Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2013, 11:03
rumandlime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125

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
rumandlime is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 10-02-2013, 11:11
Hav_mor91
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The rolling Green of Wales.
Posts: 15,597
I agree to an extent. I understand the impact on music and popular culture they had but over all there are for more interesting and talented artists from that period who get acclaim but nothing on the level of The Beatles they seem to be the go to and lauded above and beyond anyone and everyone else fairly or unfairly so. But either way they were a great band.
Hav_mor91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 11:42
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,347
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
dont see how you conclude that the beatles were overrated based on your opinion that post beatle mccartneys material was as good... ram and band on the run were good albums, but botr was nearly 40 years ago, and id argue that after the mid 70's mccartneys drift into the realms of 'direness' just as much as lennons.

the fact is that they needed eachother to produce their best material.

if the greatest band of all time are 'overrated', god help everyone else.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 12:05
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,255
You cant dismiss The Beatles by talking of them as solo artists.

They all had a great spell just after The Beatles, because they were prolific then.

McCartney has done stacks of stuff since, with varying degrees of success, and quality.

When he plays live now, he covers plenty of Beatles songs, because that is what most want to hear. They were The Beatles, and it doesn't get better than that. However, he also plays plenty of solo material.

The Beatles were not overrated. They were pioneers, with a progression rate over a few years that few can match.

I.m not sure the OP is a Beatles man, then writes that.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 12:12
Slojo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,234
This thread is bonkers

It's like saying Queen were overated because anything Brian May did after Freddie died wasn't up to much
Slojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 14:51
Fast Fuse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 117

'Ram' is as good an album as 'abbey road'
No no no no no no no...
Abbey Road contains many classics inc. Come Together / Something / Here Comes The Sun / ending with that stunning Medley...

Ram is a good album but not in the same league as Abbey Road.

Last edited by Fast Fuse : 10-02-2013 at 14:52. Reason: Typo!
Fast Fuse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 15:17
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,347
No no no no no no no...
Abbey Road contains many classics inc. Come Together / Something / Here Comes The Sun / ending with that stunning Medley...

Ram is a good album but not in the same league as Abbey Road.
admiral halsey not as good as 'something'?...
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 15:20
Apollo Creed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 484
'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'

I just can't get my head around that comment. Why was McCartney the main singer and songwriter? Take a list of the most famous Beatles songs are they are split 50/50 in terms of who wrote and sang them.

Bizarre theory to me. Almost totally dismissing John (and George) and concentrating on the merits of McCartney's solo career. Wings were nothing like The Beatles. Listen to Band On The Run and then listen to Magical Mystery Tour, it's clearly the work of totally different bands

Why The Beatles were so good is because of both main songwriters. This is best illustrated with the Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane single . Two totally different songs by two totally different artists who came together to create something really special as a whole.

There are many flaws in this theory. Another one is that most artists 'dry up' as they get older. The reason McCartney's solo career isn't hailed as high as The Beatles is simply because , on the whole, the songs don't match up.
Apollo Creed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 15:28
HandsClean
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 695
Every band, singer, artist, actor, film etc are all overrated and underrated. It comes with the success. Nothing can have more fans than non-fans.
HandsClean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 15:40
jackbell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,110
The Beatles were the first UK pop act to not only have sustainable impact in the US but also change what we knew about pop music. If you listen to pop songs pre-Beatles it sounds very different to what came after. It's impossible to talk about the history of popular music without ever mentioning the Beatles - four working class youths from Liverpool. That's huge and it will never happen again.
jackbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 16:22
hallowxmas448
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 446
I think you have to have been there at the time to appreciate the movement and scene. To me their music at the time was something different remember and then as they progressed and there fans grew older with them, they moved with them and so did there music/songs. Answering your original question, they are over-rated to me. Some classic songs but because they are from the u.k they have been given god like status. One person that really gets on my nerves is Paul mccartney. But that is another thread.
hallowxmas448 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 16:27
MJS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,021
You cant dismiss The Beatles by talking of them as solo artists......
The Beatles were not overrated. They were pioneers, with a progression rate over a few years that few can match.
The Beatles were the first UK pop act to not only have sustainable impact in the US but also change what we knew about pop music. If you listen to pop songs pre-Beatles it sounds very different to what came after. It's impossible to talk about the history of popular music without ever mentioning the Beatles - four working class youths from Liverpool. That's huge and it will never happen again.
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.
MJS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 17:16
SamMcK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Kent, England
Posts: 941
Paul's careers definitely not been completely overshadowed by The Beatles, it's only that way now because he likes the critical acclaim and publicity he gets from being a Beatles, it's how he promotes a lot of his albums nowadays but it wasn't always like that. Back in the 70's Wings was one of the top 3 biggest bands in the world and he didn't even talk about his past group. He has also had 11 number ones since the Beatles in the US and UK not counting 5 no.1 charity singles.

His solo career has also been more successful than all the other solo Beatles combined. To me John lost his spark from 1971 until the last year of his life when he was writing good songs again and who knows we might have got some more classic material.

Paul's not going to get the recognition for all he did to keep the Beatles together and sustain them as the driving force that they were during their later years. When you think of most of The Beatles biggest songs you think of Yesterday, Hey Jude, Let It Be, Get Back, Paperback Writer, We Can Work It Out, Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye, Yellow Submarine, Eleanor Rigby etc. Even songs like I Want To Hold Your Hand, Day Tripper and A Day In The Life were all written 50-50 with John.

So many of the songs that made the group so legendary and some of the albums concepts such as Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, Let It Be were his ideas but he is always being overshadowed by John because of his unfortunate death so will never get the credit he is due.
I'm only saying this because i'm sick of everyone I know thinking only John was the main guy in the Beatles.
SamMcK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 17:26
Old.Tallen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sulaco, near LV426
Posts: 4,574
Im not sure how comparing Paul and John makes the argument that the Beetles were over-rated.

The only argument you actually make here is that Paul's career was always in the shadow of his career in the Beetles....which is complete nonsense. His solo career and that of Wings were hugely successful. People don't think of him as "that guy from the Beetles" (as arguably people have considered Ringo and to a lesser extent George), everyone knows who Paul McCartney is as an artist in his own right.
Old.Tallen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 17:33
rumandlime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
Paul's careers definitely not been completely overshadowed by The Beatles, it's only that way now because he likes the critical acclaim and publicity he gets from being a Beatles, it's how he promotes a lot of his albums nowadays but it wasn't always like that. Back in the 70's Wings was one of the top 3 biggest bands in the world and he didn't even talk about his past group. He has also had 11 number ones since the Beatles in the US and UK not counting 5 no.1 charity singles.

His solo career has also been more successful than all the other solo Beatles combined. To me John lost his spark from 1971 until the last year of his life when he was writing good songs again and who knows we might have got some more classic material.

Paul's not going to get the recognition for all he did to keep the Beatles together and sustain them as the driving force that they were during their later years. When you think of most of The Beatles biggest songs you think of Yesterday, Hey Jude, Let It Be, Get Back, Paperback Writer, We Can Work It Out, Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye, Yellow Submarine, Eleanor Rigby etc. Even songs like I Want To Hold Your Hand, Day Tripper and A Day In The Life were all written 50-50 with John.

So many of the songs that made the group so legendary and some of the albums concepts such as Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, Let It Be were his ideas but he is always being overshadowed by John because of his unfortunate death so will never get the credit he is due.
I'm only saying this because i'm sick of everyone I know thinking only John was the main guy in the Beatles.
i agree sam.

the only reason i was comparing mccartneys solo cannon to the beatles is because it is the perfect example of how 'the beatles' however great /amazing are still slightly overated.
mccartney continued to produce amazing melodies and records post beatles yet rarely was he ever acclaimed by the critics in the way his beatles years achieved.
the general public didnt sway though.they continued to buy mccartneys work in their millions indeed only 'elton john' could compare to paul amazing chart feats of the 1970's.
even into the 1980s when mccartney released his much maligned 'frog chorus' childrens anthem..it was a smash hit sold by the bucket load yet he has been forever scorned by it in a way he never was for 'yellow submarine' in his beatles years....they are both great childrens songs yet 'yellow submarine' is accepted whilst 'we all stand together' is derided like noose around mccartneys neck.
dosent make sense to me.i can only conclude that however much i love the beatles,they are infact overated by many.
and to however said that the beatles best songs are 50/50 with lennon and mccartney could well be wrong..indeed george martin himself publically stated that mccartney was responsible for the majority of their greatest work.looking at the hits of the beatles will back that up.
rumandlime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 17:46
meglosmurmurs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 29,643
The Beatles were simply more popular as a band than they were individuals and their songs had more widespread appeal.
You can argue that songs from their solo careers were equally good but the combined effort of The Beatles was what captured people's imaginations and sold the records, plus they all individually attracted fans with their different qualities and personalities.

Plus there's not much point trying to work out who did most during The Beatles years because even without the others contribution they wouldn't have been as successful. Alot of the songs were worked out in the studio with all 4 (and also George Martin) helping the process along, so the lines tend to get blurred over who did what.
meglosmurmurs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 17:47
rumandlime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
'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'

I just can't get my head around that comment. Why was McCartney the main singer and songwriter? Take a list of the most famous Beatles songs are they are split 50/50 in terms of who wrote and sang them.

Bizarre theory to me. Almost totally dismissing John (and George) and concentrating on the merits of McCartney's solo career. Wings were nothing like The Beatles. Listen to Band On The Run and then listen to Magical Mystery Tour, it's clearly the work of totally different bands

Why The Beatles were so good is because of both main songwriters. This is best illustrated with the Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane single . Two totally different songs by two totally different artists who came together to create something really special as a whole.

There are many flaws in this theory. Another one is that most artists 'dry up' as they get older. The reason McCartney's solo career isn't hailed as high as The Beatles is simply because , on the whole, the songs don't match up.
and why does the 'strawberry fields/ penny lane' illustrate anything?.
one is clearly a lennon song and the other is clearly a mccartney song.?....
infact surely 'a day in the life' would be a better example of fusion between the two ?
they are both amazing songwriters and their rivalry obviously helped the quality improve to amazing effect.
but as i said earlier mccartney was clearly the superior songwriter and singer.his work and voice had far more scope
but hey thats my opinion,its not as if you dont hear the opposite view about 'lennon' being the greater enough.!
'george' had a great period there is no doubt,he produced 3/4 great songs towards the end of the beatles .however as a songwriter he could not keep it up and drifted away .
I believe just working with lennon/mccartney must have rubbed off a bit of magic dust on him at the time.
rumandlime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 17:54
Fast Fuse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 117
admiral halsey not as good as 'something'?...
Nooo, not quite

However I do like Ram, in fact I'm gonna dig it out right now, I used to love the Back Seat Of My Car, great ending...


Each Beatle managed to knock out a decent album or 2, yes even Ringo!
Fast Fuse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 18:11
Apollo Creed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 484
and why does the 'strawberry fields/ penny lane' illustrate anything?.
one is clearly a lennon song and the other is clearly a mccartney song.?....
infact surely 'a day in the life' would be a better example of fusion between the two ?
they are both amazing songwriters and their rivalry obviously helped the quality improve to amazing effect.
but as i said earlier mccartney was clearly the superior songwriter and singer.his work and voice had far more scope
but hey thats my opinion,its not as if you dont hear the opposite view about 'lennon' being the greater enough.!
'george' had a great period there is no doubt,he produced 3/4 great songs towards the end of the beatles .however as a songwriter he could not keep it up and drifted away .
I believe just working with lennon/mccartney must have rubbed off a bit of magic dust on him at the time.

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
Apollo Creed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 18:32
rumandlime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
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
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
rumandlime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 18:43
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 3,984
You really have to laugh at some of these threads.

The Beatles can never be overrated as their influence on the development of pop music and pop culture is unparalleled.

Comments on Paul McCartney's output during the late 70s has no bearing on this. And there seems to be no understanding of how influential John Lennon's basically experimental work on Instant Karma, Imagine and Sometime in NY City were. But again that really says nothing about how important The Beatles work during the 60s actually was.

The Beatles brought art to pop music by being the creative force within their own work. They also became commentators on their life and times. And along with George Martin experimented with the entire recording process to produce recorded and published work that will stand up a century from now.

This talk of being overrated is just nonsense, unless it is tongue in cheek? And I'm missing the joke.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 18:46
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,255
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
And that is what most of these things come down to, personal opionion.

If I were to pick my top twenty Beatles songs, most would be Lennon written, but I know how good Paul was, and it was through his efforts that they stayed together the last couple of years, because John and George were losing interest fast.

What made The Beatles so great was the variety of songs written by very different individuals, and they all clearly spurred each other on.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 18:51
CABLEDUDE
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,126
admiral halsey not as good as 'something'?...
No, but Back Seat of My Car is, very nearly went on Abbey Road as the closer but wasn't finished. If it had been it would be revered as a Beatles classic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT3ez3mkXFk
CABLEDUDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 19:03
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 843
You really have to laugh at some of these threads.

The Beatles can never be overrated as their influence on the development of pop music and pop culture is unparalleled.

Comments on Paul McCartney's output during the late 70s has no bearing on this. And there seems to be no understanding of how influential John Lennon's basically experimental work on Instant Karma, Imagine and Sometime in NY City were. But again that really says nothing about how important The Beatles work during the 60s actually was.

The Beatles brought art to pop music by being the creative force within their own work. They also became commentators on their life and times. And along with George Martin experimented with the entire recording process to produce recorded and published work that will stand up a century from now.

This talk of being overrated is just nonsense, unless it is tongue in cheek? And I'm missing the joke.
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.
FrankBT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 19:22
rumandlime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
[quote=FrankBT;64174180]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.[/QUOTE]

jeepers was everyone 'as good' or 'better' songwriters than lennon/mccartney?..

im all for personal taste and the need for subjective thinking..however i feel you are taking it a bit far.....not many [if any] of the people you mention or infer are in the same league as lennon/mccartney !!!!! in my opinion that is
rumandlime is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:02.