The Beatles are over-rated.

Page 3 of 7 [ 99 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Feb 2012, 1:03 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Well Elvis does not even compare to The Beatles, all he did was covers of blues songs and the originals were probably better. So I'd say he's even more overrated because he gets credit for music he did not even write/compose/or whatever you'd call that process.

whether or not he wrote his own songs or even played his own guitar, the fact remains that the record sales speak more loudly than anything else, for his case as well as the beatles. there was never one like him before [as lennon tartly observed, "before elvis, there was NOTHING."], and none like him since. how many other artists have both men and women and children impersonating and emulating him, decades after his death? he took others' songs and made them indelibly his own. and he had guts- he [a white man of the south] took "in the ghetto," a song that even sammy davis jr. was afraid to touch, and made it a memorable top-10 hit for 7 weeks. but this is a beatles thread so i shall not talk of the king further. as for the beatles, how many other bands have emulation bands all over the place, on many different continents, enduring to this day? not too many. how many other bands have movies/tv series/'toons made about 'em? not too many. how many other bands earned the wrath of imelda marcos? none! the beatles truly were singular in their time.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Feb 2012, 1:09 am

auntblabby wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

High record sales does not=good music, Hell most of the most popular bands of today are terrible and they probably make more record sales than the good bands who are actually passionate about the music. I don't care if people like listening to him but I still say he was un-original and well there are better singers. I probably won't change that opinion......and that's just the thing no one wanted to listen to those songs when played by the black artists who wrote them so he basically sold those songs back to the public as 'white music' rather than 'black music.' seriously it was gone over in a music history class I took. Maybe it was not totally his doing maybe more the managers and producers but that's what it ended up as. He can't be the king of a genre he did not even create.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

artrat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,269
Location: The Butthole of the American Empire

10 Feb 2012, 1:31 am

MakaylaTheAspie wrote:

What's wrong with the Beatles?

Don't answer me, this is the internet after all.

Can somebody please tell me what exactly does this mean? It's sarcasm but I don't get it.
It will bother me until I know what it means.

I am very paranoid and anxious and clearing this up will make me feel a bit better.
I think she was referring to one of my past threads and if she was then I am pissed and hurt.

_________________
?During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~George Orwell

"I belive in God, only I spell it Nature."
~ Frank Llyod Wright

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Feb 2012, 1:31 am

artrat wrote:

I don't know why the hell I post my opinions. I think that I have been insulted by a teenager using sarcasm and it upsets me. Nobody will answer my questions and it frustrates me. Could a kind person please read this thread and let me know if I have been insulted?

sorry, but i failed to find anything that was an outright insult directed towards you. maybe some unnamed WPers were non-diplomatic or juvenile or even rash, but they weren't directly rude to you, in terms of a flagrant personal attack. consider the source and choose your battles carefully. and always try to remember that there is no accounting for personal taste.

p.s., which of your questions wasn't answered to your satisfaction?

artrat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,269
Location: The Butthole of the American Empire

10 Feb 2012, 1:42 am

auntblabby wrote:

artrat wrote:

sorry, but i failed to find anything that was an outright insult directed toward you. maybe some unnamed WPers were non-diplomatic or juvenile or even rash, but they weren't directly rude to you, in terms of a flagrant personal attack. consider the source and choose your battles carefully. and always try to remember that there is no accounting for personal taste.

p.s., which of your questions wasn't answered to your satisfaction?

I just don't like sarcasm when I can't understand it.
Then I ask a person if they were referring to my past posts (one of them being in the haven) and got no response.
I asked another member if they were telling me to f**k off and got no answer.

I already feel unwelcome in this forum and don't need to be ran off by sarcasm and lack of empathy.
I can see the hierarchy in this forum and know that I am at the bottom of the pyramid for being honest and too emotional.

_________________
?During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~George Orwell

"I belive in God, only I spell it Nature."
~ Frank Llyod Wright

Bun
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,356

10 Feb 2012, 1:46 am

artrat, I posted my opinion here before too and erased it, because my opinion made me feel unimformed and out of touch. What I'm trying to say is... It's probably common to feel self-concious or defensive when you express yourself, especially for people here, on a forum where people are either on the AS or suspect themselves to be on the spectrum.

_________________
Double X and proud of it / male pronouns : he, him, his

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Feb 2012, 1:59 am

artrat wrote:

I just don't like sarcasm when I can't understand it. Then I ask a person if they were referring to my past posts (one of them being in the haven) and got no response. I asked another member if they were telling me to f**k off and got no answer. I already feel unwelcome in this forum and don't need to be ran off by sarcasm and lack of empathy. I can see the hierarchy in this forum and know that I am at the bottom of the pyramid for being honest and too emotional.

ok, some thoughts from an old fart- [p.s., sorry to temporarily derail your thread]
if you told somebody to eff-off, would you stick around for a reply? chicken-me would've headed for the coast before the last fricative left my lips. :oops:

maybe i'm not the only timid one here. maybe you put out defensive vibes that scare some other [more timid] people off. as for welcome/not welcome, we are all in the same boat, only some people don't get the picture. as long as you are civil you are equal to anybody else here, IOW other truculent WPers with a superiority complex are superior in their own minds only. if somebody told me to eff-off, i would just treat them as barking dogs like what my no-good neighbors in my corner of yahooland have disturbing the neighborhood calm. pay attention only to the people who satisfactorily answer your questions. everybody else is just noise. signals and noise, that is what it is all about- home in on the signals and squelch everything else out of your awareness. i expressed an opinion [concerning the beatles] that was divergent from your own, i was merely trying to toot my horn also [and add some ink to your thread], i hope you don't take my opinion as some kind of insult, for it was meant as anything but that. remember that you don't have to continue reading those who rub you the wrong way. this is all optional here.
now, back to your neat thread

i like the beatles yesterday and today, tomorrow never knows but i gotta act naturally in any case, my love for the beatles is here to stay, oh i believe in yesterday

artrat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,269
Location: The Butthole of the American Empire

10 Feb 2012, 12:28 pm

I was just expressing an opinion and It was cynical as hell but it's how I felt.
If you love the Beatles then I did not mean to offend you.

I listened to them as a child and soon discovered that there ware far talented and passionate artists out there.
Many of my opinions on music have always been unpopular. I am sure if someone said something negative about one of my favorite artists then I would be offended but wouldn't bring the OPs past posts into it.

_________________
?During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~George Orwell

"I belive in God, only I spell it Nature."
~ Frank Llyod Wright

AnnettaMarie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,286
Location: Issaquah, WA

10 Feb 2012, 12:45 pm

I've never always liked The Beatles. I hated them when I was younger, but they grew on me. A lot of their songs are cheerful and make me feel better.

That said, they aren't my favorite band. My favorite band is Radiohead, and I was late getting into them, too.

To each his or her own.

_________________
I'm a crab in a lobster world.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

10 Feb 2012, 12:51 pm

artrat wrote:

I don't see what the big deal about the Beatles is. Sure, they have some good songs but they are far from being the best band ever.
Many people say that they are. The Early Beatles songs could have been written by a boy band.
"She Loves you. Yeah Yeah Yeah" Come on! I could have written that in my sleep but wouldn't because it sounds stupid.
People say the Beatles were the best band of their time. Not true! you had "The Kinks",The "Rolling Stones","The Faces" and the "Yard-birds".
These bands are all more talented then the un-fab 4.

A fan would argue that the late Beatles were fantastic and very artistic. True but only when Harrison writes and sometimes Lennon.
"I am the Walrus" Should be changed to "I am the acid" because you have to be under the influence of acid to enjoy that crap.

They only allowed John and Paul to sing except on the rare occasion when George and Ringo were allowed to sing.
That' a bit tyrannic. Don't you think? Harrison was the best singer of the group and "The Bastards" (as they should be called) would not allow him to sing but for three songs on the albums.

I don't understand why they say "The Beatles" changed the face of music. Perhaps they paved the way for "The Backstreet Boys" in the 90's. Oh, but wait they weren't talented!
If The Beatles wouldn't have existed then somebody else influenced by American rock and rhythm and blues would.
A large number of their early songs were covers by American artist like "Chuck Berry".

I am ready for the verbal abuse for my rant!

I suppose you think writing is overrated because it too started before you were born?

Alternative
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,341

10 Feb 2012, 2:24 pm

Acclaim or no acclaim I love The Beatles.

Like with all other bands, I started listening to them because I heard them on the radio and I loved what I heard.

Same story can be said about the following of my favourites; New Order, Talking Heads, Radiohead, Madness, Joy Division, Iron Maiden etc. etc.

And from there, the beauty of Last.fm and other such neutrally statistical websites (I guess) has pointed me to 'similar artists', and has broadened my tastes to the point of eclecticism.

Ambivalence
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)

10 Feb 2012, 4:17 pm

artrat wrote:

Ambivalence wrote:

(I'm not a huge Beatles fan, and ironically enough* my favorite of theirs is While My Guitar Gently Weeps. :wink:

)

*because this is the internet, that means "yes, I know whose guitar makes that song, and yes I know what band he was in in, f**k off."

Were you telling me to f**k off? I don't really understand what you meant by that.

No. I was anticipating that even though I deliberately mentioned that it was ironic that WMGW is my favourite Beatles song, if I didn't explicitly spell it out that I know Clapton - a Yardbird - famously played the exceptional guitar solo on it, some eejit would leap into action and say so, so I was pre-emptively mocking them to save myself later hassle. In retrospect, not a success. :wink:

Anyhoo, what I didn't say yesterday (because I toned back a hastily written and vitriolic post so as not to risk offending you :lol:

) I'll say now: if you want to claim the Beatles are overrated, you need to propose serious alternatives for best band, and they're very few on the ground. While I wouldn't for a moment suggest that sales are a definitive measure of musical talent, looking at top-selling artists gives us a place to work from, and what it basically comes down to is either the Beatles, or Elvis, or Jacko; there's a huge gulf in popularity between these three acts and the next tier down. And anyone with half a brain, whatever their taste in music, should acknowledge the Scousers trump those two.

_________________
No one has gone missing or died.

The year is still young.

Ambivalence
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)

10 Feb 2012, 4:31 pm

MrXxx wrote:

Fan's perspective isn't the only thing that puts a band in the position of influence and worthiness of being remembered for what they did.

Granted.

Quote:

Their peers opinions carry a lot more weight.

Bands do not (by and large) play primarily for the benefit or acclaim of other musicians. They play for their audience, the people who buy their records and come to watch them play. In some cases, sure, the acclaim of other musicians is going to have very important effects on whether someone is remembered, but it's not going to make a blind bit of difference in the case of the really big and famous bands.

_________________
No one has gone missing or died.

The year is still young.

unduki
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 652

10 Feb 2012, 4:34 pm

artrat wrote:

I don't see what the big deal about the Beatles is. Sure, they have some good songs but they are far from being the best band ever.
Many people say that they are. The Early Beatles songs could have been written by a boy band.
"She Loves you. Yeah Yeah Yeah" Come on! I could have written that in my sleep but wouldn't because it sounds stupid.
People say the Beatles were the best band of their time. Not true! you had "The Kinks",The "Rolling Stones","The Faces" and the "Yard-birds".
These bands are all more talented then the un-fab 4.

A fan would argue that the late Beatles were fantastic and very artistic. True but only when Harrison writes and sometimes Lennon.
"I am the Walrus" Should be changed to "I am the acid" because you have to be under the influence of acid to enjoy that crap.

They only allowed John and Paul to sing except on the rare occasion when George and Ringo were allowed to sing.
That' a bit tyrannic. Don't you think? Harrison was the best singer of the group and "The Bastards" (as they should be called) would not allow him to sing but for three songs on the albums.

I don't understand why they say "The Beatles" changed the face of music. Perhaps they paved the way for "The Backstreet Boys" in the 90's. Oh, but wait they weren't talented!

If The Beatles wouldn't have existed then somebody else influenced by American rock and rhythm and blues would.
A large number of their early songs were covers by American artist like "Chuck Berry".

I am ready for the verbal abuse for my rant!

Harrison did have the best career as a solo artist, though they all did well. I've always liked the Beatles. Their songs are brilliantly simple, catchy and memorable. My mother thought they were "of the Devil" but we were listening to "All you need is Love" over a grocery store's loud speaker and she says, "That's a nice tune."

I said, "It's the Beatles.'
She says, "Oh, well, maybe they weren't all bad."

I like that there are lots of different styles of music and different kinds of performers. This way, there's something for all of us. I don't need to defend the Beatles or put you down for not liking them. I also like the other bands you mentioned from that period. It was all so original and new at the time.

The most important thing about music is how it touches you and you are different from everyone else. It would be boring if we all liked the Backstreet Boys.

_________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass; it's about learning to dance in the rain.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

10 Feb 2012, 5:11 pm

unduki wrote:

Harrison did have the best career as a solo artist, though they all did well.

Yup. And he did a lot more than even a lot of his fans realize in the decades following The Beatles. A lot movie work, not just his music albums and singles. He was actually, from what I've read, more successful overall than any of the other members. At least up until he died.

_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...

artrat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,269
Location: The Butthole of the American Empire

10 Feb 2012, 5:43 pm

Ambivalence wrote:

artrat wrote:

Ambivalence wrote:

(I'm not a huge Beatles fan, and ironically enough* my favorite of theirs is While My Guitar Gently Weeps. :wink:

)

*because this is the internet, that means "yes, I know whose guitar makes that song, and yes I know what band he was in in, f**k off."

Were you telling me to f**k off? I don't really understand what you meant by that.

Anyhoo, what I didn't say yesterday (because I toned back a hastily written and vitriolic post so as not to risk offending you :lol:

It's a matter of opinion. I think if The Beatles would have never existed then it wouldn't make much of a deference.
Somebody else would be over-rated and considered the world's best band by the music industry.

I have a whole brain and I can not change my opinion. It was meant to be a bit humorous anyway but nobody understands the humor.
I admitted that Harrison was talented and so was Lennon but that's not good enough for the members of WP.

People say that "The Beatles have the best back catalog and I strongly disagree. Dylan and The Clash have a better back catalog. Not to mention many other lesser known artists.

I know more about music than most people and know that musical preference( which determines who's talented) is a matter of opinion.
If I disagree with most people musically then it is my choice.

_________________
?During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~George Orwell

"I belive in God, only I spell it Nature."
~ Frank Llyod Wright

Page 3 of 7 [ 99 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

The Beatles are over-rated. Post Reply New Topic

The Beatles are over-rated.