Are the Beatles overrated?

I thought so when I was younger. But then I realized that Wilson Pickett didn't cover songs by talentless hacks.

I didn't say Stone Roses were Shoe gaze but they share the same evolutionarily lineage. Shoegaze is a breed of noise rock emphasizing guitar pedal effects to produce an ambient sound. You hear similar kind of noise rock influences in Oasis' first album which has more of a lo fi edge and big dirty guitars. Madchester came about from the neo-psychedelic scene innovated by the likes of spacemen 3 and other 60's influenced post-punk bands melding their influence with recently innovated house music who made abundant use of funk drumming samples which go on to influence those very stereotypical drum beats you find in the madchester scene of the happy mondays, stone roses, later new order and early blur. also primal scream whose screamadelica concept album seems to be a dance take on spaceman 3's sound of confusion. The same kind of concept as a drug album but from the influence of 60's psychedelia and stooges garage punk.

So you say the Beatles just copied R'n'r of the day. What day? The day they topped the charts? The day they conquered the world? Or are you referring to 50's r'n'r that had subsided by '63, '64? Any innovations were because of their producer, not them? Why don't you quit talking about things you know nothing about? You're so ignorant about this topic, it's not worth discussing with you.

Compare the Isley Brother's version of Twist and Shout to the Beatles. (Isley Brother's version was the second commercial record of Twist and Shout--the original version by the Top Notes flopped. Beatles were the third to record it after Isley Brothers)

As the recent documentary made clear, the Beatles were basically like K-Pop for the early 1960s. They were a commercial product. They were generally bad at their instruments and struggled to put together a live set without crashing and burning. Their contemporaries (Clapton, etc.) thought they were a joke as far as their musicianship went.

Over time, the Beatles did grow a bit in their songwriting and found a few neat harmonic ideas in their chord progression that were pretty innovative for their time. But ultimately, the Beatles were just experts at writing ear worm songs that were always a huge commercial success. By the late 1960s, band like Zeppelin, the Who, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, etc. were doing circles around the Beatles' cute little pop songs.

Why don't you tell me what I don't know about then Mr. Peacock. Yes the Beatles were obviously coming off the previous wave of rock n roll like Buddy Holly, just making lovey dovey pop songs pn a beat with guitar bass drums.

You don't know what you're talking about. Musicians thought they were a joke musically? Let me guess, you heard 3 or 4 Beatles songs on a classic rock station, now you're an expert. In 1963 The Yardbirds played on the same bill as the Beatles. Clapton particularly wanted to check them out. He was impressed. These guys were not just hype.

They grew a bit in their songwriting? How generous of you. Zeppelin or the Who never had a number one hit in their entire carreers. The Beatles instigated the whole 60' music scene.

You don't enjoy the Beatles. Fine, so what? Cute little pop songs. Another "keyboard jockey" who has no musical knowledge or perspective on the evolution of rock'n'roll. You're probably in your underwear mom's basement. Choose a topic you can speak intelligently about. This ain't it.

I'm guessing you like My Bloody Valentine.

that's absurd. The innovations in songwriting and studio work by the beatles as they matured was unparalleled. What was so stunning about their work is that not only was it new and innovative...it was also brilliant, commercial and appealing. Dozens of groundbreaking songs came out of the Beatles. And it's not just songwriting and production...the musicianship was excellent also.

The one thing they weren't great at was live shows, agreed...they were fine but better in the studio. But they had the disadvantage of not being able to hear themselves past all the screaming. Which tells you something.

Not the OP but Loveless is one of the best albums of the 1990s and frankly of all time. I love that album and I love the Beatles too.

oh no, they were just cute little pop songs. Their innovations were all from George Martin and the engineers. Just kidding.
The Beatles were a tremendous live band. Unfortunately, their success kind of ruined that. With Beatlemania, they couldn't hear themselves. They played larger and larger arenas and stadiums that were meant for sports events, not music. Imagine playing in stadiums with no monitors and only the sports announcer sound system with thousands of screaming fans. No musician can grow in that environment. You do your gig, collect the money and move on.
Prior to that, everywhere they went, they created an atmosphere that ignited the scene. Hamburg, the Cavern. When Brian Epstein started getting them into ball rooms outside of Liverpool where no one knew them, those gigs were a little bare. They were a great band until the phenomenon became bigger than their performances.

This is nonsense. The Beatles spent years playing clubs in Berlin and the UK before they were famous. The certainly could put together a live set. But a live show in the large sports arena with people screaming the entire time is something entirely different.

And the Beatles were never really a pure rock band or a pure pop band. They straddled both genres. But it takes a lot skill to put together a well-crafted pop or rock song that is catchy and memorable but not overly simple and the Beatles were masters. And their songs are full of interesting transitions. That takes a lot more creativity that jamming on a guitar for 10 minutes.

And Jefferson Airplane doing circles around the Beatles? That's laughable. Name all of the great songs JA wrote. Now compare those (there are maybe 2 or 3) with 20 or so of the Beatles best songs.

Who and Led Zeppelin never had no. 1 hit maybe but more talent in their little fingers than entirety of Beatles. Both had MUCH more of a lasting and profound influence on rock music than the Beatles ever did, The Who through punk and post-punk and Led Zeppelin through metal. Yardbirds and Cream were better artists than Beatles too. Beatles are held up on vapid superficial reputation nothing more. Nothing real to show for it except a popularity contest. No substance like these other bands. George Harrison once said its better being poor than rich. Rich and having all this faux spiritual nonsense? Tells you all you need to know. FAKE. money grubbers. Paul especially. Lennon is fake too. Give peace a chance while smacking your wife up and neglecting your son? Imagine no money from inside your giant mansion? Hypocrits.

" Over time, the Beatles did grow a bit in their songwriting..."

By 1965 they were producing innovative brilliant songs. Rubber Soul is still a great album. I said if before and I'll say it again. If they broke up after Revolver they'd still be considered one of the greatest bands.

Maybe not a blues band or hard rock band but a great genre breaking band.

Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles.

Stupid is easy. You're doing great!

I can't listen to Revolver correctly:

Taxman

Eleanor Rigby

Im Only Sleeping

Love You To

Doctor Robert

Here There Everywhere

She Said She Said

For No One

And Your Bird Can Sing

I Want ToTell You

Got To Get You Into My Life

Tomorrow Never Knows

Yellow Submarine and Good Morning Sunshine out. In this form above probably better than Rubber Soul, otherwise not quite. Run For Your Life always leaves a bad taste though. Such a poor way to end an album. Rubbe Soul overall has better tunes though but the diversification Revolver offers claws it back some.

Hamburg not Berlin.
Why even engage? The Beatles were amazing.

I love Led Zeppelin but McCartney was a far better vocalist than plant and a more melodic bass player than Jones and at least as good in skill and a better songwriter than Page, Plant and Jones. The she shredding guitar by Page was technically better but not compositional to the song as was all three of the Beatles. Likewise Ringos drumming cannot be compared to Bonhams. Again Ringo was a compositional drummer unlike anyone else. Stewart Copeland explains very well why Ringo is genius. So does Dave Grohl and Abe Laborial Jr.

Johns rhythm guitar playing was very unique and purposely harsh and rough. Paul’s Piano playing is as good as Jones or better.

at the end of the day Stones, Zep, Who, Kinks and everyone else for that matter would not have made it out of the bars without the Beatles making it very big.

they were never ever a k pop band or boy band. Totally misinformed. They wrote their own songs and played their own instruments before they hit it in 63 in the UK and Europe and 64 in America.

I can write another 100,000 words on why the Beatles are the biggest cultural phenomenon since the classical era or when bread was first sliced.

but at the end of the day who gives a rats arse? So stupid this argument.
I mean does anyone discount Bonzos drumming because he borrowed Bernard Purdies shuffle?

The Stones were a blues cover band. Do these idiots know that John wrote Yer Blues to mock middle class English musicians who played the blues and wrote that epic tune in the process?

for a lark he played it live with Eric Clapton and Keith Richards on bass, two candidates he was referring to.

these non Beatle fans are culturally illiterate.

That is a particularly stupid comment. It was stupid and mocked widely when McCartney said it a few months ago, and it's even stupider now when repeated by you.