Its true..'the beatles' are overated!!

2

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    whilst i agree to a point...'the white album' is all over the place as an album and in quality...yet because of the good songs on it ,it is hailed as some kind of 'rock bible'.
    mccartneys albums at their best are the equal of the beatles best moments ,whilst at their worst the equal of 'the beatles' worst moments.
    now im not saying mccartney is better than 'the beatles' ..im simply implying that he was just carrying on in much the same vain.....the record buying public thought as much and gave him massive chart and touring triumphs during the whole of the 1970s.......the critics however fuelled by jealous commentaries by 'lennon' and 'harrison' created a myth that mccartney was somehow 'inferior' as a solo beatle compared to them.
    just look at the scorn he took for the debut 'mccartney' album and the impeccable 'Ram' follow up......why?....both great albums with infact 'Ram' being possibly one of the greatest of all time.
    it wasnt until he put out 'band on the run'album a few years later did his huge sales get merited with critical merit of any sort.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FrankBT wrote: »
    Of course the Beatles were highly influential. Many prog rock, or prog pop bands would have never come about without the Beatles. Although it has to be said some of these bands went on to be far better musicians and songwriters than Lennon/McCartney or the Beatles. It also has to be said that there were a number of equally great songwriters around the time of the Beatles, eg David/Bacharach, Leiber/Stoller, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Jackie DeShannon, Ray Davis and Jagger/Richards to name a few.

    Firstly, prog rock bands weren't the only artists influenced by The Beatles, try Bowie, Abba and ELO for starters. And prog rock groups have left very few well crafted songs or commentaries on their life and times.

    Secondly, yes Dylan is a force of nature and a genuine peer and influence like The Beatles but the rest were either good Tin Pan Alley writers or influenced by the success of aforementioned band from Liverpool.

    Thirdly, unlike the rest (Dylan excepted) The Beatles are a cultural influence beyond the music they created. There are very few artists in popular music who can claim that.

    Fourthly, The Beatles were experimental pushing the technical and creative envelope ahead of their contemporaries.

    It is the combination of these elements which makes The Beatles the special ones. It isn't just a matter of personal like or dislike of their music or just personal opinion. The Beatles have a cultural legacy and a place in the canon of pop from which they can't be displaced.

    A good introduction to The Beatles is 'Shout' : The Beatles in Their Generation by Philip Norman
  • Apollo CreedApollo Creed Posts: 998
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rumandlime wrote: »
    to be fair you put it much better second time..im glad i provoked you into a much more balanced reply!:)

    mccartney was still the better for me,but that is my personal take i admit..i just enjoy his songs more


    :)

    I hate those who say 'Lennon was cool but McCartney was crap' . If it was Macca who got shot in New York back in 1980 (?) then you can bet that the same people would be saying the same thing but the other way round
  • meglosmurmursmeglosmurmurs Posts: 35,104
    Forum Member
    rumandlime wrote: »
    whilst i agree to a point...'the white album' is all over the place as an album and in quality...yet because of the good songs on it ,it is hailed as some kind of 'rock bible'.
    mccartneys albums at their best are the equal of the beatles best moments ,whilst at their worst the equal of 'the beatles' worst moments.
    now im not saying mccartney is better than 'the beatles' ..im simply implying that he was just carrying on in much the same vain.....the record buying public thought as much and gave him massive chart and touring triumphs during the whole of the 1970s.......the critics however fuelled by jealous commentaries by 'lennon' and 'harrison' created a myth that mccartney was somehow 'inferior' as a solo beatle compared to them.
    just look at the scorn he took for the debut 'mccartney' album and the impeccable 'Ram' follow up......why?....both great albums with infact 'Ram' being possibly one of the greatest of all time.
    it wasnt until he put out 'band on the run'album a few years later did his huge sales get merited with critical merit of any sort.

    A McCartney fan would agree, but some Beatles fans would probably not, they'd feel the empty space the other Beatles would have filled.

    Any solo record of a Beatle I hear I normally wonder what the others would have added to it.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rumandlime wrote: »
    whilst i agree to a point...'the white album' is all over the place as an album and in quality...yet because of the good songs on it ,it is hailed as some kind of 'rock bible'.
    mccartneys albums at their best are the equal of the beatles best moments ,whilst at their worst the equal of 'the beatles' worst moments.
    now im not saying mccartney is better than 'the beatles' ..im simply implying that he was just carrying on in much the same vain.....the record buying public thought as much and gave him massive chart and touring triumphs during the whole of the 1970s.......the critics however fuelled by jealous commentaries by 'lennon' and 'harrison' created a myth that mccartney was somehow 'inferior' as a solo beatle compared to them.
    just look at the scorn he took for the debut 'mccartney' album and the impeccable 'Ram' follow up......why?....both great albums with infact 'Ram' being possibly one of the greatest of all time.
    it wasnt until he put out 'band on the run'album a few years later did his huge sales get merited with critical merit of any sort.

    The White Album is now considered one of the greatest albums ever made being a road map for the creative process for many later groups. Revisionism won't detract from that legacy.

    I'm not overly concerned about McCartney and the deterioration in the quality of his work. I suspect that McCartney flourished in the creative environment of The Beatles along with Lennon and Harrison but that environment was of its time and place. It would be hard to capture that again.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    :)

    I hate those who say 'Lennon was cool but McCartney was crap' . If it was Macca who got shot in New York back in 1980 (?) then you can bet that the same people would be saying the same thing but the other way round

    unfortunately you are 100% correct.

    i remember reading a review of a 'mccartney album' in the sun newspaper by master pedo 'jonathon king' whilst he was 'showbiz editor' in 1989.
    the title of that review ...."mark chapman shot the wrong beatle!"
    infact next time you read a so called balanced review of any mccartney album note how many times you read the words 'john lennon'??
    mccartney has had a very raw deal down the years.sadly it appears to have got to him.rather than remain the stubborn melodic force that he always appeared to be he has become a parody of himself.
    he should get back to making rock/pop albums whilst he still can instead of globe trotting around the globe like a has-been bootleg beatle.....dont get me wrong ive seen many of his live shows and enjoyed every one....it just feels like his voice is now too much of an issue on a live stage sadly....
    of course 'dylan' has been sounding dreadful live for decades now.but the difference is that 'dylan' tours small scale and totally to his own whim.'mccartney' however tours big scale and at top dollar which unfortunately completely dictates the matertial which he plays.......beatles beatles beatles
  • meglosmurmursmeglosmurmurs Posts: 35,104
    Forum Member
    :)

    I hate those who say 'Lennon was cool but McCartney was crap' . If it was Macca who got shot in New York back in 1980 (?) then you can bet that the same people would be saying the same thing but the other way round

    I guess we'll never know, although there were already signs of Lennon's influence when he was nominated at the conclusion of the 60's as one of the Men of the Decade along with John F. Kennedy and Ho Chi Minh, which is pretty impressive.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    I guess we'll never know, although there were already signs of Lennon's influence when he was nominated at the conclusion of the 60's as one of the Men of the Decade along with John F. Kennedy and Ho Chi Minh, which is pretty impressive.


    proof indeed:rolleyes:


    I certainly feel that mccartney going on to be one the most prolific songwriters and performers for the decade of the 1970s [whilst lennon was still alive] to be kind of impressive however .
  • meglosmurmursmeglosmurmurs Posts: 35,104
    Forum Member
    rumandlime wrote: »
    proof indeed:rolleyes:


    I certainly feel that mccartney going on to be one the most prolific songwriters and performers for the decade of the 1970s [whilst lennon was still alive] to be kind of impressive however .

    lol
    Whoever said it was proof for anything, just something that happened.

    Think the problem with this thread is that it's asking for some genuine opinions only to then disprove them with a contrary opinion posing as fact, or at least as more important.
  • FrankBTFrankBT Posts: 4,216
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    Firstly, prog rock bands weren't the only artists influenced by The Beatles, try Bowie, Abba and ELO for starters. And prog rock groups have left very few well crafted songs or commentaries on their life and times.
    I never suggested that prog rock artists were the only ones influenced by the Beatles, except that genre didn't exist until the late 60s. It was called progressive pop to start with, then the more experimental side of that morphed into progressive rock ELO were typical prog pop and obviously had a strong Beatles influence. Pink Floyd were prog rock whose spacy sounds were influenced by the Beatle's psychedelic phase. Even Syd Barrett admitted that

    I can't agree that prog rock groups left few well crafted songs. It would take too long to make a list, but Genesis certainly achieved that on 3 albums during the mid/late '70s. Eg Trick Of The Tail has some amazing songs on it. The Floyd also achieved it from their early recordings 1967/68 right up to the Wall 1980. As for other prog bands maybe you are right where too much instrumental work compromised or got in the way of a good song But I'm not a great prog fan anyway apart from those 2 bands amd the periods mentioned

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS-PMY2PVF4
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FrankBT wrote: »
    I never suggested that prog rock artists were the only ones influenced by the Beatles, except that genre didn't exist until the late 60s. It was called progressive pop to start with, then the more experimental side of that morphed into progressive rock ELO were typical prog pop and obviously had a strong Beatles influence. Pink Floyd were prog rock whose spacy sounds were influenced by the Beatle's psychedelic phase. Even Syd Barrett admitted that

    I can't agree that prog rock groups left few well crafted songs. It would take too long to make a list, but Genesis certainly achieved that on 3 albums during the mid/late '70s. Eg Trick Of The Tail has some amazing songs on it. The Floyd also achieved it from their early recordings 1967/68 right up to the Wall 1980. As for other prog bands maybe you are right where too much instrumental work compromised or got in the way of a good song But I'm not a great prog fan anyway apart from those 2 bands amd the periods mentioned

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS-PMY2PVF4

    Sorry, I didn't intend to dish all prog rock just to suggest how pervasive was the influence of The Beatles. And I agree that The Beatles were a clear influence on prog rock groups and the prevalence of the 'concept' album.

    However, prog rock tended towards 3 or 4 minutes of good music spread across 3 or 4 sides of an album. This generally indicated musical indulgence rather than well crafted songs. Despite that I'll concede there are a few great songs in the Genesis catalogue and even more with The Floyd.

    Yet The Beatles are just as much an influence on Abba as The Floyd. The contrast being that Abba had a clear pop sensibility and generally produced well-crafted and diverse songs during the 70s.
  • Yorkie47Yorkie47 Posts: 1,487
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MJS wrote: »
    I agree with both the above posters, but unless the OP had had the good fortune to have been around at the time, they will never know the freedom that artists like Elvis, Buddy Holly etc and then the Beatles gave us. It was like stepping into a totally different music world from the one we had known. It was so different, so exciting and so liberating. The Beatles can never be overrated when they turned the complete music scene on its head.

    Yes, you had to be there. I was. First Elvis - wow!! Turned everything in the music world on its head.

    Then The Beatles - comparing their impact to the impact of One Direction is like comparing the Grand Canyon to a crack in the pavement.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MJS wrote: »
    The Beatles can never be overrated when they turned the complete music scene on its head.

    exactly
    The 'strawberry fields/ penny lane' single illustrates exactly why it's nonsense to suggest that McCartney was the main songwriter and singer in The Beatles. Here we have two much loved songs by two songwriters at the top of their game. If it wasn't for Lennon then The Beatles would have more or less have been Wings and the critical acclaim they received wouldn't have been what it is. Same goes if McCartney wasn't there, it would have been a different band all together.

    This is why I can't accept that The Beatles were overrated simply because McCartney carried on in the same ilk after they split. The reason he wasn't held in the same regard as a solo artist is purely down to the fact he didn't produce the same sort of consistency as The Beatles did. Why I mentioned strawberry fields and penny lane was to show that is was both Lennon and McCartney who made The Beatles. That single shows what each party brought to the table and why their combined talents surpassed their later output.

    McCartney has done some wonderful solo albums but none match up to something like Revolver in terms of consistency and excitement. He had a ridiculous gift for melody and he was always going to have a successful career but without Lennon he wouldn't be held in the regard he is now and visa versa. Neither could have claimed to be the main songwriter

    agreed esp the bib.
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    The Beatles can never be overrated as their influence on the development of pop music and pop culture is unparalleled.

    .

    and thats the bottom line... :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,062
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yorkie47 wrote: »
    Yes, you had to be there. I was. First Elvis - wow!! Turned everything in the music world on its head.

    Then The Beatles - comparing their impact to the impact of One Direction is like comparing the Grand Canyon to a crack in the pavement.[/QUOTE]
    :D:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    lol
    Whoever said it was proof for anything, just something that happened.

    Think the problem with this thread is that it's asking for some genuine opinions only to then disprove them with a contrary opinion posing as fact, or at least as more important.


    for me there hasn't been a 'problem with this thread'.
    i have enjoyed many opinions and im glad i posed the 'edgy' title and thread.
    im not sure why you want to be so spikey...perhaps thats what you do.

    also after reading a few opinions on here i might now be more convinced that 'paul mccartney' solo is underrated rather than the 'the beatles' being overrated .
  • meglosmurmursmeglosmurmurs Posts: 35,104
    Forum Member
    rumandlime wrote: »
    for me there hasn't been a 'problem with this thread'.
    i have enjoyed many opinions and im glad i posed the 'edgy' title and thread.
    im not sure why you want to be so spikey...perhaps thats what you do.

    also after reading a few opinions on here i might now be more convinced that 'paul mccartney' solo is underrated rather than the 'the beatles' being overrated .

    I'm not being spikey as I didn't criticize anyone else's opinion or roll my eyes at them.

    I was talking about how John Lennon's hype was also present before his death.
    But I haven't criticized any of the other Beatles either because they are all important to its legacy. Their respective solo careers showed their individual qualities and what they brought to the Beatles, but also the things they were lacking without eachother.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    I'm not being spikey as I didn't criticize anyone else's opinion or roll my eyes at them.

    I was talking about how John Lennon's hype was also present before his death.
    But I haven't criticized any of the other Beatles either because they are all important to its legacy. Their respective solo careers showed their individual qualities and what they brought to the Beatles, but also the things they were lacking without eachother.
    which is fine by me.
    assuming that you allow us to continue this thread:D
  • meglosmurmursmeglosmurmurs Posts: 35,104
    Forum Member
    rumandlime wrote: »
    which is fine by me.
    assuming that you allow us to continue this thread:D

    Any Beatles threads and I usually can't help myself babbling away, especially to defend something in particular or add something else to the discussion, so I may pop in again. ;) Only in good fun though.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    I'm not being spikey as I didn't criticize anyone else's opinion or roll my eyes at them.

    I was talking about how John Lennon's hype was also present before his death.
    But I haven't criticized any of the other Beatles either because they are all important to its legacy. Their respective solo careers showed their individual qualities and what they brought to the Beatles, but also the things they were lacking without eachother.
    first of all i want say the following is only my opinion.nothing more.infact i have enjoyed the debate 'meglosmurmers'...you are obviously a fan of john lennon,aint we all in some form or another.however i do get tired of the sheer majesty of iconic rock worth that gets placed on john lennon

    that will be the same john lennon who's promoter had to give tickets away at concerts.the same john lennon who moved to 'new york' to avoid paying british taxes ...the same john lennon who basically 'dried up' 1975...the same john lennon who's return in 1980 [double fantasy] provided proof that he had'nt retired to make bread and had indeed 'dried up'.
    Im quite sure,infact 100% positive that getting murdered however tragic was infact a catalyst to one of the biggest over-hyped legacy's ever .....
    of course as has been excellently said on this thread,the beatles as a unit will always be held in an esteem far greater than anyone of them could ever achieve as a solo act.
    however mccartney always gets all the flak mainly because he has had the cheek to live and grow old and somewhat uncool.yet he was the beatle who by far had the most interesting output post split....and before lennons death in 1980 was never in his shadow.
    this article below sums it up perfectly for me.
    http://porcinedrone.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/john-lennon-was-overrated/
  • meglosmurmursmeglosmurmurs Posts: 35,104
    Forum Member
    I like all The Beatles, but in different ways.
    But I think the reason why people hold John Lennon up in such high regard is not because he's perfect or a saint but because they see him as a fascinating contradiction of a person - aggressive and cynical but also peace-loving and hoping for the best in himself and mankind.
    Overall I think the stereotypical view of the Beatles is that John was the complex and flawed Beatle, while Paul was the straight-forward and aiming to please Beatle. And while more people would like to think they have the latter characteristics, they suspect they relate more to the former.

    Though I also think part of the problem is that by attacking Lennon to boost McCartney (as evidenced by this thread perhaps :D) it only causes people to jump to Lennon's defence, bigging him up to the hills, and we're back to where we started (with people feeling like McCartney is under-appreciated)
    Paul has kind of said himself that only he and John really know what went on between them. So when it comes to putting them up against eachother I'd rather just 'let it be'. (heh heh)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 172
    Forum Member
    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).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    :cool:
    I like all The Beatles, but in different ways.
    But I think the reason why people hold John Lennon up in such high regard is not because he's perfect or a saint but because they see him as a fascinating contradiction of a person - aggressive and cynical but also peace-loving and hoping for the best in himself and mankind.
    Overall I think the stereotypical view of the Beatles is that John was the complex and flawed Beatle, while Paul was the straight-forward and aiming to please Beatle. And while more people would like to think they have the latter characteristics, they suspect they relate more to the former.

    Though I also think part of the problem is that by attacking Lennon to boost McCartney (as evidenced by this thread perhaps :D) it only causes people to jump to Lennon's defence, bigging him up to the hills, and we're back to where we started (with people feeling like McCartney is under-appreciated)
    Paul has kind of said himself that only he and John really know what went on between them. So when it comes to putting them up against eachother I'd rather just 'let it be'. (heh heh)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rumandlime wrote: »
    whilst reading a now closed thread where an argument sparked off about the merits of 'the beatles' v 'one direction' got me thinking.
    now i am a beatles man in general but perhaps as a whole they are 'overated'.
    for example take the post beatle career of paul mccartney..completely overshadowed by his beatles years in almost every aspect ..he even stands there night after night singing the same old tired beatles songs instead of scores of number hits and brilliant solo tunes that are left on the shelf to rot.
    the reason ?
    money and promoters and this belief that anything beatles must be the best.
    you see i actually think this is a bit of a myth.indeed post 1965 without the melodic worth of mccartneys pop [which he has got so much stick for since he went solo] they would have imploded into just another 1960s band.
    I believe john lennon in general is quite an overated figure and without mccartney as his muse his output became dire in the 1970s.
    'band on the run' IS a better album than 'let it be'
    'Ram' is as good an album as 'abbey road'

    yes the beatles are overated,because there main singer and songwriter carried on in the very same ilk as his beatles output yet despite achieving mass sales was criminaly neglected by the critics and music press for years and years..to a point where the poor old 70 yr old fellow stands there night after night on his 'world tours' singing songs he wrote as a young man only for fear that he might upset the great ' beatles are better than anything myth'....pretty sad really

    Wow, it must all be true because you say it is.

    I'm off to the Movies forum to say why Beverley Hills Cop 3 is better than Citizen Kane. It must be because I say so.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    Wow, it must all be true because you say it is.

    I'm off to the Movies forum to say why Beverley Hills Cop 3 is better than Citizen Kane. It must be because I say so.

    sorry for having an opinion...silly me,i thought an exchange of different opinions made a thread topic worthwhile.
    and i didnt know 'orsen wells' was in beverly hills cop 3.
    i must check it out....:D
  • marcusgvmarcusgv Posts: 135
    Forum Member
    rumandlime wrote: »
    sorry for having an opinion...silly me,i thought an exchange of different opinions made a thread topic worthwhile.
    and i didnt know 'orsen wells' was in beverly hills cop 3.
    i must check it out....:D

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.