- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/18/16 at 10:24 pm to vandelay industries
^what he said ... they arguably planted the hard rock/heavy metal seed with helter skelter ... and their 3rd writer, george harrison, is probably as good as any writing duo out there ...
Posted on 12/19/16 at 12:01 am to Upslope
Hell no
Posted on 12/19/16 at 1:42 am to Upslope
Yes, they are wildly overrated.
Posted on 12/19/16 at 3:12 am to Upslope
No, one of the best bands ever
Posted on 12/19/16 at 3:58 am to Mr B Walker
quote:
Not saying they're bad or anything, but I think a lot of people like the Beatles just because everyone says they're good and you should like them.
and i am the same way with elvis
Posted on 12/19/16 at 4:02 am to bzss7x
quote:
But in the end,
saw what you did there
Posted on 12/19/16 at 7:01 am to carnuba
No - they are not overrated. It is not possible to overrate them.
Go back and look at what they accomplished from 1963-1970. Seriously...most artists would be lucky to release 3-4 successful studio albums in that amount of time. They released what basically amount to 13 studio albums plus several movies that changed the face of music forever. Look at the amount of musical ground that was covered.
They were/are a musical/cultural phenomenon that I don't believe could ever be repeated.
You don't have to love their music or whatever but to claim they are overrated is silly. Compared to what? They can't even be compared to other bands.
Go back and look at what they accomplished from 1963-1970. Seriously...most artists would be lucky to release 3-4 successful studio albums in that amount of time. They released what basically amount to 13 studio albums plus several movies that changed the face of music forever. Look at the amount of musical ground that was covered.
They were/are a musical/cultural phenomenon that I don't believe could ever be repeated.
You don't have to love their music or whatever but to claim they are overrated is silly. Compared to what? They can't even be compared to other bands.
Posted on 12/19/16 at 9:14 am to Upslope
No, what's pretty much guaranteed that people like you I assume, that worn born well after and have heard over and over and over and over, how great they are suffer from back lash.
Posted on 12/19/16 at 9:24 am to Upslope
yep
Posted on 12/19/16 at 9:35 am to nm1230
quote:
No - they are not overrated. It is not possible to overrate them.
Leonard Bernstein famously compared Lennon/McCartney's songwriting prowess and sense of melody to Schubert, one of the top tier classical composers.
Posted on 12/19/16 at 9:38 am to Upslope
no
Posted on 12/19/16 at 11:42 am to MorbidTheClown
Considering the Beatles are widely acclaimed as, at worst, one of the five greatest bands in rock history then yes... they can ONLY be overrated. That's just a function of being rated so highly.
I personally believe they are rated properly, but when you're ranked at the top, there's nowhere to go but down. It's The Godfather problem. But it's only right that every young upstart comes along and starts tearing down the Beatles. They are the institution, it's what the next generation is SUPPOSED to do. Reject their received heroes.
I personally believe they are rated properly, but when you're ranked at the top, there's nowhere to go but down. It's The Godfather problem. But it's only right that every young upstart comes along and starts tearing down the Beatles. They are the institution, it's what the next generation is SUPPOSED to do. Reject their received heroes.
Posted on 12/19/16 at 12:09 pm to Upslope
I always dug the Stones a lot more than the Beatles. I also prefer blues records to pop songs as well. That being said, the vocal harmonies of the Beatles were unique and still amazing 50 years later...... even now with all of the auto tune pop crap on the radio.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 4:37 pm to Upslope
The Beatles were a 60s boy band. Never understood the love.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:25 pm to AUCE05
quote:
The Beatles were a 60s boy band. Never understood the love.
A lot of people think this. Hell, when I was 15 and I thought Jimmy Page was God, I said this. Before I knew better, I thought the Beatles were really an over celebrated original version of the Monkees.
But it's just not true. First, they developed organically in a city that was bursting with American rock and roll/blues influence. Second, even if it was possible to support this argument early on, it's totally invalidated by the time Help! came around.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:36 pm to Pettifogger
I generally think most of the bands that we still talk about from the 60s and 70s are over-rated.
They don't suck, they are highly influential, but I just don't buy them being the top artists of our time. Same is true for led zep and pink floyd.
True story, my wife was listening to a random playlist and she screamed at me - who is this of montreal wannabe band. they are so derivative. I pointed out that it was the beatles. WE both had a good chuckle over it.
They don't suck, they are highly influential, but I just don't buy them being the top artists of our time. Same is true for led zep and pink floyd.
True story, my wife was listening to a random playlist and she screamed at me - who is this of montreal wannabe band. they are so derivative. I pointed out that it was the beatles. WE both had a good chuckle over it.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:51 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
I generally think most of the bands that we still talk about from the 60s and 70s are over-rated.
I tend to think we over glorify stuff from the crucial periods in an art form or sport.
But I don't know if that is true as applied to rock and roll. I do think influence sometimes is counted ahead of talent. I think Elvis is likely the best example of that. Elvis is arguably not an elite anything of our time (musician, songwriter, vocalist) but he was so innovative and influential that he commands a great deal of respect from other, perhaps more talented musicians.
There are technically better guitarists than Harrison, drummers than Ringo, vocalists than John and Paul. But, at time where they had no peers, John and Paul were and are elite songwriters. They're arguably elite vocalists in a rock format with dual lead vocalists. The catalog of simply great songs stands the test of time.
You have a lot of folks from the 60s-70s that have legit claims for elite spots. Hendrix, Clapton, Beck, etc. Bonham and Moon. Lennon and McCartney and Dylan writing songs.
We'll have to see what has staying power 50 years later as we go forward. But I'm betting Of Montreal isn't gonna outlast the Beatles even when all the original Beatles fans are gone.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 6:37 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Elvis is arguably not an elite anything of our time (musician, songwriter, vocalist)
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:54 pm to Upslope
Not overrated. 210 beautifully crafted songs in a span of only eight years. They released groundbreaking albums yearly in such a very short period of time. Every member could write lyrics, write music and sing. If you study their music from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road every instrument is perfectly calculated yet simple. This thread pisses me off. 
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News