Screen13

^ Agree.

It will always be down to individual opinions.

Odyshape

what a great post <3

Dotoar

Ok, first of all:

One does not exclude the other. They were geniuses within the pop music paradigm, and thus not comparable to classical musicians. You wouldn't compare Galileo with Erik Wallenberg (the inventor of Tetra-pak), would you?

And further on, with all the obvious Beatles-hatred on this forum in mind; It all seems to have its roots not in the music itself or even the four dudes in the band, but in its critical acclaim, and that's just downright nutty. Even in this thread there are already several of you that openly state how you hate/dislike/whatever them because they are overrated, not to mention the multitude of other threads displaying the same logic (or lack thereof). What's up with that? I can certainly understand why one don't wanna listen to "Strawberry fields" for the gazillionth time, I even understand why one doesn't like the music in the first place, but what I do not understand is why someone would dismiss their musical and cultural importance as well as the musical and artistic value in their output. I myself hardly ever listen to them anymore although they are and will always be my favourite band of all time, not least because they were the ones who got me into music altogether, but that's just because I don't really 'need' to anymore.

For one thing, they were groundbreaking, like it or not, but not necessarily in the field of originality altogether but in the field of originality within the pop music paradigm. If you listen chronologically to their discography you will encounter something truly rare for a pop band, namely development. Even the earliest records show progress, maybe bar "Beatles for sale", in relation to the predecessor, be it songwriting, lyrical content or instrumentation. It does not matter who was first with the sitar or the diminished chord; what matters is who could put it to good use within a given format, and few acts have done that so successfully as the Beatles. Contemporary bands like Kinks, Who, Zombies and Stones sure had their own groundbreaking gimmicks on their own which the Beatles never had the chance of pulling off, and rightly so. Zombies, for example, were arguably surpassing Beatles in 1964 with their surprisingly complicated pseudo-baroque songwriting and arrangements, and Stones originated the blues rock which the Beatles most likely wouldn't have pulled off convincingly (and whose importance I acknowledge but don't care much for since I don't like blues).

But none of these bands had the sheer scope and versatility the Beatles had. They did almost everything and they did it good, all for the sake of artistic creativity. Remember how they sacrified touring for exactly that reason in 1966; How many bands would do that as determined as they did? Such stunts speak volumes about them as a visionary band. Or the ultimate breakup in 1970 when they still were at the peak of musicality and artistry? Or the decision to release a plain white album, twice the length of an ordinary album and still come out with winners in 1968? And we haven't even nudged the subject of the influence of "Sgt. Pepper" on the whole prog and artrock movement to come. And anyone dismissing them on the premise of 'datedness' or anything, must remember that all of their inventions, or popularization of inventions, were unheard of at the time.

Of course, one must remain cool-headed and take their obvious flaws in account as well. A metalhead or an avantgarde fogey probably have little appreciation for their music, they were never instrumental virtuosos and they probably have a quite a lot of songs which could be regarded as silly but that's where the personal preferences set in and they are simply not valid in discussions like this.

That was long, but what I'm trying to get across is that eliticism is stupid whenever it targets musical phenomena within contexts they were never part of in the first place. So, if we must compare Beatles with Bach and Stravinsky, then we must do the same with Stones. And their orchestral maneuvers were even way below the Beatles, weren't they?

__________________

Dayvan Cowboy

[2]

duga

Thanks! I do what I can.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Screen13

Re: Beatles for Sale...The opening killer song hat-trick is worth getting the album alone for opening up to Folk Rock styles. "I'm a Loser" is the winner with John opening up before "Help," showing off a good Dylan influence when having such a style was new. Maybe the rest of the album is half-killer half-filler plus one useless track in "Mr. Moonlight," but "No Reply," "I'm a Loser," and "Baby's in Black" certainly added a little to the Beatles' world.

Screen13

Sorry for double quoting...but here maybe I can help.

Being a Beatles listener for years, I can see where some can get sick of all of the worship. Add to it that the music certainly ended about 40 years ago, not counting the Anthology add-ons, the time and generation gaps certainly can effect. To some, it's great, to others it's pretty much Dad Rock. Back in the day, a goal of The Beatles seemed to try to knock the old order out of the way (Despite some digressions, of course...yes, I'm referring to a couple of Mr. McCartney's songs like "Honey Pie"), which did result in the Producer Pop moving aside for a while along with other great things as well as some that were not so great (but that's a whole other thread). Keeping to human nature tradition, anyone in connection to now (or at least starting more with the Alternative Late 70's/80's), has a good chance to call The Beatles as over-rated, especially when there has been more edgier music from that period that is just as important but usually overlooked in the Media.

Certinaly Beatles Rock Band and all of the other exploitation which uses their music is not helping matters at all (Across the Universe, the film, anyone?).

Going to the review linked...
Some of the hatred in others gets linked in reviews to the fact that The Beatles helped Rock stay around and grow in it's influence when one's choice of music certainly can get overlooked, expecially if one's taste is more of a Classical or at least a non-Rock base. This makes it all the more tempting for one to develop a attitude against them, especially when the stage is the internet.

Then, there are those who just don't "Dig It."

Again, an opinion is to each their own.

Paedantic Basterd

I hated the Beatles for many years, purely on the basis of their fans and acclaim, and then I grew up and gave Abbey Road an opportunity, and admitted that it's a great pop record, regardless of anybody's stigma. You can still respect their work without enjoying it, and can still admit their influence without calling them the "greatest band on earth". Seems silly to let popular opinion ruin music instead of music ruining music.

TockTockTock

Eh... I see a lot of these types of discussions all over the web. I just don't see a point in talking about this anymore. People like music for different reasons. Do I think the Beatles are overrated? Yes. Do I think they're a bad band? Hell no. I actually find "Tomorrow Never Knows" to be one of the best psychedelic songs ever recorded. But... it all dwindles down to opinion. Elitism does get a bit old though, and it becomes a bit aggravating. I think all types of art can hold the capability of appreciation, and I think it defeats the purpose of appreciating it when people are bickering about whether someone deserves the acclaim that they receive.

someonecompletelyrandom

Very insightful, JackPat. That's how I would have put it, too.