Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Penny Lane]

Is it because they're deluded?  Ignorant?  Nuts?  

To be fair, I know everyone is entitled to an opinion, but whenever I hear people say this, it really does bother me.  I don't see where they're coming from--unless they think the Beatles were only famous for being cutesy moptops who made bouncy teenybopper music.  Is that what non-fans really think of the Beatles?  

What IS their image or idea of the Beatles?  Someone, please tell me.

To not like the Beatles is okay (sorta).  But to call them "overrated" drives me crazy because it shows such a lack of understanding of their music.  

[Bobber]

Because they underestimate the influence and impact The Beatles had. Plus they forgot that we are talking sixties here, not the 00's with our high speed internet connections and enormous accessibility to news, music and everything else.

[DaveRam]

You get this label sometimes when your a big band and The Beatles are still that , kinda cool really that people can still be bothered to put the boot in 40 years after the split (wink1)

[This Bird Has Flown]

But to call them "overrated" drives me crazy because it shows such a lack of understanding of their music.  

That's exactly what it is, a lack of understanding.  I loved the Beatles as a young child, then for a few years, I forgot quite a bit about them and had my "They're SO overrated" phase (a phase I'm sure I'll always look back on with shame ).  I would hear so much hype about them, and only know or remember 2 or 3 songs.  I'd think, "Why does everybody say these guys are so special?" But at the time, I was too ignorant in the music world to go look them up again, until recently of course.  But yeah, it's pretty much just an ignorance of the music.  They only hear what they feel like hearing, and if they don't think 1 or 2 songs are special, thats the end of that.  No taking the time to find what's so special. Or at least that's what I've noticed.

[HeatherBoo]

Some people just don't get it.....

[Mrs Lennon]

Because they are loonies.

[Jane]

I know some Queen fans who say that the Beatles were not that good and Queen was the best of the best and more versatile and varied than The Beatles. And more professional and better musicians and so on. Are they right to some extent?

[Penny Lane]

^  Freddie Mercury was a far better singer than any of the Beatles, honestly.  He was amazing and had a voice like no other.  But I still wouldn't say that the Beatles are overrated by comparison.  Both groups were great but very different.

[Jane]

I agree, Penny. By some ratings Freddie is considered to be the best vocal ever, or the best frontman. But what do you think of versatility of the two bands. Which was more versatile?

[Penny Lane]

It would be a little hard for me to judge Queen against the Beatles' versatility.  I am pretty familiar with Queen, but I don't know their entire musical catalog like I do with the Beatles.  Maybe the Beatles are more versatile, since they were able to do all sorts of different genres.  Listen to the White Album, for instance--the music there is all over the place.  Again, though, I'm not sure if I can make this judgement fairly because I'm not as deeply familiar with Queen's music as I am with the Fab Four.

What is your opinion?

[emmi_luvs_beatles]

Because what 'Young' people listen to is a LOT different than The Beatles. So they think 'Well, this isn't anything like todays Rock, so it isn't any good' people are so quick to judge. I knew a guy in my school who listened to 'Everybody's Got Something To Hide (Exept For Me And My Monkey)' and thought all of their music would be like that and immeaditly said they were overrated... ugh. And the whole not understanding the music thing is a big factor also. But, I also know people who say they are the greatest band of all time, (like me). But next to them on his list was Metallica and Led Zepplin lol.

[JimmyMcCullochFan]

Because what 'Young' people listen to is a LOT different than The Beatles. So they think 'Well, this isn't anything like todays Rock, so it isn't any good' people are so quick to judge. I knew a guy in my school who listened to 'Everybody's Got Something To Hide (Exept For Me And My Monkey)' and thought all of their music would be like that and immeaditly said they were overrated... ugh. And the whole not understanding the music thing is a big factor also. But, I also know people who say they are the greatest band of all time, (like me). But next to them on his list was Metallica and Led Zepplin lol.

I've seen some people say that The Jonas Brothers are the best band ever and that The Beatles were overrated LOL

[Kevin]

Hmmm - I'm not sure about damning non-Beatle folk as "not understanding music." Not really sure what that means.
I know quite a few older folk, very much into music, who don't like them much either. They say the music is okay, but dismiss their pre 66 music as teen fodder and post 66 fame as a Beatlemania hangover. Or they just don't like the music (over reliant on cutsey melodies is an oft heard criticism.) Beatle fans running around claiming they invented the wheel probably doesn't help.
Isn't it the language we use? We can easily define "biggest selling", get close to "most influential" but "greatest" is so emotive.

[Jane]

It would be a little hard for me to judge Queen against the Beatles' versatility.  I am pretty familiar with Queen, but I don't know their entire musical catalog like I do with the Beatles.  Maybe the Beatles are more versatile, since they were able to do all sorts of different genres.  Listen to the White Album, for instance--the music there is all over the place.  Again, though, I'm not sure if I can make this judgement fairly because I'm not as deeply familiar with Queen's music as I am with the Fab Four.

What is your opinion?

I still believe it is The Beatles. They are more versatile. You are right to mention the White Album. They are the founders of many styles to follow. Except Disco. At least I can`t think of any disco-like song. Can you? Queen is great but not so varied. Though Queen fans are fighting for the Queen-first-in-versatility to the end.

[emmi_luvs_beatles]

I've seen some people say that The Jonas Brothers are the best band ever and that The Beatles were overrated LOL

Yeah, I've heard that too. lol, I just say to them 'riiiiiiiight' and then lmao when they leave

[Penny Lane]

I still believe it is The Beatles. They are more versatile. You are right to mention the White Album. They are the founders of many styles to follow. Except Disco. At least I can`t think of any disco-like song. Can you? Queen is great but not so varied. Though Queen fans are fighting for the Queen-first-in-versatility to the end.

Disco?  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Beatles song that does disco.

[alexis]

I'm a member of a computer music production forum, and it is populated in large part by "progs". I never have quite figured out exactly what this is (they seem to like King Crimson, and a bunch of stuff I've never heard of), but anyway some of the people there are vehement, almost violent, in their feelings that The Beatles are completely over-rated.

I've tried to point out that there's very little in music nowadays that doesn't owe a lot to the Beatles, so maybe they're not overrated. The general response is either: "You're not right", or "Who cares about popular music, we're real musicians!".

Oh well, there's just no accounting for taste!

(I guess whether they're over-rated or not depends on how highly they are rated in the first place!).

[Jane]

I've tried to point out that there's very little in music nowadays that doesn't owe a lot to the Beatles, so maybe they're not overrated. The general response is either: "You're not right", or "Who cares about popular music, we're real musicians!".

I absolutely agree with you!
One Queen forum is also very vehement about their claim that Queen is everywhere and The Beatles are just only pop. But they don`t see the point and can`t take a proper insight into the problem at question.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

The question is: over-rated by whom? Fans? Every band is over-rated by their fans, that's natural. Critics? When a band is considered to be the greatest ever it's not a surprise that some people who prefer other bands think that they're over-rated.

Actually I think that the Beatles' rhythm section is usually under-rated.

[alexis]

The question is: over-rated by whom? Fans? Every band is over-rated by their fans, that's natural. Critics? When a band is considered to be the greatest ever it's not a surprise that some people who prefer other bands think that they're over-rated.

Actually I think that the Beatles' rhythm section is usually under-rated.

Oh, yeah, by whom?  (chainsaw)(chainsaw)

Just kidding, I promise!!  

Actually, hombre, the more I learn about music, the more I have come to appreciate the very same thing you are saying. Ringo did such an INCREDIBLE job in hanging the framework for the others. Paul of course did a great rhythm in the early days, maybe later he was more of an instrumentalist/soloist as he became uber-proficient on the bass. But, he only had the freedom to do this because Ringo was the man!

And ... John's rhythm guitar was so dang good. I think he might have been a drummer at heart! What I am especially impressed with (and I know you were in a band because I've seen your pictures on other threads  ) is how much John knew when/what NOT to play. Sparse but effective rhythm, thank you very much!

When I listen to what those 20-25 year old guys could do ("Meet The Beatles", for example, especially maybe "All I've Got to Do" as a good example), I'm just convinced they were touched by angels. And without anyone to model themselves after, it's just incredible.