Most overrated bands ever?

[Rainard Jalen]

I love the Beatles to death, but there can be no disputing the point that they are definitely overrated and for various reasons.

[boo boo]

I certainly disagree with that.

I wouldn't confuse highly rated with overrated, and I think The Beatles are appropriately rated.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by boo boo

I certainly disagree with that.

I wouldn't confuse highly rated with overrated, and I think The Beatles are appropriately rated.

My main argument rests on the point that people rate them for things they didn't actually do, like inventing everything in rock music or for being the one cutting edge act which set all the trends. Reality says that most of the styles they emulated in the late 60s had already become standard in some faction of the rock music community as much as 2 years earlier to when they did it, and that they themselves were trying to live up to the cutting-edgeness of The Fugs, Cream, The Yardbirds, The Doors etc.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

My main argument rests on the point that people rate them for things they didn't actually do, like inventing everything in rock music

No one ever says that.

or for being the one cutting edge act which set all the trends.

No one ever says that either, they simply set more trends than any other band. That much is no bull****.

Reality says that most of the styles they emulated in the late 60s had already become standard in some faction of the rock music community as much as 2 years earlier to when they did it, and that they themselves were trying to live up to the cutting-edgeness of The Fugs, Cream, The Yardbirds, The Doors etc.

They were competitive, not unoriginal. They took styles from different genres of music and blended them into their own sound, thats what bands do. Revolver may not have been the first psychedelic album, but it was certainly that album that was the bridge between psychedelic as an underground thing and psychedelic as a mainstream genre of music, and thats very important considering psychedelic rocks relevance to the growing counter culture of the 60s. Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour took things furthur and almost completely broke any restrictions for what a rock band can do. Prog probably never would have happened without The Beatles.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by boo boo

No one ever says that.

"most innovative band of the rock era" is the common one. Richie Unterberger makes the exact claim, so if somebody at his level does, many more casual fans do too.

No one ever says that either, they simply set more trends than any other band. That much is no bull****.

If they set trends it was only because they brought the ideas/sounds to a mainstream audience. That is the point: they are wrongly credited with inventing the sounds. That they were influential by virtue of being able to access the biggest audience, however, is beyond doubt.

They were competitive, not unoriginal. They took styles from different genres of music and blended them into their own sound, thats what bands do.

The point is that they emulated styles, they didn't create any. Yes, hybrids are new styles. The Beatles weren't responsible for creating them.

Revolver may not have been the first psychedelic album, but it was certainly that album that was the bridge between psychedelic as an underground thing and psychedelic as a mainstream genre of music, and thats very important considering psychedelic rocks relevance to the growing counter culture of the 60s.

Yes, fair enough.

Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour took things furthur and almost completely broke any restrictions for what a rock band can do. Prog probably never would have happened without The Beatles.

The main miracle of Sgt Pepper is a miracle in engineering. Rumour has it that they had 700 hours of studio time in making that record. One can only BEGIN to dream of what other bands would have been capable of at the time if they were given 700 hours.

The seeds of prog were being sewn way earlier than Sgt Pepper etc. Check out Zappa, Freak Out!: 1966. That statement you made is the exact type of thing I'm referring to. Music more cutting edge than Sgt Pepper was being created in 66 and 67 and people were self-producing and recording it with tiny or zero budgets. Prog was going to happen whatever else happened. You pretty much prove my point about them being overrated with that unbelievable suggestion.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

"most innovative band of the rock era" is the common one. Richie Unterberger makes the exact claim, so if somebody at his level does, many more casual fans do too.

They were the most innovative band of the rock era.

If they set trends it was only because they brought the ideas/sounds to a mainstream audience. That is the point: they are wrongly credited with inventing the sounds.

Now you see, its bullcrap like this that pisses me off, their sounds were not taken from anybody, they took ideas, whoopedy doo, you get ideas from other people, no band just pulls everything out of their own ass.

You tell me, how many other rock bands were doing songs like Tommorrow Never Knows or Love You To or Eleanor Rigby? Or songs with backwards guitar solos or 5 minute songs with all Raga instruments. Or songs like I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields or Day in the Life, these were not psychedelic rock songs, they took inspiration from the movement but they blended it with pop and made it into something comletely different. Thats what they did, they didn't imitate anybody, they took ideas and pushed them into new directions. Thats part of what being innovative is, its not just pulling something completely out of your ass with no source of inspiration whatsoever.

I can't believe how ridiculous you are being.

That they were influential by virtue of being able to access the biggest audience, however, is beyond doubt.

The point is that they emulated styles, they didn't create any. Yes, hybrids are new styles. The Beatles weren't responsible for creating them.

Wrong.

All of their later albums are hybrids of different styles, they are not direct imitations of anything.

Mixing styles is what everybody does. You can't completely make something without any kind of inspiration, and if you do, it will probably suck.

The main miracle of Sgt Pepper is a miracle in engineering.

And song structure.

Rumour has it that they had 700 hours of studio time in making that record. One can only BEGIN to dream of what other bands would have been capable of at the time if they were given 700 hours.

This is bullcrap. Now you're just playing the "well other bands could have done that" game.

They could of, but they didn't.

The seeds of prog were being sewn way earlier than Sgt Pepper etc. Check out Zappa, Freak Out!: 1966.

Freak Out dosen't deserve all the credit, its just the earliest example.

Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Yes and Genesis were all strongly influenced by The Beatles. Prog bands were more inspired by Freak Out than influenced.

That statement you made is the exact type of thing I'm referring to. Music more cutting edge than Sgt Pepper was being created in 66 and 67

Name them.

and people were self-producing and recording it with tiny or zero budgets. Prog was going to happen whatever else happened.

I don't believe that, even so it sure as hell wouldn't be the same.

You pretty much prove my point about them being overrated with that unbelievable suggestion.

You're the one thats being really outrageous right now. You're basically telling me they were not innovative because *gasp* THEY HAD INFLUENCES.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by boo boo

All of their later albums are hybrids of different styles, they are not direct imitations of anything.

Good grief. You made so many overbloated claims in that post I don't even know where to begin, we'd be writing replies the size of essays. Let's start here. Not direct imitations of anything, all hybrids. What a load of utter nonsense. I can barely believe you said that, and question whether or not you've even listened to The White Album and Abbey Road. The former is intentional imitations the whole way through, right up to Revolution 9, a pathetic imitation of the avant garde that had been doing the same thing 2 years earlier. Then there's Abbey Road. Have you ever listened to Maxwell's Silver Hammer, for example? It's not even rock, for heaven's sake. It's music hall. It sounds RETRO by 1969's standards. What about Oh Darling? It sounds like a 50s Doo Wop ballad. The faux-conceptual faux-opera on the second side also is just an imitation of what the Kinks, The Who and Zappa had been doing earlier on in the period.

When everybody else was doing long suites, they were still doing 3 and a half minute ditties a la 40s/50s music hall and Vaudeville. The most innovative band of the rock era? They basically were hardly even PART of the rock era.

Nah, you know what, screw it. I'm not well at the moment and I certainly haven't got the energy to reply to a bunch of clasp-at-straws statements with no foundation whatsoever. I mean, for heaven's sake, if you'd even HEARD Freak Out! and other early Zappa, for one, you would never have been able to make a claim like there'd be no prog without Sgt Pepper or the Beatles.

Also you're OBSESSED with bringing up the whole "mixing styles is not unoriginal" stuff. I never claimed it was unoriginal. What I'm saying is that they were NOT fusing styles or genres together. They simply were not. Unless you consider fusing styles together taking the popular forms of the moment and turning it into pop. That's about the extent of their fusion/merging/hybridisation. Plus fusing a style together would involve creating a style and playing it consistently and over the course of at least one record. The Beatles did nothing of the sort. Their last two albums are all OVER the place in terms of ideas. They just took any form/genre and played it themselves, shifting from song to song. That was it. Yes, it's VERY enjoyable to listen to, but it is NOT cutting-edge innovation by any idiot's standards.

Whatever. I can't be arsed anymore. I just cannot believe people will still dare to give the Beatles more importance as innovators than those who were really changing the face of music altogether. Hell, there wouldn't even have BEEN a Sgt Pepper if it wasn't for Pet Sounds. And Brian Wilson produced that whole album himself. The genius of the instrumental arrangements on Sgt Pepper is the work of Martin. I don't believe ONE instrument is played by any of the Beatles on She's Leaving Home, for example.





EDIT: PS there's no point continuing unless we do it point by point, it's silly to just battle seventeen thousand counter claims at once. Also, bear in mind that I don't actually enjoy debating a negative point on the Beatles as they are my favourite band.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Good grief. You made so many overbloated claims in that post I don't even know where to begin, we'd be writing replies the size of essays. Let's start here. Not direct imitations of anything, all hybrids. What a load of utter nonsense. I can barely believe you said that, and question whether or not you've even listened to The White Album and Abbey Road.

Are these their only albums now?

The former is intentional imitations the whole way through

The Beatles could do any style and did do every style, they still made them sound like Beatles songs.

right up to Revolution 9, a pathetic imitation of the avant garde that had been doing the same thing 2 years earlier. Then there's Abbey Road. Have you ever listened to Maxwell's Silver Hammer, for example? It's not even rock, for heaven's sake. It's music hall. It sounds RETRO by 1969's standards. What about Oh Darling? It sounds like a 50s Doo Wop ballad.

And yet Freak Out, which itself consists mostly of doo wop, motown, psychedelic rock and blues parodies is a sheer example of musical innovation?

The faux-conceptual faux-opera on the second side also is just an imitation of what the Kinks, The Who and Zappa had been doing earlier on in the period.

Say what now?

So they did what is basically a medley of songs and now you're telling me they were ripping off The Who and trying to do a rock opera?

WHERE do you come up with this stuff?

When everybody else was doing long suites, they were still doing 3 and a half minute ditties a la 40s/50s music hall and Vaudeville. The most innovative band of the rock era? They basically were hardly even PART of the rock era.

.......

Now you're starting to scare me. That may be the most ridiculous generalization about The Beatles I've ever heard.

Nah, you know what, screw it. I'm not well at the moment

I can tell.

and I certainly haven't got the energy to reply to a bunch of clasp-at-straws statements with no foundation whatsoever.

I know what you are but what am I.

I mean, for heaven's sake, if you'd even HEARD Freak Out! and other early Zappa, for one, you would never have been able to make a claim like there'd be no prog without Sgt Pepper or the Beatles.

Now that is completely uncalled for, you're sounding like an elitist smug douche.

Of course I've heard Freak Out, and sorry I must be crazy but when I listen to that album I don't think to myself "you know, this sounds like Sgt Peppers", because it dosen't.

Also you're OBSESSED with bringing up the whole "mixing styles is not unoriginal" stuff. I never claimed it was unoriginal. What I'm saying is that they were NOT fusing styles or genres together.

They fused psychedelic with pop and even classical music. I Am The Walrus, Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, these are the examples I've been giving over and over again. Lennon was the more original one. Paul was the one who liked to do the Tin Pan Alley thing.

They simply were not. Unless you consider fusing styles together taking the popular forms of the moment and turning it into pop.

THAT is fusing genres, sheesh. Listen to yourself.

That's about the extent of their fusion/merging/hybridisation. Plus fusing a style together would involve creating a style and playing it consistently and over the course of at least one record.

Oh, well shame on The Beatles for wanting to offer a different listening experience with every song, what a bunch of unoriginal hacks.

The Beatles did nothing of the sort. Their last two albums are all OVER the place in terms of ideas.

And that is bad because?

They just took any form/genre and played it themselves, shifting from song to song. That was it. Yes, it's VERY enjoyable to listen to, but it is NOT cutting-edge innovation by any idiot's standards.

Making rock albums that were a complete melting pot of genres was itself an incredibly original idea. Not to mention a commercial risk. The Beatles took risks, you make it out like everything they did was safe.

Whatever. I can't be arsed anymore. I just cannot believe people will still dare to give the Beatles more importance as innovators than those who were really changing the face of music altogether.

Like who? A few California bands who thought it would be cool to play folk songs on electric instruments?

Hell, there wouldn't even have BEEN a Sgt Pepper if it wasn't for Pet Sounds. And Brian Wilson produced that whole album himself.

Yay, you learned what influence is, good for you.

The genius of the instrumental arrangements on Sgt Pepper is the work of Martin. I don't believe ONE instrument is played by any of the Beatles on She's Leaving Home, for example.

What other pop/rock group was doing this kinda thing?

EDIT: PS there's no point continuing unless we do it point by point, it's silly to just battle seventeen thousand counter claims at once.

Thats my style, sorry.

[Laughing Boy]

"I really wasn't quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs...that somehow went together like no album ever made before, and I was very impressed. I said, 'That's it. I really am challenged to do a great album.'" - Brian Wilson. That challenge turned into Pet Sounds. So there wouldn't have been a Pet Sounds without Rubber Soul. So really it was the Beatles own influence that was responsible for Sgt. Peppers. Funny how that works.

[boo boo]

Owned by a n00b, awesome.