Are the Beatles overrated?

Come on guys this is dopey

First of all John Paul and George were all very talented musicians who played guitar bass piano and drums and we're all very good at composing music on both the guitar and the piano

They were all also very good singers songwriters and innovators

Ringo was a solid drummer who fit well into the group and George Martin was a great producer

It was just the situation of having all these forces come together and working well together

They weren't quite virtuosos but they were damn solid musicians who had a very high level knack for creating interesting popular music

And just the fact that they formed organically at a young age and at a time when music was really innovating led to this incredible coalescence

How many Mozart lyrics do YOU know?

He didn't write the words for his operas, that was the job of the librettist.

This. I was almost 5 when they were on Ed Sullivan the first time. They dominated the news/media almost daily. No social media. They were so different than what was popular at the time.

They ushered in this major change in music and culture.

Then- listen to their albums in order. They evolved as the world changed.

I remember the day they announced their official break up. It was major news.

And really, it was a short period of time. But, the world was such a different place as we entered the 1970's.

not an argument. i dont even understand what you are suggesting, that there are no mediocre musicians from the past that have been remembered? because thats not true

would the beatles ve popular today? no.

most of their songs wouldnt chart today which speks to the great subjectivity of it all. sales mean nothing. a music phenom means nothing. the beatles had it easy when music was much smaller simpler industry than it is today. they got in early and monopolised on the early popularisation of rock n roll.

How do you know what would chart today? The way records (recordings) are made changes with technology and style, but good music is still good music. You could also say that a lot of those songs never would have been written today. They fit the times because they came from the times. What makes them classic is that people will be listening to them many years from now. The fact that we're discussing this sixty years later attests to that.
None of the music that followed the Beatles would have been the same without them. You could also say they wouldn't have been what they were if it weren't for Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly etc...
They stayed on top and dominated for seven years at a time when music was the top priority in social activity. The industry wasn't that small then either. Elvis inspired a whole generation to play guitars. The Beatles inspired a whole generation to start garage bands. The Beatles phenomenon was worldwide. There were a lot of artists and a lot of record companies. The difference is most all pop music was part of the rock'n'roll scene and it promoted togetherness. Nowadays, any "scene" is fragmented into componants promoting division.

yes exactly they fit the times because its subjective to people who happen to live in different times. songs considered great then wouldnt get a look in now. the fact that people picked up a guitar from listening to some music is a pretty low bar for saying something is good imo. ofcourse music you hear in the charts thats popular is going to make you want to play music.

It's kind of funny, I'm not really a huge fan of The Beatles but I love when other people play cover's of their songs.

Why are you so obsessed with popular or successful as your markers of greatness? Do you know that gangam style was once the most watched YouTube video? Or that Justin Beiber or Rihanna are some of the biggest sellers of this generation despite releasing objectively terrible music.

Popularity and sales are nearly always driven by teenage girls when it comes to the biggest acts in the World, look at that huge Kpop boy band now BTS. It was no different in the 60's. The biggest groups/bands tend to be heavily marketed ones, not the most talented, best or greatest.

What's popular today doesn't even count as music. It has devolved into crap a 3 year old could produce on a toy tablet.

I figured out long ago why it's popular - today's kids were raised on the new "it's okay if you suck" morality. Anything too skilled comes across as arrogant or offensive, the virtue is mediocrity. Autotuners create a sort of vocal equity, now anyone can be a singer as long as standards are kept low enough.

All of whom you may not have gotten to listen to without the Beatles.

Those who think they are overrated as a band have no clue what they are talking about. They took music of the time from one point to a completely different point not seen prior to them and a lot of that basic structure is still around.

Yet you could not name a single one.

Your Favorite Band Sucks

yfbspod.com

The Beatles Suck

@yfbspod

The Beatles Suck! We might be the only people on planet earth willing to say it but someone has to say it! We all know it's true. Don't believe us? Listen!

Link:www.yfbspod.com/the-beatles-suck

Hey Piero,

The music business exists today because of the Beatles, George Martin and Brian Epstein.
Rock music was dead when they came along. The whole 50s thing with Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Elvis, etc etc was done, kaput. Over. Crooners like Paul Anka and Pat Boone and Perry Como were the flavour. Vanilla.

There are many bands that have fashioned successful careers sounding like the Beatles or borrowing rhythms and innovations from the Beatles. Still to this very day. The technology today is because of the Beatles. Half the stuff in pro tools was George Martin, Geoff Emerick and the Beatles own curiousity and experimentation that engendered technology in use today. They did it all manually. You can thank them for this.

Their story is unique and worth retelling.

Paul McCartney, for example, at age 78 nearly 79 wrote, produced, engineered, sang and played all of the instruments for his album McCartney III, which went number 1. And this is largely without him being a sexy teen/20s something, without stealing samples, without autotune, clicktracks (he played the drums). And done largely without any radio support or fevered youth-driven social media hysteria.

Number 1. Today.

Most of the songs are very good and would fit into his career beautifully from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s, 2020s.

His voice is going, but his legacy is massive and absolutely relevant today.

My top 10:

1. Captain Beefheart:
Trout Mask Replica

2. Robert Wyatt: Rock Bottom

3. Faust: Faust I

4. Velvet Underground:
& Nico

5. Doors: The Doors

6. Tim Buckley: Lorca

7. Pere Ubu: Modern Dance

8. Royal Trux: Twin Infinitives

9. John Fahey: Fare Forward Voyagers

10. Nico: Desert Shore

Absolutely false. Beatles just copied rock n roll of the day and the changes they made to their music was a product of their great producer, the prevailing counter culture of the time and technology and even then they never managed anything truly daring that came off, mostly sitting in pop mediocrity and superficial gimmickry that makes them look edgy to people that dont know much about true innovation.

You don't think Paul McCartney couldnt release a steaming pile of faeces and still get no. 1? I havent even listened to that, it could be faeces for all I know, regardless of the alleged merits of not using autotu e or samples.