|11-09-2012, 05:06 PM||#1 (permalink)|
Join Date: Nov 2012
The Beatles are overrated.
Yes it has been said many times before, and yes you strongly disagree - however its just my opinion.
For a group that is consistently lauded as the best band of all time I honestly feel a lot of the Beatles' acclaimed work is somewhat underwhelming for modern listeners. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Beatles aren't a good band; they're an outstanding band and the most influential act in pop history without a shred of a doubt, however I don't feel this entitles them to being undisputed for the title of best band ever.
The Fab Four laid out a blueprint for what has been nearly half a century (and counting) of popular music, they're influence can be found in every genre of contemporary music and there is no denying this. Their innovation has been no less than tantamount to turning rock 'n' roll into something more than generic mid tempo, four-four chord progressions. But is the famous Lennon-McCartney penmanship solely to thank for this? Absolutely not. The thing I love about The Beatles is that they weren't afraid to take risks; with the assistance of the brilliant George Martin they explored music that already existed around the world, went on an acid trip and moulded this music into something that they could legally claim was their own. Voilà! Critical acclaim and levels of worship only bestowed upon mortals who are literally "More Popular Than Jesus".
So what is the dilemma? All I've done is praised the Beatles, so why is it they are overrated. Simple - their music is not that good. I said it! The Beatles were innovators, they mapped a template for future artists who are more talented than they are/were to utilise and further perfect the audible arts and make music something far superior to anything the Beatles ever dreamed up. God now that I'm here I might as well say this as well - Pet Sounds is better than every album in the Beatles' entire catalogue. And that was a band who peaked at the same time as the Beatles did! Not to mention that was only three years after the Beatles' demise that The Dark Side of The Moon was released. Similar to The Beatles, Pink Floyd of 1973 were a mainstream rock group who recorded at Abbey Road Studios subsequent to writing songs whilst peaking on psychedelic drugs. However this album, unlike Rubber Soul or Sgt Peppers or Revolver or Abbey Road, was an accessible pop album whilst at the same time being virtuosic and lyrically adventurous. DSOTM has more replay value than any of the aforementioned Beatles LPs and it isn't even their best album. Not even going to get started on the Rolling Stones.
So there it is. I suppose this notion of the Beatles not being the greatest of all time (however farcical you find it to be) begs the question of who ARE the kings of rock music. For me, its Radiohead. For somebody else it could be Queen, or The Who or The Clash or even U2. And then there's that person that thinks that its Nirvana, but they're wrong. Nirvana suck. For you, it may be the Beatles, and if it is, know that this opinion is actually questionable no matter what the last fifty years have told you to the contrary.
MUSIC IS SUBJECTIVE
|11-09-2012, 05:13 PM||#2 (permalink)|
Ba and Be.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: This Is England
I swear I have never heard this argument before. My musical tastes have changed forever after reading this.
“A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”
|11-09-2012, 05:24 PM||#4 (permalink)|
The Music Guru.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
We have a couple of threads for topics on The Beatles vs. whoever and are they over/underrated already:
Take yer pick.