DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: nimrod on September 22, 2011, 11:06:02 PM
-
It annoys the crap out of me when people say they were overrated, now dont get me wrong, if someone say 'I dont like em I think they suck' Im ok with that, thats just taste and normal its just like me not liking Oasis or U2. (although in the case of Oasis its true) ha2ha (sorry Oasis fan)
Its when they say they were overrated it pulls at my plonker :P
I usually respond by saying something like.................................. 'so if they were overrated how come theres over 20,000 covers of their songs by some of the worlds top recording artists' ? how come theyve had thousands of books written about them ? How did they make it as Britains #1 band when the only previous northeners to make it big were comedians ?, how come they became Americas top band when no British band had ever made it there ? How come they are the only band to have sold over a Billion records ? How come they were credited by the top people in the industry with changing the face of recording techniques ? how come they are credited with being the first band to write their own songs and how come they were huge in nearly every European country plus Asia and the USSR, not to mention South America and Australasia ?
Its quite a mouthful if you go the whole hog ha2ha
I then end by saying 'if anything they were so good they were UNDERRATED' !!!
-
Who's Oasis?
I know, I know nimrod...I'm a dinosaur. ha2ha
-
I know a ton of people who tell me they are overrated and they might be right. I'll just leave it at that as I dont have a strong enough opinion on the matter to care all that much.
Maybe they are, maybe they arent. I see valid points on both sides.
-
Its when they say they were overrated it pulls at my plonker :P
I know what that means! ;D
I'm in total agreement, Kevin.
-
I know a ton of people who tell me they are overrated and they might be right. I'll just leave it at that as I dont have a strong enough opinion on the matter to care all that much.
Maybe they are, maybe they arent. I see valid points on both sides.
for me its like saying Mozart, or Beethoven was overrated...........no difference because Beatle music will still be listened to and revered in 1000 years
-
Its when they say they were overrated it pulls at my plonker :P
I'll go further. It virtually roasts my oyster.
>:(
-
I think the Beatles are overrated by those who think that they were the only musical revolutionaries in the 1960's (they were the most important ones but not the only ones), while they are underrated by those who don't acknowledge their huge importance in the development of rock music.
As John wrote to Paul in 1971: "Do you really think that most of today's art came because of the Beatles? I do not believe you're so crazy, Paul. You believe that? When you stop believing, you might wake up! We do not always said we were part of the movement and not the whole movement? Of course, we change the world. But try to move on. JUMP OVER THE GOLD DISC AND FLY!"
-
I would ask them, how do you define the term "Over-rated".
It really is impossible to define. Over-rated to whom? Why is the person the authority on how something should be rated?
Enough said.
-
I would ask them, how do you define the term "Over-rated".
It really is impossible to define. Over-rated to whom? Why is the person the authority on how something should be rated?
Enough said.
Overrated = it's given more credit than deserved.
The authority on how something should be rated is always yourself. So "overrated" depends more on who rates than on who's rated. That's why it's still a subjective opinion.
-
Overrated = it's given more credit than deserved.
The authority on how something should be rated is always yourself. So "overrated" depends more on who rates than on who's rated. That's why it's still a subjective opinion.
I dont agree with the latter sentence, overrated can mean there is a general consensus amongst experts that something is overrated, ie some experts believe that the concept of the big bang is overrated.
I cant overrate it though as Im a layman
I mean some ignorant bugger who hates and knows nothing about baroque music can say that Bach is overrated and rubbish, his opinion is actually worthless in the end.
-
I dont agree with the latter sentence, overrated can mean there is a general consensus amongst experts that something is overrated, ie some experts believe that the concept of the big bang is overrated.
I cant overrate it though as Im a layman
I mean some ignorant bugger who hates and knows nothing about baroque music can say that Bach is overrated and rubbish, his opinion is actually worthless in the end.
I understand your point, but what I meant to say is that the same thing can be overrated by some people and underrated by other people, so it depends on who rates.
Generally the Beatles are overrated by fans (including me), as every band is overrated by its own fans. I think that most people underrate Jefferson Airplane, but maybe I overrate them.
-
I think it's just something some people enjoy saying.
-
I think it's just something some people enjoy saying.
yes, and its overrated ha2ha
-
This is getting scary Nimrod. For a long time I disagreed with a lot of what you said, now I am agreeing with most everything you say.
I agree that you have to have studied something scholarly to even begin to say it is overrated.
As the original topic was The Beatles being overrated, if someone says that, it is nothing more than an opinion backed by...nothing. There is substantial evidence that The Beatles are at least one of the greatest Rock N Roll bands ever.
I have no problem with someone saying, "I don't like the Beatles". Okay, there are many bands I don't like. Rush is such a band, and yet I would never call them "overrated". I am not an expert on Rush. I think Neil Peart is a very good drummer. Not among my list of favorites. He is considered, by some, as one of the best Rock N Roll drummers. If I was so egotistical to think my opinion was so great, I would say he is overrated. I don't think that is my place to say that. He is just not among my list of drummers, I like. I don't like Rush's music and don't want to hear them.
I think it is a lack of respect for others opinion to say something is overrated without the scholarly education and knowledge to do so. If you insist on saying something have the backing and evidence for what you say. Making a blanket statement without presenting your case is ignorance.
-
Gary, don't feel fear to discuss about something such beautiful as music. If you are a music fan and know something about music, you can give your sincere opinion about any band, as respectable as other opinions. Anyway, I insist that the overrated and underrated thing goes nowhere because, as I said, it depends on who rates. For example, I could say that you overrate the Beatles while tkitna underrates them (don't worry both of you, this is just a figure, not reality).
-
This is getting scary Nimrod. For a long time I disagreed with a lot of what you said, now I am agreeing with most everything you say.
ha2ha
-
For example, I could say that you overrate the Beatles while tkitna underrates them (don't worry both of you, this is just a figure, not reality).
or you could say Todd underrates The Beatles but overrates Ram ha2ha
-
I don't fear expressing my opinion. I just think that opinions need to be defined as such. (Look, another opinion.)
If you say, I don't like... Then it would be proper, to explain why you don't like such and such a song/album/lyric/instrumentation, etc.
"I don't like The Beatles" or "The Beatles Suck" or even "The Beatles are overrated" statements like that left alone are meaningless.
-
It annoys the crap out of me when people say they were overrated, now dont get me wrong, if someone say 'I dont like em I think they suck' Im ok with that, thats just taste and normal its just like me not liking Oasis or U2. (although in the case of Oasis its true) ha2ha (sorry Oasis fan)
Its when they say they were overrated it pulls at my plonker :P
I usually respond by saying something like.................................. 'so if they were overrated how come theres over 20,000 covers of their songs by some of the worlds top recording artists' ? how come theyve had thousands of books written about them ? How did they make it as Britains #1 band when the only previous northeners to make it big were comedians ?, how come they became Americas top band when no British band had ever made it there ? How come they are the only band to have sold over a Billion records ? How come they were credited by the top people in the industry with changing the face of recording techniques ? how come they are credited with being the first band to write their own songs and how come they were huge in nearly every European country plus Asia and the USSR, not to mention South America and Australasia ?
Its quite a mouthful if you go the whole hog ha2ha
I then end by saying 'if anything they were so good they were UNDERRATED' !!!
How's it going mate? This has been a very interesting thread! As much as I hate to say it, there are many people that I've known in my life that were anti-Beatles. However, as years went by, many of them are now DIE HARD BEATLES fans! I just think of it this way nimrod, if the people, that are anti-Beatles, don't love THE BEATLES now, eventually, they will come around and love them later. THE BEATLES' music speaks for itself. Take care mate.
-
I think it irks some people because the Beatles transcend music. The Rollings Stones, The Who, The Kinks, etc were music. The Beatles were a movement. They were innovation. Some people feel they have to minimal-ize that. It's human nature. "Oh, they weren't ALL that." Actually, yes they were :) One of the few to go the distance and win it all.
-
Although I listen to the Beatles more than any other artist/band I do believe they are the most overrated artist/band of all time. There are many reasons I believe so but let me ask you one question. If the Beatles were the ones who made The Dark Side of the Moon or In the Court of the Crimson King wouldn't those albums be considered the greatest albums of all time?
-
If the Beatles were the ones who made The Dark Side of the Moon or In the Court of the Crimson King wouldn't those albums be considered the greatest albums of all time?
Arent they already considered the greatest albums of all time by a ton of people? I dont think it has anything to do with whether or not the Beatles were the artist. I think good music usually passes the test of time regardless of who's behind it. Its also in what you like anyways. I personally think 'SF Sorow' by the Pretty Things is the greatest album ever made, but i'll be damned if I can find somebody else who thinks the same thing. I can barely find anybody thats even heard the album at all. Its all in what you like, but I suppose that raises the bar for the Beatles, because it sure seems like a heel of a lot of people liked them.
-
Arent they already considered the greatest albums of all time by a ton of people? I dont think it has anything to do with whether or not the Beatles were the artist. I think good music usually passes the test of time regardless of who's behind it. Its also in what you like anyways. I personally think 'SF Sorow' by the Pretty Things is the greatest album ever made, but i'll be damned if I can find somebody else who thinks the same thing. I can barely find anybody thats even heard the album at all. Its all in what you like, but I suppose that raises the bar for the Beatles, because it sure seems like a heel of a lot of people liked them.
I could just imagine the praise they would have gotten had they been the ones who made Dark Side of the Moon and/or especially In the Court of the Crimson King.
-
Aha, I love a good hypothetical.. ;D
Todd has a good point, those albums ARE already regrded by millions to be THE best albums ever made, speaking as a lifelong prog fan who has a collection of over 1000 prog albums and spent years posting on prog boards, I can assure you this is fact eraser...
But this is what it is, hypothetical, they didn't make those albums, those albums are not in the style of The Beatles in any way, 'In The Court' was probably the first prog album ever made and is fantastic, but its not mainstream music.....which the Beatles WERE, appealing to kids, parents, even grandparents......I love 'Court' when it came out, it was a whole new genre, blending other genre's, but not for one minute, would my parents have listened to it (they were fans of the Beatles), they would also have not listened to DSOTM, as it was way too weird for their tastes, of course I loved it, so in essence, no, I dont agree with your hypothesis, I dont think the world would have declared them the best albums ever made...they just weren't accessible enough to the public at large, The Beatles wrote songs that people could sing and whistle, great melodies that will live forever, you cant walk down the street and whistle Schizoid Man or The Great Gig In The Sky (maybe Money you could )
Another point is, I dont think the Beatles made 'the worlds best album' what they did though was consistently make very very good albums, each one (with the odd exception) being better than its predecessor, both Floyd and Crimson didn't manage that, they just made these stand-out albums, that are regarded as classics, Crimson couldn't repeat that achievement and went on to make inferior albums (with the possible exception of Red, although it wasn't ground breaking)
Floyd had a very mixed bag of good and not so good, they made several albums after DSOTM but none were as good it has to be said, although WYWH is a high point.
The Beatles were leaders of a social revolution in the 60's (I was there) and theyre importance is immense in that role, as Ive said, when over 20,000 cover versions of your songs are made (by some of the worlds leading artists) I dont see how you can be overrated, you are what the public make you, and The Beatles were massive.
-
nimrod: I wasn't around those days. Can you tell me something? When Sgt. Peppers came out how big was it? Was it as big as Thriller? How amazing was the album in terms of quality at the time? I love the album and right now there is no other album I can listen to. I can just imagine how much I would have liked it if I were around in those days.
-
nimrod: I wasn't around those days. Can you tell me something? When Sgt. Peppers came out how big was it? Was it as big as Thriller? How amazing was the album in terms of quality at the time? I love the album and right now there is no other album I can listen to. I can just imagine how much I would have liked it if I were around in those days.
When Pepper came out it was a huge event in the UK, people had waited what seemed like a very long time since the last album and had a taster with Strawberry Field of strange but wonderful things to come, of course there had been mentions in the music press about them working on it for thousands of hours and everyone had a sense that the world was changing, that an age of enlightenment was on the horizon.....hundreds of thousands of advanced orders were placed with stores (my brother was one) and when it eventually arrived, it didnt disappoint, a gatefold cover (never been seen before) full of bright colours, lyrics on the back (never been seen before).......the whole thing was a wonderful, magical experience, radio stations played it over and over, it seemed that a monochrome world had changed to full brilliant colour, and of course it had a massive effect on music for the next decade or so..
I dont think DSOTM would have been so enigmatic if not for Pepper, suddenly you could put anything in a song, Mr Kite showed the way with swirling fairground organs and Good Morning Good Morning with hounds barking etc, you could make a song last 8 minutes and put it in weird time signatures, you could use exotic instruments like sitars and celestes.......these things had never really been done before, everyone knew that Lucy was describing an LSD trip, even the title of the song was made from the letters LSD (dont believe that nonsense story about Julians painting)..
To sum up, it was monumental, awe inspiring and probably THE biggest event in the history of popular music...it changed music forever.
It always makes me laugh when people say 'Ive heard Pepper and cant see why its so great' ha2ha
-
nimrod: I can't stop listening to it. I've never been addicted to an album like this. I'm so addicted to it that when I try to listen to anything else I just switch back over to Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. What's funny is that the first time I heard it I didn't like it. Now I can't stop listening to it.
-
Nice account for those of us who missed it. Thanks Kevin!
-
nimrod: I can't stop listening to it. I've never been addicted to an album like this. I'm so addicted to it that when I try to listen to anything else I just switch back over to Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. What's funny is that the first time I heard it I didn't like it. Now I can't stop listening to it.
dont worry.........just enjoy ;D
-
Nice account for those of us who missed it. Thanks Kevin!
my pleasure IML ;)
-
Yeah, nice right up Kev. It was a little before my time, but I can imagine.
-
Nice account for those of us who missed it. Thanks Kevin!
I second that. :)
-
I second that. :)
And I ... er ... third it ;D
-
Thanks guys..
another thing to think about was the John (in those heady days) was seen as the creative genius of the band and Paul was seens as the master of melody who wrote more traditional songs, so when we got Penny Lane/SFF it summed them up perfectly, I mean how much more typical of a Paul song is Penny Lane ? My parents loved it, I have memories of my late Mother singing and sort of doing a little dance to it (I was about 15), but flip the single over and put SFF on and they sort of disappeared ;D
Of course us younger element were obsessed with what John was doing next and I particularly being intrigued by the cover of SFF;
(http://fab4collectables.com/STRAWBERRYFIELDSps.jpg)
Johns image (clothing) has always fascinated me and I loved the way he was dressing around this time, in fact I remember being slightly disappointed that they wore the uniforms on Pepper and we didnt get pictures of their own clothes (a world of no internet just the odd pic in the music press)
So anyway, after the single we just couldnt wait to hear the psychedelic stuff that we knew John would put on the new album, after all SFF WAS a kind of revolution musically, there had been nothing like it, all that weirdness, slurpy cello's, distorted drums, and strange oblique lyrics that were not just nonsense but had deeper meanings than we were used too in pop songs..
So there you go, John was seen as the visionary (more the artist), Paul was the melodic genius who kept them main stream and acceptable to all.
-
nimrod: How often were the Beatles talked about? Were they something talked about everyday?