walrus show their musical genius and imo are very underated.. (compared with their commercial sounding singles).
You highlight an interesting point about the Beatles singles.
Infact I'm sure fans of each Beatle are all equally frustrated in some way and no-one has it all their own way:-
John - alot of his finest and most loved songs neglected when it came to singles, having to make do with the B-side or not at all (The Beatles 1 album kind of demonstrates this).
Paul - his recent reputation souring people's memories of him, despite him working hard for many years and being the only opportunity some people have to see Beatles songs performed live in their life.
George - never treated as an equal songwriter (George Martin admitted this too) despite him reaching his peak in the Beatles later years and his first solo album containing the same material becoming incredibly accomplished and also very successful.
Ringo - seen as lucky to have been in the band at all and being inferior in talent, despite him possibly being the most likeable and easy-going in the band and his simplistic drumming enabling the others to experiment with their songs further.
See, at the end of the day no-one's completely happy.
I found it quite fascinating, enough to go and find the whole 50 minute programme on another Youtube clip, which I then watched and thoroughly enjoyed.
Tbh had John Lennon still been alive I think he would have poo-pooed that TV programme. It is well known that he disliked music scholars intellectualising about the Beatles music, so much so that he deliberately made the lyrics of "I Am The Walrus" as nonsensical as he could just to wind such people up.
Comments
according to you,that is.
nothing absolutely nothing is universal in music.
'the beatles' may be the rock of ages for many including perhaps me and you..but to many others they are pretty meaningless.
music in general is completely subjective to the listener.
as a human being who makes his own mind up ,i actually prefer mccartneys work post beatles to his work in the beatles....i know that is not a populist opinion.however it does give me some empathy with those who dont particularly care for 'the beatles' and get sick of being preached rock history by the law of the 'fab four'....i mean even though i own every single beatles album ,i would rarely play anything pre 1965 as a whole..apart from mccartney's odd ballad like 'yesterday' or 'here there everywhere' it all sounds a bit two toned and samey to me.
post 1965 kind of 'rubber soul'/'revolver' onwards its a different story of course....but hey thats my opinion and im keeping it!
You or anyone else listening or not listening for that matter to The Beatles back catalogue is irrelevant to assessing the cultural influence of The Beatles. That's the criterion I am using to assess why The Beatles are overrated or not. It's the cultural and social history of the 1960s and those who research and write about it that suggest that conclusion not just me.
Also you are quite wrong to assume that listening to music is entirely subjective, you bring with you all the personal bias of your own listening history plus all the social filters that mean you get to hear what you hear. Do you read reviews? Do you listen to what your friends say? Do you catch all the subtleties intended by the writer? Do you consider a song within its social context as well as what it means or sounds like to you?
Seldom is a person not influenced by what you have read or heard and the framework you have acquired to assess music.
And that's not just my opinion....
sorry mate,you have lost me.
as a massive beatles fan im only saying that there could be some truth in the theory that they are 'overrated' thats all.
my reasoning being that to some people who might actually prefer other artists far more.
i certainly wasn't talking about the cultural impact of 'the beatles'...that cannot be diminished ,its there in history as fact.
however wether a song is good or great to a particular person can never be fact.
Just because someone prefers someone else does not mean the Beatles were/are overrated.
All the reasons why they are not have been mentioned here, and you acknowledge that.
They were my favourite group in the 60s, and everything they did was incredible in the context of that time.
I prefer some other bands now, but would never consider the possibility of them being overrated.
surely youve defeated your own argument there... how can you seperate the cultural impact of the beatles from their body of work whilst trying to give an overall appraisal?
i prefer other 60's artists more, the yardbirds being my obvious choice. much as i love and respect what the yardbirds acheived, much as i prefer their material on a personal level, the beatles were greater. id never call the beatles overrated, i dont know how the most successful, influencial and creative band of all time can be overrated.
add to that the performing.
The Beatles, along with maybe the Beach Boys, Stones and a few others were seminal to pop music
saying the beatles are overrated is like saying Marconi was overrated because he didnt invent DAB radio.
Howard Goodalls 20th Century Greats - The Beatles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zddh5Vp-ApI
You highlight an interesting point about the Beatles singles.
Infact I'm sure fans of each Beatle are all equally frustrated in some way and no-one has it all their own way:-
John - alot of his finest and most loved songs neglected when it came to singles, having to make do with the B-side or not at all (The Beatles 1 album kind of demonstrates this).
Paul - his recent reputation souring people's memories of him, despite him working hard for many years and being the only opportunity some people have to see Beatles songs performed live in their life.
George - never treated as an equal songwriter (George Martin admitted this too) despite him reaching his peak in the Beatles later years and his first solo album containing the same material becoming incredibly accomplished and also very successful.
Ringo - seen as lucky to have been in the band at all and being inferior in talent, despite him possibly being the most likeable and easy-going in the band and his simplistic drumming enabling the others to experiment with their songs further.
See, at the end of the day no-one's completely happy.
Thanks for that 6'27" Youtube clip.
I found it quite fascinating, enough to go and find the whole 50 minute programme on another Youtube clip, which I then watched and thoroughly enjoyed.
Tbh had John Lennon still been alive I think he would have poo-pooed that TV programme. It is well known that he disliked music scholars intellectualising about the Beatles music, so much so that he deliberately made the lyrics of "I Am The Walrus" as nonsensical as he could just to wind such people up.