Controversial opinions about anything

12728293032

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited September 16 Posts: 4,610
    As I see it @SIS_HQ and @CrabKey music is like comedy and cartoons: it is more often than not purely a generation thing. What one has seen or heard first, will be more likely that individual's favorite in their viewpoint(s). It's not much different with a general audience member who isn't the biggest James Bond fan. That viewpoint about Bond goes across all forms of media. Some versions are multi-generational and timeless for sure. But if you can truly appeal to all generations of all time periods, you have truly succeeded for the better.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Controversial opinions about anything
    I think anything is overrated. Everybody goes on and on about anything as if it was the greatest thing in the world, without a moment's thought dedicated to nothing. Nothing is so underrated. Frankly, there's the real value. Maybe we should learn to appreciate what we have, which is nothing.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 675
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Controversial opinions about anything
    I think anything is overrated. Everybody goes on and on about anything as if it was the greatest thing in the world, without a moment's thought dedicated to nothing. Nothing is so underrated. Frankly, there's the real value. Maybe we should learn to appreciate what we have, which is nothing.

    Anything is so mainstream.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 16 Posts: 3,787
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ - There is no greatest band or singer. There can't be because music evolves continually and each generation likes what is current. For me, a boomer, The Beatles are gods. But let's put that in perspective. Why boomers rave on about the sixties is because the sixties began one way and end quite another. We were post war babies at 12, 13, and 14 in 1960, fresh faced and innocent. We were still in the folk music era, but with a bit of California beach music to liven things up. About the time our hormones are beginning to boil, along come The Beatles. A new sound, cheeky, and sporting a new look.

    I get your generation, but with the argument on new sound, it's the same thing that Elvis had done in 50s, what new sound have they done? They've just whitewashed the songs originally made by the Black Artists before them, something that the people at the time can't accept due to racism.

    The Beatles never invented something that would make them stand out from the rest, the innovations that they're saying were false, because 60s was the era of Social and Political Revolution and the bands in that era were affected by those social climates.

    They've never done something different that would make stand out from the rest, I just don't see it.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    No question, there were other groups, but none had the writing ability of these guys. They could crank it out. To be fair, there was a lot of other good stuff out there. Meanwhile things were changing rapidly, socially. We were moving into dark times and music reflected to those changes. As we grew, so did The Beatles. Assassinations, Vietnam, protests. That's not how the decade began. Their music along with others captured the times. They were heady times. No decade since has seen such change.

    I could make a point with other bands who existed around the same time of The Beatles, again, like The Nashville Teens or The Fortunes, if you compare, for example Tobacco Road (released in 1964) to any of The Beatles hits in the same year, I know that the former could've done a lot better than the latter, which were heavy on the rip offs originally done by the Black Artists, the same for the House Of The Rising Sun, and none of The Beatles songs around that time could've stand a chance, not even 'Yesterday' (if not being those black songs being ripped off, then the flowery, boybandish love songs), and it's also released in 1964, so what 'A Hard Day's Night'?

    There were bands around that time who were more talented than The Beatles, yet, none of them gained recognition like the latter, especially when it comes to the newer generations praising the Beatles, as if that's the only great band around that time, again, I blame the 'Survivorship Bias' form of algorithm in here.

    And yes, there had been a change, 60s was Revolution, and yes, their music along with others evolved at that time, but my concern is, people were still making cases that they're the ones who had innovated the music and sound when it's clearly not the case, they're not, their music change comes along with the social evolution at the time, and so many bands were changing aside from The Beatles, and yes, they've really captured the times, but again, so does the other bands at the time, but why it's only The Beatles who are getting the recognition? Why not the others?, Because they're the only ones who have gotten global recognition, but then comes along with the over-exaggeration that they're musical geniuses because they're the ones who have done innovations and experiments, despite of them being just one of the bands at the time being affected by the social changes?
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Were they the greatest band in the world? Then. But like all groups, their star faded. Individually they continued to make music, but not with the energy and creativity of their early years. A lot of what they created individually after, I don't care for. Old rockers never seem to be able to tap into what's current. They still do great concerts playing their oldies.

    Greatest band in the world points to a band with exemplary, groundbreaking, outstanding talent, and uniqueness and distinctiveness, one that's apart from the rest, the one that stands out because they're different from anything else, and invented something, like Nobel Prize or something like that, and The Beatles were not that, they're iconic but in no way they're the greatest of all time, yes, even in 60s, they're not innovative, they've just went in with the times, and again, there were bands better than The Beatles at the time that gets overlooked because of The Beatles overshadowing them because of the new generation over exaggerating "hOw GrEaT ThEy WeRe" (if you get what I mean).
    CrabKey wrote: »
    One care fairly dispute their being the greatest band of all time, but you cannot argue the impact they had on music, culture, and the times. Whether you like their music or not, you also cannot argue the genius of the song writing talent of L&M. Their collective and individual output is stunning.

    Yes, they're iconic, I respect them for that, but them about the best band to which the others would be judged is unfair.
    I could say for the other songwriters as well, it's not just L&M, while I appreciate their work, they're not just the best out there, I could say the same for Jagger and Richards as well.
    And again, like other musicians at the time, they're just influenced by the changes in the Social Politics, and LSD, but in their earlier years? Definitely no, there are other musicians in the same time around the Beatlemania to which are better songwriters than them, their earlier works were very basic that it's almost boybandish, almost the half of them, some were ripoff of the black rock music.

    Just like Goldfinger, is it the Best Bond film when the likes of FRWL, CR, OHMSS exists? It's one of the best, but not the best of all time, iconic yes, but the best? The greatest? Hardly not.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Don't take this as being snarky, but who has been as influential to your generation as The Beatles were to theirs?

    They're iconic, yes, but the greatest of all? No,
    Is it a blueprint to where other and upcoming musicians should be judged? Definitely ko.

    CrabKey wrote: »
    No question, lots of talented individuals get overlooked. What unknown artists have today that unknown artists didn't have when I was growing was social media. Anyone these days with a smartphone can be seen. Whether they get rich and famous is anyone's guess. Even TV shows make stars out of amateurs.

    Yes, but the problem could also be attributed to the gatekeepers who avoided the lesser artists from gaining fame in favor of mainstream or more popular artists, it's all down to the algorithm.

    CrabKey wrote: »
    For me music isn't about generations. A good song is a good song, irrespective who sang it in what period. Admittedly, a lot of what passes for music these days doesn't interest me. A song filled with the F-word etc. bores me. I'm not shocked. I'm just not interested. I've heard it all before.

    Not a fan of country or rap, but there are songs in both categories I like. Taylor Swift? I've heard some of her music. Can't name a single title. She seems like a nice lady, but not my cup of tea. I feel the same about Adele. I like her as a personality, but not a fan of her music.

    The same.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Who's the greatest? Let me know when you have answer.

    There's no greatest, it's not objective, but the other people were making this case when it comes to The Beatles, especially those people who were not born in that time and were claiming that statement.
    And I could make a case against that, while those bands I've mentioned may not be the greatest, I've realized that in terms of musical skills, they're better than The Beatles, technically.

  • Posts: 1,324
    Whitewashed songs is a "new sound" ;)

    Anyway, there were a lot of white people in the 50s. Why Elvis?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,787
    Whitewashed songs is a "new sound" ;)

    Anyway, there were a lot of white people in the 50s. Why Elvis?

    Because he's the one who had made it big, he's the one whom being called 'The King of Rock', people look at him as a legend, when one may look deeper, his songs were mostly rip off or even stolen songs from the Black Artists.

    It's just an example that I've used in the same case like The Beatles, although The Beatles were more exaggerated than Elvis, when there are many great or if not, better bands at the time than them.
  • Posts: 1,324
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Whitewashed songs is a "new sound" ;)

    Anyway, there were a lot of white people in the 50s. Why Elvis?

    Because he's the one who had made it big, he's the one whom being called 'The King of Rock', people look at him as a legend, when one may look deeper, his songs were mostly rip off or even stolen songs from the Black Artists.

    It's just an example that I've used in the same case like The Beatles, although The Beatles were more exaggerated than Elvis, when there are many great or if not, better bands at the time than them.

    But why Elvis? Why was he the chosen one? there were a lot of white people then.

  • Posts: 4,111
    I really like The Beatles. A lot of it comes down to music preference I guess (although they’re certainly an eclectic band in terms of song selection) but I’d say there’s a reason why they’re so influential to so many musicians. I’m not sure about the greatest band of all time (I don’t think any band can be called that, and it’s easy to throw around words like overrated with a band so famous) but they’re one of my favourites.

    I’ll give one of my ‘controversial’ opinions about them to balance it out though! I think The Long and Winding Road is their worst song (yes, even compared to something like Yellow Submarine, Maxwell’s Silver Hammer - both of which I like - and even Revolution 9) because it’s their most boring.
  • Posts: 1,324
    I like The Beatles. I don't think they are overrated. Sometimes you have to make songs like Yesterday or Let it be to be successful.
  • edited September 16 Posts: 4,111
    I like The Beatles. I don't think they are overrated. Sometimes you have to make songs like Yesterday or Let it be to be successful.

    Oh, part of their appeal was that they made really catchy pop/rock songs (especially in the early days). Nothing wrong with that. I just can’t stand The Long and Winding Road!

    If you’ve ever seen Danny Boyle’s film Yesterday there’s that scene where the main character and Ed Sheeran have a little music battle. Sheeran does some Ed Sheeran-y song with a lyric about penguins and the other guy does TLAWR. Always hated that scene because I think in real life more people would have preferred Sheeran’s song. As The Beatles themselves knew even a silly song done with flair can be much better than a ‘good song’ performed/produced in a boring way.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 16 Posts: 3,787
    There's no wrong in them being your favorite, but the majority of people were calling them 'the greatest band ever' and even comparing new and upcoming musicians to them like they're the blueprint to which everyone should be compared is beyond me, and when on even made a move against The Beatles, the people would put the blame on those people and protect The Beatles, as if they're the personification of perfection? Making them untouchable? An example of this would be the situation between Phil Collins and Paul McCartney when clearly it's Phil Collins whose the victim (due to McCartney mocking him for his height), but people were protecting Paul McCartney as he's a Saint, they look at The Beatles as if they're a bunch of Saints, then yes, comparing all Musicians to them (of all eras), like it's unfair to do it.

    Everyone is describing as if they're the greatest thing ever happened to this planet since the sliced bread, I'm talking here objectively, I mean, I have my shares of favorite bands even though they're not the best or the greatest, it's subjective, but in objective speaking, there were many 60s bands who are better than them in terms ofmusical skills, that just happened to be overshadowed or overlooked, it's just that The Beatles became the most praised band in the history because they're the most famous at the time (famous ≠ quality/talent), many musicians at the time who were just as talented or if not more even than them, and it doesn't helped that the 'Survivorship Bias' helped them further to the 'greatness' status, I acknowledge them, why not? I know they have fans, but please, just don't call them the 'greatest of all time' as it's just unfair to those other talented musicians out there who may as or more talented than them, as if one move and The Beatles would be given a Nobel Prize.

    I've made the points at my posts before this one, so you can backread them to understand my claim, they've never invented the new sounds, it's just they've been putting The Beatles on a very high pedestal.

    There's no wrong in liking them, but to say that they're 'the greatest of all time' is just wrong.

    If not for the Beatlemania, I doubt they would receive that high of a status, none of their songs in 1964 have the same caliber as 'House of The Rising Sun' or 'Tobacco Road', the songs in 'A Hard Day's Night' (album) all have shallow of a lyrics one could get, then comes their later songs, but again, it's in the midst of Music Evolution (Psychedelia, Vietnam, Hippies), so it's not just The Beatles who had undergone some changes at the time, the same for other bands, all musical acts innovated and evolved.

    It's no different to Taylor Swift, I get that she has a catchy tune, she's popular, but is she the greatest of all time? Is she the greatest musician of this era? Definitely not.

    And to think she's ranked as #8 in the 'Greatest Guitarists of All Time', okay, I rest my case.
  • Posts: 4,111
    I dunno. I've never heard anyone claim The Beatles are perfect. I'm sure there are those who do, but usually in my experience even the biggest Beatles fan would say they had at least one song they find naff in their extensive list. No idea about the Phil Collins/Paul McCartney thing (knowing what I know about The Beatles none of them are/were exactly perfect people!)

    I don't think their lasting influence is survivorship bias. Plenty of popular bands and musicians in the past have been forgotten about. As for inventing new sounds, you can argue they pioneered a lot of producing techniques and influenced a lot of artists who went on to create new sub-genres of music. But even then I don't think a musician has to create 'new sounds' in that way to be great. Mozart never pioneered new ways of approaching classical music to my knowledge but simply did what he did exceptionally well. The Beatles' output is in many ways more wide ranging than his work.

    Not exactly a huge Taylor Swift fan myself but I'd say there's nothing wrong with a lot of her music (I find a lot of her work quite catchy and interesting). Worth saying that list of greatest guitarists was a vote in thing and favours big artists like that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,348
    007HallY wrote: »
    I like The Beatles. I don't think they are overrated. Sometimes you have to make songs like Yesterday or Let it be to be successful.

    Oh, part of their appeal was that they made really catchy pop/rock songs (especially in the early days). Nothing wrong with that. I just can’t stand The Long and Winding Road!

    If you’ve ever seen Danny Boyle’s film Yesterday there’s that scene where the main character and Ed Sheeran have a little music battle. Sheeran does some Ed Sheeran-y song with a lyric about penguins and the other guy does TLAWR. Always hated that scene because I think in real life more people would have preferred Sheeran’s song. As The Beatles themselves knew even a silly song done with flair can be much better than a ‘good song’ performed/produced in a boring way.

    Yeah the whole film was nonsense, and a little creepy like most Curtis stuff. The idea that something like Ticket To Ride is a timeless classic which would be a massive hit in any year it's released is just a bit silly.
  • edited September 16 Posts: 4,111
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I like The Beatles. I don't think they are overrated. Sometimes you have to make songs like Yesterday or Let it be to be successful.

    Oh, part of their appeal was that they made really catchy pop/rock songs (especially in the early days). Nothing wrong with that. I just can’t stand The Long and Winding Road!

    If you’ve ever seen Danny Boyle’s film Yesterday there’s that scene where the main character and Ed Sheeran have a little music battle. Sheeran does some Ed Sheeran-y song with a lyric about penguins and the other guy does TLAWR. Always hated that scene because I think in real life more people would have preferred Sheeran’s song. As The Beatles themselves knew even a silly song done with flair can be much better than a ‘good song’ performed/produced in a boring way.

    Yeah the whole film was nonsense, and a little creepy like most Curtis stuff. The idea that something like Ticket To Ride is a timeless classic which would be a massive hit in any year it's released is just a bit silly.

    Yeah, I find it a weird film that doesn't do anything with the basic idea. I suppose that's an example of defaulting to 'The Beatles are great'. I think the reality as you said is a portion of their songs were pop tunes of the day (again absolutely nothing wrong with that, and they're wonderful songs, but their success in any year of history isn't a given), and I'm not sure if a lacklustre performance will ever outweigh a strong one, even with a silly song about penguins. Actually that would have been a much interesting idea to explore - namely can a 'bad' musician hypothetically be as big as the Beatles even in a world where he's the only one who knows their songs and he's performing them in a completely different context? I suspect it wouldn't be as straightforward as the film makes it out to be. I suppose getting those Beatles songs was contingent on making them out to be unquestionably timeless though.

    Not quite sure why Danny Boyle of all directors did this one either. But yeah, strange film.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 16 Posts: 3,787
    Nonsense is the exact word for that Danny Boyle's film, Yesterday, The Beatles would not exist? In what way that The Beatles wouldn't exist in that timeline? Because based on history (researched them), what made The Beatles were their musical influences like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly and other 50s rock stars, so as long as they exist, The Beatles would still exist, the funny thing is, The Rolling Stones do exists in that film, considering that The Stones and The Beatles shared the same musical influences (almost half of the Rock Bands in 60s shared the same musical influences), so if The Beatles does not exist in that film, then why The Stones does?

    007HallY wrote: »
    I dunno. I've never heard anyone claim The Beatles are perfect. I'm sure there are those who do, but usually in my experience even the biggest Beatles fan would say they had at least one song they find naff in their extensive list. No idea about the Phil Collins/Paul McCartney thing (knowing what I know about The Beatles none of them are/were exactly perfect people!)

    Outside of this sub, in Reddit, in YouTube and in any social sites out there, people were describing The Beatles as the Greatest Ever, I remember when a list of overrated bands/musicians was released somewhere in 2008 (in archived sites), The Beatles was there, and the people went mad, and everyone went in disagree, the same in Reddit when some people were claiming the same, they've got downvoted to hell, and everyone in YouTube, Facebook, Twitter were claiming them as the 'Greatest Band Ever' and for me, I find that a bit of an over-exaggeration.

    The same for the other musicians that needs to be compared to The Beatles, and worse, in terms of music skill, I've read some statements that "they're not as geniuses as The Beatles", "(put a name of the musician here) is no Lennon and McCartney in songwriting" and something like those, like there's no need for comparison, all musicians have different identities, if one dislikes them, they shouldn't compare them to any other musicians, not even The Beatles (to which most musicians were being compared with).
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don't think their lasting influence is survivorship bias. Plenty of popular bands and musicians in the past have been forgotten about. As for inventing new sounds, you can argue they pioneered a lot of producing techniques and influenced a lot of artists who went on to create new sub-genres of music. But even then I don't think a musician has to create 'new sounds' in that way to be great. Mozart never pioneered new ways of approaching classical music to my knowledge but simply did what he did exceptionally well. The Beatles' output is in many ways more wide ranging than his work.

    Yes, and in my observation, that's what further made The Beatles sat in the throne when it comes to the claims of them being the greatest musicians ever, especially through the new generation, because nothing from the 60s were remembered aside from The Rolling Stones as they're all forgotten, of course, this leaves The Beatles being the only memorable band at the time, so there's still Survivorship Bias, because when talking of 60s songs, people these days could only name The Beatles, as the people who knows The Stones were very much getting in deep with the 60s music, then of course, one needs to be an ultimate Music scholar and Historian for the other forgotten bands to be discovered.

    Then they may be discovered and realized of how great their music was, man, first time I've heard The Nashville Teens' Tobacco Road and I'm really shocked, and I couldn't believe that the song was made in 1964, it had a different tune and sound, whereas The Beatles were still in their 'Pop Boyband' (with ripping off Black artists' songs) phase, the same for House of The Rising Sun, I've thought at the start that the song was in 70s, but shocked to find that it's in 1964 too, the same for Harmonica by The Graham Bond (no pun) Organization, and the first band to use a Mellotron in 1965 long before The Beatles (!), like 'if you think The Beatles were great, in comparison to those songs, they're pretty much average', the same for the other bands I've discovered from that time, also, The Fortunes.

    In terms of innovation, those Producing techniques were done by earlier artists as well, but it's just that The Beatles were happened to get the credits that should've went to those other artists who had done it first if they're only famous, for example, that Mellotron thing, it's forgotten that The Graham Bond Organization/Manfred Mann are the first musical acts who had done it first before The Beatles, so, what they've done was something that artists from years ago had already done, after all, they had all based their styles based on their musical influences, after all John Lennon was accused of stealing Chuck Berry's song for Come Together, think of it, they're just like Elvis Presley, but in a band, instead of a single person.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not exactly a huge Taylor Swift fan myself but I'd say there's nothing wrong with a lot of her music (I find a lot of her work quite catchy and interesting). Worth saying that list of greatest guitarists was a vote in thing and favours big artists like that.

    She's ranked #8 in that list: https://guitar.com/news/music-news/taylor-swift-8th-best-guitarist-of-last-two-decades/#:~:text=Taylor Swift has been voted,celebrate the most inspiring players.

    There's nothing wrong with her music for me either, just happened not be a fan of hers, but again, the majority of people nowadays were putting her in high pedestal too, calling her a 'Legend', 'The Best Ever', and some other words.

    I don't know, is that how shallow the people these days? Just thinking? Like calling every popular and iconic people the 'greatest'?

    Iconic is different from being great, Marilyn Monroe and Brigitte Bardot are both iconic, but are they the greatest actresses of all time? The greatest actresses of their generation? Definitely not, but they're iconic and popular, for sure.
  • Posts: 1,324
    But success matters. Do we remember Jaws for being good or for being successful?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,348
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Nonsense is the exact word for that Danny Boyle's film, Yesterday, The Beatles would not exist? In what way that The Beatles wouldn't exist in that timeline? Because based on history (researched them), what made The Beatles were their musical influences like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly and other 50s rock stars, so as long as they exist, The Beatles would still exist

    There's all sorts of ways they might not exist. If National Service hadn't ended The Beatles probably wouldn't have existed, for one example.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 16 Posts: 3,787
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Nonsense is the exact word for that Danny Boyle's film, Yesterday, The Beatles would not exist? In what way that The Beatles wouldn't exist in that timeline? Because based on history (researched them), what made The Beatles were their musical influences like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly and other 50s rock stars, so as long as they exist, The Beatles would still exist

    There's all sorts of ways they might not exist. If National Service hadn't ended The Beatles probably wouldn't have existed, for one example.

    Then so the other bands in that time, as well 😅 like The Stones (which still exists in the film)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,961
    In keeping with the topic and what's being discussed, I'll happily join in and say I really don't care for The Beatles whatsoever. I'll never discount just how much they did for music, but I can say that I don't think I've ever heard one of their songs due to my own choosing and request.
  • edited September 16 Posts: 4,111
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Nonsense is the exact word for that Danny Boyle's film, Yesterday, The Beatles would not exist? In what way that The Beatles wouldn't exist in that timeline? Because based on history (researched them), what made The Beatles were their musical influences like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly and other 50s rock stars, so as long as they exist, The Beatles would still exist, the funny thing is, The Rolling Stones do exists in that film, considering that The Stones and The Beatles shared the same musical influences (almost half of the Rock Bands in 60s shared the same musical influences), so if The Beatles does not exist in that film, then why The Stones does?

    Well, to be fair The Beatles still wouldn't exist even with those musical influences in this weird parallel universe. Without those specific people (including the likes of George Martin by the way) you wouldn't get those specific songs. It's not just a case of some alternative band stepping in. I don't think it'd be exactly the same.

    Worth saying the Stones and the Beatles knew each other. The Beatles even wrote a song for them which they covered. There's a whole other question here of how much influence The Beatles had directly on The Rolling Stones in that sense, and of course vice versa. Worth saying too that musicians like Brian Wilson have said openly that The Beatles inspired him to write Pet Sounds, another important album from that era. Again, would that album have been the same, or even exist, without The Beatles as influences? You're right, it just shows how consequential The Beatles are.

    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I dunno. I've never heard anyone claim The Beatles are perfect. I'm sure there are those who do, but usually in my experience even the biggest Beatles fan would say they had at least one song they find naff in their extensive list. No idea about the Phil Collins/Paul McCartney thing (knowing what I know about The Beatles none of them are/were exactly perfect people!)

    Outside of this sub, in Reddit, in YouTube and in any social sites out there, people were describing The Beatles as the Greatest Ever, I remember when a list of overrated bands/musicians was released somewhere in 2008 (in archived sites), The Beatles was there, and the people went mad, and everyone went in disagree, the same in Reddit when some people were claiming the same, they've got downvoted to hell, and everyone in YouTube, Facebook, Twitter were claiming them as the 'Greatest Band Ever' and for me, I find that a bit of an over-exaggeration.

    The same for the other musicians that needs to be compared to The Beatles, and worse, in terms of music skill, I've read some statements that "they're not as geniuses as The Beatles" and something like those, like there's no need for comparison.

    Well like I said, I think it's easy to claim a band as big and even influential as The Beatles are 'overrated'. It's a sort of push back some people naturally have with these sorts of things, especially if the music isn't their thing. To be honest, I've seen more people exaggerate The Beatles' 'flaws' because of that. Their most overplayed songs are suddenly insufferable, their lack of 'music skill' is highlighted (it's not different to people from the time criticising their lack of ability to read sheet music as if this matters to their output), and some of their more minor/filler songs are pointed out even more.

    I mean, I wouldn't compare every band randomly to The Beatles. I don't see what that adds. It's a bit murkier with bands like, say, Oasis who were directly influenced by them (and are open about it). Some of their songs are very similar to Beatles ones to the point I listen to them and am immediately reminded of those certain Beatles songs. It's difficult not to compare them, and I'm personally more into The Beatles than Oasis (controversially I'd actually say they don't do anything for me). But I understand there are a lot of cases where it's not a fair comparison.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don't think their lasting influence is survivorship bias. Plenty of popular bands and musicians in the past have been forgotten about. As for inventing new sounds, you can argue they pioneered a lot of producing techniques and influenced a lot of artists who went on to create new sub-genres of music. But even then I don't think a musician has to create 'new sounds' in that way to be great. Mozart never pioneered new ways of approaching classical music to my knowledge but simply did what he did exceptionally well. The Beatles' output is in many ways more wide ranging than his work.

    Yes, and in my observation, that's what further made The Beatles sat in the throne when it comes to the claims of them being the greatest musicians ever, especially through the new generation, because nothing from the 60s were remembered aside from The Rolling Stones as they're all forgotten, of course, this leaves The Beatles being the only memorable band at the time, so there's still Survivorship Bias, because when talking of 60s songs, people these days could only name The Beatles, as the people who knows The Stones were very much getting in deep with the 60s music, then of course, one needs to be an ultimate Music scholar and Historian for the other forgotten bands to be discovered.

    Then they may be discovered and realized of how great their music was.

    The Beatles were the only memorable band/musicians from the 60s? Not sure about that at all. Maybe the most memorable for the average person, but again I think there's a reason for that beyond them simply being popular chart toppers in their early careers. What they did as a studio band influenced so many musicians from their own time and beyond.

    If The Beatles had dropped off by 1964 and not done their later albums, I'd say they wouldn't be remembered as they are nowadays. Many bands/artists are hugely successful for a short time but don't follow it up or evolve. The Beatles did.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not exactly a huge Taylor Swift fan myself but I'd say there's nothing wrong with a lot of her music (I find a lot of her work quite catchy and interesting). Worth saying that list of greatest guitarists was a vote in thing and favours big artists like that.

    She's ranked #8 in that list: https://guitar.com/news/music-news/taylor-swift-8th-best-guitarist-of-last-two-decades/#:~:text=Taylor Swift has been voted,celebrate the most inspiring players.

    There's nothing wrong with her music for me either, but again, the majority of people nowadays were putting her in high pedestal too, calling her a 'Legend', 'The Best Ever', and some other words.

    Again, it's a vote in list. It has a bias towards famous artists most people have heard of. The eighth greatest guitarist (if it's even quantifiable) could be some excellent session guitarist no one knows about, or some obscure performer from the 70s or something.

    Well yeah, she's very popular and her music means a lot to many people. Fair enough. I'd say a lot of her recent songs are very good. Not my thing necessarily, but I can appreciate them. Not sure why people calling her a 'legend' is annoying in that sense. The best of all time or whatever - well, like I said I don't know if that's something anyone can say about a musician/band decisively. It's more an opinion for a lot of people.

    Like I said, I think there's a tendency for some people to want to push back against certain musicians. It's easy to call any of them 'overrated' but the reason they're being called that is usually because so many people love their music, and in the case of The Beatles are so directly influential on so many other musicians. Even if the fans of said musicians can be annoying and want to argue about their greatness online, that doesn't mean the bands themselves are lacking in talent. I think it's fair to say The Beatles are an extraordinary band.

    I'm not sure if I can say any musician/band are 'overrated', at least beyond my personal opinion. I can relate to an extent - for example I actually don't like Led Zeppelin beyond a handful of songs, and I find them overblown and a bit boring. But I can't deny they're a highly popular band who many love, and as a band has influenced many other artists.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Iconic is different from being great, Marilyn Monroe and Brigitte Bardot are both iconic, but are they the greatest actresses of all time? The greatest actresses of their generation? Definitely not, but they're iconic and popular, for sure.

    It's not always different. Many iconic actors are considered some of the greatest of all time (ie. Marlon Brando). I'd also say in the case of Monroe her fame actually put her at a disadvantage in terms of reputation as an actress. She was actually very talented in my opinion, a very good dramatic actress (and certainly in the opinion of people like Marlon Brando, Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg, Billy Wilder etc).
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 16 Posts: 3,787
    "007HallY wrote: »
    The Beatles were the only memorable band/musicians from the 60s? Not sure about that at all. Maybe the most memorable for the average person, but again I think there's a reason for that beyond them simply being popular chart toppers in their early careers. What they did as a studio band influenced so many musicians from their own time and beyond.

    If The Beatles had dropped off by 1964 and not done their later albums, I'd say they wouldn't be remembered as they are nowadays. Many bands/artists are hugely successful for a short time but don't follow it up or evolve. The Beatles did.

    Again, in my updated and edited post, what The Beatles have done were simply what the other artists had done before but were not acknowledged due to them not being famous enough and thus, giving the credits to The Beatles instead, even though, they're not the ones who had done such techniques:
    In terms of innovation, those Producing techniques were done by earlier artists as well, but it's just that The Beatles were happened to get the credits that should've went to those other artists who had done it first if they're only famous, for example, that Mellotron thing, it's forgotten that The Graham Bond Organization/Manfred Mann are the first musical acts who had done it first before The Beatles, so, what they've done was something that artists from years ago had already done, after all, they had all based their styles based on their musical influences, after all John Lennon was accused of stealing Chuck Berry's song for Come Together, think of it, they're just like Elvis Presley, but in a band, instead of a single person.

    Many bands back then stayed as long as The Beatles did, and they've evolved the same as The Beatles, some started in early 60s, ended in 70s (much longer than The Beatles were) yet, they're not known, they've passed away with time.
    "007HallY wrote: »
    Well like I said, I think it's easy to claim a band as big and even influential as The Beatles are 'overrated'. It's a sort of push back some people naturally have with these sorts of things, especially if the music isn't their thing. To be honest, I've seen more people exaggerate The Beatles' 'flaws' because of that. Their most overplayed songs are suddenly insufferable, their lack of 'music skill' is highlighted (it's not different to people from the time criticising their lack of ability to read sheet music as if this matters to their output), and some of their more minor/filler songs are pointed out even more.

    Like I said, I think there's a tendency for some people to want to push back against certain musicians. It's easy to call any of them 'overrated' but the reason they're being called that is usually because so many people love their music, and in the case of The Beatles are so directly influential on so many other musicians. Even if the fans of said musicians can be annoying and want to argue about their greatness online, that doesn't mean the bands themselves are lacking in talent. I think it's fair to say The Beatles are an extraordinary band.

    The thing with being overrated, as I've also observed, very much reflects my view, it's not that they're loved, it's the fact that people often defending them from such criticisms, and over exaggerating their praise, that's why I've posted it here instead in Reddit, because I know that like those other people who have shared the same opinions as I have, will be downvoted and attacked.
    I've been on Reddit, different forums outside and around the internet, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and every other social sites, I've known all of these things.

    There's no need for that, would it be good if all things were treated fairly, instead of praising one over the other? And let alone in an exaggerating way?

    The Beatles fans or those casual listeners outside this forum could be sometimes annoying, that's for sure.

    It's fine to say "I love The Beatles", but to say "they're the Greatest Band", "None would ever comes close to their greatness" is an exaggeration.

    And no, I don't see any criticisms against The Beatles, if there are, there were few and far in between those comments I've read from several pages like those I've mentioned above, the thing is, if you criticize them, hundred people would come to attack you and began lecturing you, that's what I've observed so far in all of those sites I've visited, that's the main rule in many forums and Reddit subs: You're not allowed to criticize The Beatles, and if you do, you would get downvoted or would question your taste in music or your knowledge in music if someone goes far, as if you're a bad listener who have poor taste in music or no knowledge about music.

    I've read several comments in YouTube, Reddit and several forums outside, and this is the most cases/scenarios:

    1. A commenter has a favorite band or artists, people would come to that commenter and compare it with The Beatles.
    2. They're not a fan of The Beatles, subjectively, and people would question your taste and knowledge in music, and would start lecturing you, it's like suppressing your opinion about The Beatles.
    3. People over praising The Beatles, saying about them being the 'Greatest Band of All Time' and if someone would disagree, people would attack you for it, again, lecturing you and questioning your knowledge and taste in music.
    4. They would invalidate other artists in comparison with The Beatles (see, the attitude of the Gallagher brothers, that's exactly the majority of The Beatles diehard fans were).
    5. If you're criticizing The Beatles, people would again, attack you for it and defend The Beatles with all of their might.
    6. If a celebrity speak against The Beatles, the offended diehard fans would bully that celebrity (the best example of this is the Phil Collins and Paul McCartney situation).
    7. They would invalidate your opinions regarding The Beatles (even if you respectively share your thoughts in the nicest way possible).
    8. People would go mad if The Beatles would be included in the overrated talks/lists, yet, you're free to include any musicians, with one possible exception being The Beatles, yep, they're untouchable (observed this mostly in Reddit subs), you're allowed to criticize other artists and musicians (yes, even the likes of Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, and other bands), and call them overrated, but NOT (!) The Beatles, they make the exception to the rule.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,168
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In keeping with the topic and what's being discussed, I'll happily join in and say I really don't care for The Beatles whatsoever. I'll never discount just how much they did for music, but I can say that I don't think I've ever heard one of their songs due to my own choosing and request.

    Glad I'm not the only one. The big legacy hype surrounding The Beatles is completely lost on me. They obviously had a huge impact on the music scene of the day, but I have never felt obligated to worship at their altar.
  • I’m mixed on The Beatles personally; I actually own the Blue Compilation album on Vinyl and am more than happen to give it a few spins every now and then. I like some of the songs off of both “Please Please Me” and “With The Beatles” and I really love some of their work from Sgt. Pepper onwards but a lot of their songs (particularly Lennon’s contributions) aren’t my favorites.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 16 Posts: 3,787
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In keeping with the topic and what's being discussed, I'll happily join in and say I really don't care for The Beatles whatsoever. I'll never discount just how much they did for music, but I can say that I don't think I've ever heard one of their songs due to my own choosing and request.

    Glad I'm not the only one. The big legacy hype surrounding The Beatles is completely lost on me. They obviously had a huge impact on the music scene of the day, but I have never felt obligated to worship at their altar.

    Exactly!
  • edited September 16 Posts: 4,111
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    "007HallY wrote: »
    The Beatles were the only memorable band/musicians from the 60s? Not sure about that at all. Maybe the most memorable for the average person, but again I think there's a reason for that beyond them simply being popular chart toppers in their early careers. What they did as a studio band influenced so many musicians from their own time and beyond.

    If The Beatles had dropped off by 1964 and not done their later albums, I'd say they wouldn't be remembered as they are nowadays. Many bands/artists are hugely successful for a short time but don't follow it up or evolve. The Beatles did.

    Again, in my updated and edited post, what The Beatles have done were simply what the other artists had done before but were not acknowledged due to them not being famous enough and thus, giving the credits to The Beatles instead, even though, they're not the ones who had done such techniques:
    In terms of innovation, those Producing techniques were done by earlier artists as well, but it's just that The Beatles were happened to get the credits that should've went to those other artists who had done it first if they're only famous, for example, that Mellotron thing, it's forgotten that The Graham Bond Organization/Manfred Mann are the first musical acts who had done it first before The Beatles, so, what they've done was something that artists from years ago had already done, after all, they had all based their styles based on their musical influences, after all John Lennon was accused of stealing Chuck Berry's song for Come Together, think of it, they're just like Elvis Presley, but in a band, instead of a single person.

    Many bands back then stayed as long as The Beatles did, and they've evolved the same as The Beatles, some started in early 60s, ended in 70s (much longer than The Beatles were) yet, they're not known, they've passed away with time.

    Ok. I just don't quite see why The Beatles popularising certain techniques/styles, but not being the first ones to do so makes them any less a band. Music's an art form at the end of the day. You can't make something out of nothing.

    Yes, Come Together used Chuck Berry's 'You Can't Catch Me' as a basis, in the same way 'Because' uses Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata but slows it down/adapts it. I'm sure there are countless more examples, but it's incredibly common, and they're very different songs in essence. I believe Berry's record label sued Lennon, but that's not unusual for record companies to do (poor George Harrison actually lost his plagiarism case for 'My Sweet Lord' on the basis it was deemed he subconsciously ripped off 'He's So Fine' which was unfortunate as he couldn't prove otherwise). I think they settled in the 70s by Lennon being contractually obligated to help with certain songs. Berry seemed to have no hard feelings and even performed with Lennon in the 70s (it's a cool video if you ever want to check it out. Yoko starts doing her wailing over the song and gets her microphone cut off by the sound engineer, haha).

    I wouldn't say The Beatles are quite like Elvis (not that there's anything wrong with Elvis either). They had their share of covers, but they wrote most of their own music. But again, nothing wrong with Elvis. As a performer/singer he was marvellous and really made a lot of the songs he covered.

    There are many reasons why some bands are more obscure than others. Sometimes their music is a bit too niche, their songs don't resonate at a particular time (some bands like Radiohead or Nirvana just come about at the right time so their musical success/fame is much more prominent. Great bands regardless). Sometimes their work peaks and doesn't quite work after a point. The Beatles did a lot in a relatively short time, had a lot of initial fame, and all members seemed to have creative peaks at the same time. In some ways it's lightning in a bottle.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    "007HallY wrote: »
    Well like I said, I think it's easy to claim a band as big and even influential as The Beatles are 'overrated'. It's a sort of push back some people naturally have with these sorts of things, especially if the music isn't their thing. To be honest, I've seen more people exaggerate The Beatles' 'flaws' because of that. Their most overplayed songs are suddenly insufferable, their lack of 'music skill' is highlighted (it's not different to people from the time criticising their lack of ability to read sheet music as if this matters to their output), and some of their more minor/filler songs are pointed out even more.

    Like I said, I think there's a tendency for some people to want to push back against certain musicians. It's easy to call any of them 'overrated' but the reason they're being called that is usually because so many people love their music, and in the case of The Beatles are so directly influential on so many other musicians. Even if the fans of said musicians can be annoying and want to argue about their greatness online, that doesn't mean the bands themselves are lacking in talent. I think it's fair to say The Beatles are an extraordinary band.

    The thing with being overrated, as I've also observed, very much reflects my view, it's not that they're loved, it's the fact that people often defending them from such criticisms, and over exaggerating their praise, that's why I've posted it here instead in Reddit, because I know that like those other people who have shared the same opinions as I have, will be downvoted and attacked.
    I've been on Reddit, different forums outside and around the internet, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and every other social sites, I've known all of these things.

    I really don't go on those sites, and the internet is prone to faceless verbal attacks and stupid arguments. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but I'm not sure if I'd necessarily base my opinion of The Beatles off of that.

    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    It's fine to say "I love The Beatles", but to say "they're the Greatest Band", "None would ever comes close to their greatness" is an exaggeration.

    But if that's someone's opinion, what's wrong with that in itself? You can disagree (I think there are a number of bands comparable to The Beatles in terms of influence and how much they're loved, although The Beatles are pretty extraordinary) but there are people who clearly think that. As long as it doesn't descend into petty arguments I'd say it's a harmless opinion.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    And no, I don't see any criticisms against The Beatles, if there are, there were few and far in between those comments I've read from several pages like those I've mentioned above, the thing is, if you criticize them, hundred people would come to attack you and began lecturing you, that's what I've observed so far in all of those sites I've visited, that's the main rule in many forums and Reddit subs: You're not allowed to criticize The Beatles, and if you do, you would get downvoted or would question your taste in music or your knowledge in music if someone goes far, as if you're a bad listener who have poor taste in music or no knowledge about music.

    Hmm, maybe that's a sign to get off Reddit then.

    I've heard a few people say The Beatles are overrated. Again, it leads to the usual criticisms - they weren't the first band to do x (again, I don't see why that matters), they have these naff songs (every band has duds, and The Beatles have over 200 songs with a fair chunk of them commercial hits or are remembered/often played today), they couldn't read sheet music and weren't the best guitarists/drummers of all time (again, who cares? Especially when so many guitarists/drummers say how inspired they were by their music).

    I think there are reasons why so many people love their music. Their fame has an impact in terms of accessibility and I understand that to some extent. But even for a popular band the amount of songs people know by them is extraordinary. They're similar to Bob Dylan in that sense (and even then it's often a case where people know Dylan's songs, but not necessarily from the version he himself recorded). I don't think it's a case where people are pretending to like The Beatles, and for a lot of people they have really fond memories of their music and a genuine love for it. I completely get annoying Redditors and petty arguments on the internet aren't nice, but I don't think that's a reason to say they're overrated, and I can't see anything in their music that makes them ineffective musicians or songwriters.

    At the end of the day it's only our opinion of the music that counts. The Beatles might not be your thing. Led Zeppelin isn't mine. Neither of us are going to knock down decades of legacy and replays of their music despite our feelings about them.
    I’m mixed on The Beatles personally; I actually own the Blue Compilation album on Vinyl and am more than happen to give it a few spins every now and then. I like some of the songs off of both “Please Please Me” and “With The Beatles” and I really love some of their work from Sgt. Pepper onwards but a lot of their songs (particularly Lennon’s contributions) aren’t my favorites.

    I do find a lot of Lennon's Beatles songs stick with me, especially from the mid years onwards. I'm Only Sleeping, And Your Bird Can Sing, Julia, Tomorrow Never Knows and Across The Universe are some of my favourites.

    I won't talk about Revolution 9 though, haha.

    I suppose another controversial opinion I have of them is I would say they never made a perfect album (if one even exists). Even with The White Album and Sgt. Pepper's (which I love) you get these little filler songs which could be cut.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 16 Posts: 3,787
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ok. I just don't quite see why The Beatles popularising certain techniques/styles, but not being the first ones to do so makes them any less a band. Music's an art form at the end of the day. You can't make something out of nothing.

    Yes, Come Together used Chuck Berry's 'You Can't Catch Me' as a basis, in the same way 'Because' uses Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata but slows it down/adapts it. I'm sure there are countless more examples, but it's incredibly common, and they're very different songs in essence. I believe Berry's record label sued Lennon, but that's not unusual for record companies to do (poor George Harrison actually lost his plagiarism case for 'My Sweet Lord' on the basis it was deemed he subconsciously ripped off 'He's So Fine' which was unfortunate as he couldn't prove otherwise). I think they settled in the 70s by Lennon being contractually obligated to help with certain songs. Berry seemed to have no hard feelings and even performed with Lennon in the 70s (it's a cool video if you ever want to check it out. Yoko starts doing her wailing over the song and gets her microphone cut off by the sound engineer, haha).

    And it still stands that people were not acknowledging these things and instead keep making out that it's The Beatles who have done those things, as in historically, they would find different means and things to maintain their worship worthy status of their heroes, even coming down to little details like these things.

    What I'm saying that over praising them as if the Greatest Thing in Music Industry like Da Vinci is just wrong when there are many great people before them that need some recognition, merit and credits, the same for the musical acts that have more talent as them or if not maybe more.

    It's like in Nobel Prize, there are some Scientists being given a honor but their inventions had already been done by some other scientists way before them but were not granted a recognition and instead gave them to the Scientists who had just discovered them later on (these often happened with Female Scientist to Male Scientists).

    People were making it out as it's The Beatles who had carved the Music History and Pop Music, but it's definitely not.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't say The Beatles are quite like Elvis (not that there's anything wrong with Elvis either). They had their share of covers, but they wrote most of their own music. But again, nothing wrong with Elvis. As a performer/singer he was marvellous and really made a lot of the songs he covered.

    There are many reasons why some bands are more obscure than others. Sometimes their music is a bit too niche, their songs don't resonate at a particular time (some bands like Radiohead or Nirvana just come about at the right time so their musical success/fame is much more prominent. Great bands regardless). Sometimes their work peaks and doesn't quite work after a point. The Beatles did a lot in a relatively short time, had a lot of initial fame, and all members seemed to have creative peaks at the same time. In some ways it's lightning in a bottle.

    Yes, they wrote most of their own music, but those were very shallow, to say the least, again, going back to the old circle where there are overlooked bands who have written better songs than The Beatles, no need to explain this further just backread my earlier posts.

    They're like Elvis, because they've started their fame with mostly doing covers in their earlier career, and mostly earning credits for those.

    The thing that carried The Beatles were the Beatlemania and those hysterical girls, despite of their shallow and cliché love songs at the time with the majority of their songs were covers, those teenage girls liked them, they don't even listen to them while they're performing on stage because all they've done were to shout and scream, and if not for the Beatlemania, they wouldn't get to the status that the people were bestowing upon them today.

    Again, it's like most of the Pop Artists of today, despite the lack of quality in some songs, it's only their fame thar got them carried, after all, Music Industry is a Popularity Ballgame, even the least talented would be more famous as long as the people were turned on by charm, that's what The Beatles did, it's not about music quality, it's the charm, the fame, the icon picture.

    But in musical talent, they're average, I'm not saying they're bad, but pretty average, compared to the other songs at the time, half of their songs in their albums (particularly in the Beatlemania era) were flowery and very generic.

    And comes with the change, but change was meant to happen due to Social Evolution, The Beatles are just among of them, yet, people were making as they're this geniuses who have innovated the whole Music Industry, I mean, they're no magicians or genies, the disinformation were all around.
    007HallY wrote: »
    But if that's someone's opinion, what's wrong with that in itself? You can disagree (I think there are a number of bands comparable to The Beatles in terms of influence and how much they're loved, although The Beatles are pretty extraordinary) but there are people who clearly think that. As long as it doesn't descend into petty arguments I'd say it's a harmless opinion.

    That's the problem, it's a petty arguments, it sparked arguments online, because it's a matter of being objective, where the others would disagree, again, no problem if you're a fan, but make it subjective than objective, like it's a fact or a historical one.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I've heard a few people say The Beatles are overrated. Again, it leads to the usual criticisms - they weren't the first band to do x (again, I don't see why that matters), they have these naff songs (every band has duds, and The Beatles have over 200 songs with a fair chunk of them commercial hits or are remembered/often played today), they couldn't read sheet music and weren't the best guitarists/drummers of all time (again, who cares? Especially when so many guitarists/drummers say how inspired they were by their music).

    Again, they're few, many people were afraid to share their opinions towards The Beatles because of their fear of being persecuted, I get those criticisms against them, but it's also not right for these Beatle die hard fans to invalidate their opinions and lecture them, they're not perfect, but the people were making it seem that they're perfection and untouchable and that's not right.

    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there are reasons why so many people love their music. Their fame has an impact and I understand that to some extent, but even for a popular band the amount of songs people know by them is extraordinary. They're similar to Bob Dylan in that sense (and even then it's often a case where people know Dylan's songs, but not necessarily from the version he himself recorded). I completely get annoying Redditors and petty arguments on the internet aren't nice, but I don't think that's a reason to say they're overrated, and I can't really see anything in their music that makes them ineffective musicians or songwriters.

    What makes them overrated were their diehard fans over-exaggerating their praises, we, in return were just giving supports to our claims, a back up to put a backbone on our argument, we couldn't just say they're overrated without giving a support to back our claim, they're not perfect, and these people were defending them as if they're completely untouchable and perfect and no one should criticize them, again, I'm not saying that The Beatles were a bad band, not, but they're not perfect as a band, not the 'Greatest of All Time' as everyone making them out to be, they should acknowledge the flaws, not defending their favorite band from it.
    007HallY wrote: »
    At the end of the day it's only our opinion of the music that counts. The Beatles might not be your thing. Led Zeppelin isn't mine. Neither of us are going to knock down decades of legacy and replays of their music despite our feelings about them.

    But again, it's also bad to invalidate someone's opinion just for the sake of maintaining their worship towards their idols, you can criticize anything, but not them? They should not be untouchable, it's just these people were making it in objective way of declaring The Beatles as 'The Greatest of All Time' and attacking people who would disagree.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I really don't go on those sites, and the internet is prone to faceless verbal attacks and stupid arguments. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but I'm not sure if I'd necessarily base my opinion of The Beatles off of that.

    It's just a matter of my observation, but the way those people were being lectured or being attacked at their opinion for being an opposition towards The Beatles were not sitting right well with me, I'm a music lover, and seeing those being invalidated, how can I speak up? If we're being suppressed of our opinions as those diehard fans or even casual listeners who went into the wave of Beatlemania Worship were doing to protect their idols or their egos?

    Again, if they're a fan of Beatles, it's fine, I don't have problem with that, but they should not invalidate the opinions of those who weren't and start lecturing and building a fence to protect them, and declaring it objectively that they're the best ever, as in historically since the sliced bread were exaggerations, as if people were forcing other people to love them, and accept the fact that they're really 'The Greatest Music Geniuses in the World History'.
  • Posts: 1,973
    No one is obligated to like The Beatles. If you don't, you don't. But not liking them, their music, that they are overrated, or whatever, doesn't change their talent, their cultural impact on the times, or history.

    They have fierce advocates. So what? If people on social media think The Beatles are the be all and end all to the point of being pushy and obnoxious about their view, that's your problem. Ignore them. Move on. They're not changing your view; you're not changing theirs.

    That The Beatles copied, adopted, adapted styles of music from the blues and other forms of music means nothing. They've always acknowledged their influences. But music didn't begin with the blues. No one knows when someone created the first song and composed the first tune. Who was that? Give them props.

    That there are thousands of unacknowledged brilliant songwriters and singers who will never succeed is a fact of life. That exists in all arts and endeavors. I am a successful playwright in the school and community theatre category. I will never catch the big break of having one of my plays professionally produced or turned into a screenplay. As unfair as it feels, I don't have the connections.

    I do not believe The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. There is no greatest band of all time. There are those groups and singers who were the rage, perhaps the greatest during their time. As a reminder, success in the 60s was achieved without social media.

    I'll ask again. Who's the hot commodity of the moment? What artist(s) is doing new and brilliant things and having an impact on the culture? Who's the greatest now?
    Who's overrated? Who's underrated?

    I don't take it personally if someone on this thread doesn't like The Beatles or believes they are overrated. Because most of those posters weren't there. I never got Frank Sinatra, but there was a generation that loved him. I wasn't there. So when you say you don't get it, you don't see it, that's fine. If you bristle when others shout you down because you disagree, that's how we all feel about a lot of things. Sean Connery is the greatest Bond ever.

    That set a few folks off. It's just the way it is.
  • edited September 16 Posts: 4,111
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ok. I just don't quite see why The Beatles popularising certain techniques/styles, but not being the first ones to do so makes them any less a band. Music's an art form at the end of the day. You can't make something out of nothing.

    Yes, Come Together used Chuck Berry's 'You Can't Catch Me' as a basis, in the same way 'Because' uses Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata but slows it down/adapts it. I'm sure there are countless more examples, but it's incredibly common, and they're very different songs in essence. I believe Berry's record label sued Lennon, but that's not unusual for record companies to do (poor George Harrison actually lost his plagiarism case for 'My Sweet Lord' on the basis it was deemed he subconsciously ripped off 'He's So Fine' which was unfortunate as he couldn't prove otherwise). I think they settled in the 70s by Lennon being contractually obligated to help with certain songs. Berry seemed to have no hard feelings and even performed with Lennon in the 70s (it's a cool video if you ever want to check it out. Yoko starts doing her wailing over the song and gets her microphone cut off by the sound engineer, haha).

    And it still stands that people were not acknowledging these things and instead keep making out that it's The Beatles who have done those things, as in historically, they would find different means and things to maintain their worship worthy status of their heroes, even coming down to little details like these things.

    What I'm saying that over praising them as if the Greatest Thing in Music Industry like Da Vinci is just wrong when there are many great people before them that need some recognition, merit and credits, the same for the musical acts that have more talent as them or if not maybe more.

    It's like in Nobel Prize, there are some Scientists being given a honor but their inventions had already been done by some other scientists way before them but were not granted a recognition and instead gave them to the Scientists who had just discovered them later on (these often happened with Female Scientist to Male Scientists).

    People were making it out as it's The Beatles who had carved the Music History and Pop Music, but it's definitely not.

    I don't see why some artists being undervalued means The Beatles are overrated. Nor why some people having the opinion that they're the greatest band of all time in itself is wrong.

    If people say The Beatles were the first to do something and they didn't, it's wrong. That's just fact. If they're talking about pioneering specific things and being prominent successful examples of doing so, it's not wrong.

    The Beatles are an important band. I think people can acknowledge that to whatever extent while not being fans of their music.


    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn't say The Beatles are quite like Elvis (not that there's anything wrong with Elvis either). They had their share of covers, but they wrote most of their own music. But again, nothing wrong with Elvis. As a performer/singer he was marvellous and really made a lot of the songs he covered.

    There are many reasons why some bands are more obscure than others. Sometimes their music is a bit too niche, their songs don't resonate at a particular time (some bands like Radiohead or Nirvana just come about at the right time so their musical success/fame is much more prominent. Great bands regardless). Sometimes their work peaks and doesn't quite work after a point. The Beatles did a lot in a relatively short time, had a lot of initial fame, and all members seemed to have creative peaks at the same time. In some ways it's lightning in a bottle.

    Yes, they wrote most of their own music, but those were very shallow, to say the least, again, going back to the old circle where they are bands who have written better songs than The Beatles, no need to explain this further just backread my earlier posts.

    That's completely your opinion though. Not everyone shares that view.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    They're like Elvis, because they've started their fame with mostly doing covers in their earlier career.

    Sure, but they wrote pretty much all of their later songs and the majority of their work. That's different to Elvis.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    The thing that carried The Beatles were the Beatlemania and those hysterical girls, despite of their shallow and cliché love songs at the time with the majority of their songs were covers, those teenage girls liked them, they don't even listen to them while they're performing on stage because all they've done were to shout and scream, and if not for the Beatlemania, they wouldn't get to the status that the people were bestowing upon them today.

    So none of it had to do with their catchy songs? Granted, screaming fans are annoying and teenage girls can often fall for the superficial aspects of a band, but The Beatles weren't a flash in the pan. Fellow musicians like Bob Dylan praised their early work and certainly their later albums widened their appeal critically and culturally. Their initial fame wasn't irrelevant in their success but The Beatle's reputation (certainly not their current one) doesn't hinge around female teenage fans.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Again, it's like most of the Pop Artists of today, despite the lack of quality in some songs, it's only their fame thar got them carried, after all, Music Industry is a Popularity Ballgame, even the least talented would be more famous as long as the people were turned on by charm, that's what The Beatles did, it's not about music quality, it's the charm, the fame, the icon picture.

    Image means something in that level of success, but that still doesn't mean their pop songs were subpar.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    But in musical talent, they're average, I'm not saying they're bad, but pretty average, compared to the other songs at the time, half of their songs in their albums (particularly in the Beatlemania era) were flowery and very generic.

    I think you'd be surprised how difficult it is to write a good, catchy pop song that resonates with people. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't call their early stuff flowery or uninteresting. The lyrics for something like Help are surprisingly dark, and She Loves You is quite an odd love song in the sense it's from the perspective of a third party trying to get two people back together.

    I dunno, they're obviously not your thing but they're catchy as all hell. I like them a lot. Many people from the time seemed to as well.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    But if that's someone's opinion, what's wrong with that in itself? You can disagree (I think there are a number of bands comparable to The Beatles in terms of influence and how much they're loved, although The Beatles are pretty extraordinary) but there are people who clearly think that. As long as it doesn't descend into petty arguments I'd say it's a harmless opinion.

    That's the problem, it's a petty arguments, it sparked arguments online, because it's a matter of being objective, where the others would disagree, again, no problem if you're a fan, but make it subjective than objective, like it's a fact or a historical one.

    Look, I'm not going to side with petty Redditors, but do you think to some extent you're not quite being objective here either? A lot of this is your opinion, and I'm not sure you've acknowledged just how many musicians have been inspired by this band or the wider impact they had.

    Not saying you have to like them or not point out what you see as their flaws (as I said I don't think they made a perfect album and have a few too many filler songs, and I like their music). But I'm not sure what online arguments have to do with The Beatles being overrated.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I've heard a few people say The Beatles are overrated. Again, it leads to the usual criticisms - they weren't the first band to do x (again, I don't see why that matters), they have these naff songs (every band has duds, and The Beatles have over 200 songs with a fair chunk of them commercial hits or are remembered/often played today), they couldn't read sheet music and weren't the best guitarists/drummers of all time (again, who cares? Especially when so many guitarists/drummers say how inspired they were by their music).

    Again, they're few, many people were afraid to share their opinions towards The Beatles because of their fear of being persecuted, I get those criticisms against them, but it's also not right for these Beatle die hard fans to invalidate their opinions and lecture them, they're not perfect, but the people were making it seem that they're perfection and untouchable and that's not right.

    Persecuted? I wouldn't go that far. It just seems like a typical online argument (people get wound up when they're behind a keyboard/can say what they want without much consequence).

    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there are reasons why so many people love their music. Their fame has an impact and I understand that to some extent, but even for a popular band the amount of songs people know by them is extraordinary. They're similar to Bob Dylan in that sense (and even then it's often a case where people know Dylan's songs, but not necessarily from the version he himself recorded). I completely get annoying Redditors and petty arguments on the internet aren't nice, but I don't think that's a reason to say they're overrated, and I can't really see anything in their music that makes them ineffective musicians or songwriters.

    What makes them overrated were their diehard fans over-exaggerating their praises, we, in return were just giving supports to our claims, a back up to put a backbone on our argument, we couldn't just say they're overrated without giving a support to back our claim, they're not perfect, and these people were defending them as if they're completely untouchable and perfect and no one should criticize them, again, I'm not saying that The Beatles were a bad band, not, but they're not perfect as a band, not the 'Greatest of All Time' as everyone making them out to be, they should acknowledge the flaws, not defending their favorite band from it.

    I wouldn't say they're perfect either, but I don't think any band is. But there are clearly people who believe they are and that they're the greatest band of all time. If that's their opinion, fine. The fact is it's a very influential and popular band.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    At the end of the day it's only our opinion of the music that counts. The Beatles might not be your thing. Led Zeppelin isn't mine. Neither of us are going to knock down decades of legacy and replays of their music despite our feelings about them.

    But again, it's also bad to invalidate someone's opinion just for the sake of maintaining their worship towards their idols, you can criticize anything, but not them? They should not be untouchable, it's just these people were making it in objective way of declaring The Beatles as 'The Greatest of All Time' and attacking people who would disagree.

    Yeah, I don't think anyone should invalidate anyone else's opinions, and it's a bit pointless attacking people online. But again, if it's someone's opinion that The Beatles are 'The greatest band of all time' and want to write it on reddit or a Youtube comment, why is that a bad thing in itself? There's not really an objective way to declare which band is the greatest of all time.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I love Frank, Bennet, Fitzgerald, Armstrong, Prima, and many of their peers, and I love The Beatles, Zeppelin, Elvis, The Stones, Hendrix, et al, all of these coming before my birth. But I can also , and I do, love Tears for Fears, Depeche Mode, Billy Idol, some Springsteen, Leonard Cohen, some Madonna. I dig Pearl Jam and Rage Against The Machine. And I listen to Adele and my daughter's played a few good Taylor Swift songs that I enjoyed.

    I also love a little opera and plenty of classical music.

    It's what we like. Nothing controversial. I don't think it's generational, but it's also our place in the world, and how the world shaped us, and how we attach ourselves to songs and/or particular bands and singers.

    Do I think there's *a* best, or a *few* best of all time? Yes, I do. But my "bests" aren't universal. Like with most things dealing with arts and culture, it's all subjective.
  • edited September 16 Posts: 2,264
    peter wrote: »
    love Tears for Fears

    Aha! I always knew you were a man of fine tastes!
    007HallY wrote: »

    I do find a lot of Lennon's Beatles songs stick with me, especially from the mid years onwards. I'm Only Sleeping, And Your Bird Can Sing, Julia, Tomorrow Never Knows and Across The Universe are some of my favourites.

    I won't talk about Revolution 9 though, haha.

    I suppose another controversial opinion I have of them is I would say they never made a perfect album (if one even exists). Even with The White Album and Sgt. Pepper's (which I love) you get these little filler songs which could be cut.

    For me Don’t Let Me Down stands as my favorite, especially the Naked mix.
Sign In or Register to comment.