Do the Beatles get too much credit..

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Barking Weasel wrote:

To me, the Beatles were more of a pop hit group than a rock band.  Sort of a skilled boy-band of the 60's; I think they are incredibly overrated, particularly in the singing department.  They had a few innovative tendencies, but to me they will always be second-tier in comparison to the Animals or the Beach Boys.  I will grant that their music has aged quite well from the Abbey Road/Srgt Pepper era (especially compared to Frank Zappa's early work), but all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs.  I've never understood the appeal of albums like "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," both of which I find incredibly annoying.  Most of their music sounds dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness.  On the flipside, albums like "Let It Be" are overproduced schlock.  I can't stand the Beatles, or anything they represent.  Even the Bee-Gees and the Monkees are more enjoyable than Lennon and Co. from my standpoint, since they were at least explicitly commercial and didn't try to mask themselves behind cutesy garbage facades like Srgt Pepper.     

So, I take it you don't like the Beatles? 

Your subjective negativity aside, I believe you've missed the boat on this one. When you mention "they had a few innovative tendencies",  I must refer you to the first page of this thread where Floydman documented a long and detailed list of innovations that is incomparable. I might add that Help and Hard Day's Night (and in 1969, Let it Be) were influential in the making of later rock movies and rockumentaries, and the advent of the music video format was profoundly effected by The Beatles' experimental work (starting in 1966 with a promotional piece for "Rain" and brought into further focus with "Strawberry Fields Forever") . 

When you say "all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs", are you aware that doctoral theses have been written on the subtle intricacies of "She's Leaving Home" and "A Day in the Life", or that "Eleanor Rigby", composed in Dorian mode with double string quartet,  Is heavily influenced by both Vivaldi and Bernard Hermann? In addition, the influences of composer Karlheinz Stockhausen (whose likeness appears in the back row of the famous photo on the Sgt. Peppers album) is evident in several more avante-garde offerings from the Beatles (Stockhausen was also a notable influence of Zappa, The Who and Pink Floyd).

As far as the Beach Boys, they admitted their innovative Pet Shop Sounds was influenced by Rubber Soul, the Bee-Gees were ardent Beatle admirers and copiers, and The Monkees were literally invented to mimic the Beatles (with Neil Diamond shadow-composing mock Beatles tunes for The Monkees' use).

As far as their music sounding "dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness",  Beatles music has been played or excerpted by Hendrix, Bowie, Cocker, Sinatra, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Clapton, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cure, Oasis (the Gallaghers being immense fans), the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Ozzie Osbourne, The Ben Folds Five, Franz Ferdinand, Fiona Apple, and countless others; in fact, the song "Yesterday" is the most covered rock song in history. 

So, is it the Beatles lacking timelessness, or are you simply out of time? I am opting for the latter. By the way, have you heard the Beatles' remastered albums? The entire catalogue sold 3x platinum in the U.S. -- more than 40 years after the albums were first released. I think the Beatles will outlast both of us.

Edited by The Dark Elf - February 21 2011 at 17:14

Poll Question: See opening post for question.
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Yes	54	[31.21%]
No	116	[67.05%]
No opinion.	3	[1.73%]
You can not vote in this poll