Do the Beatles get too much credit..

I love the Beatles. I grew up with them and they were the first band I got into. However, yes they do get too much credit especially compared to other bands. Everyone and their 80 year old grandmother knows who the Beatles are can probably name some of their songs(including the 80 year old grandmother). Heck she can be 9 or 100 and still know the Beatles and their songs but not know who U2, Pink Floyd, Rush or Led Zeppelin are. Or even the Rolling Syones. That's kind of messed up if you ask me. The Beatles are one of those bands who have been overexposed beyond belief. If anyone deserves it it's them but they still get way too much credit sometimes for things they had nothing or very little to do with. 

BrufordFreak wrote: After just watching the wonderful documentary on Amazon called Standing in the Shadows of Motown--the story of Berry Gordy's "Funk Brothers" at Detroit's Hitsville studio--I find my opinion changing to ever-so slightly diminish the truly innovative effect that the band and George Martin had. They were perfect conduits of the time, synthesizing many influences and many technologies.

Edited by moshkito - March 23 2020 at 14:15

That's a really interesting post, Pedro, thanks for that. :) And I love Steve's comment.

chopper wrote: dr wu23 wrote: Too much credit for what....?    ;)   You have to read the OP from 10 years ago.

Methinks one should almost always try to at least read the opening post, and go through a topic a bit to get a feel for it, but people have lives etc.

I was thinking credit in terms of any claims made about the Beatles that you think wrong or dubious -- I spoke about claims of origination and innovation, as well as general claims of greatness. That said, I don't want to be fascistic, and I like it when individuals come up with their own approaches and their own arguments in-line with that approach. I like creativity and individualism. This topic is fairly philosophical and thought-experiment based. I'm interested in epistemology -- "the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion."

I had gone to a Beatles history presentation, and the speaker categorically claimed that the Beatles were the most important, the greatest, best, the most innovative and originative music-makers ever, but he didn't back-up those assertions well. I thought he was overrating the Beatles, and it came across as pure fanboy service. I would have liked to hear his arguments. He wasn't a historian or a music professor, but he was a famous name in music presenting, and a well-known media personality in Vancouver. It doesn't mean he was necessarily wrong, but I did not find his statements convincing (he acted like it was obvious and needed no explaining). I said, "What about Bach, can one objectively claim that the Beatles are greater than Bach?"

As said, sorry for repeating myself, I specifically referenced claims of origination and innovation, as well as claims of greatest (stated as objective fact). I voted yes, but were the question "Are the Beatles underrated", I also would have voted yes as I am convinced that one could find examples of people overrating and underrating the Beatles. When I use the term overrating, I mean specifically giving credit where credit may well not be due.

Really, I was more into exploring notions of overratedness and underratedness/ general claims of merit, than the Beatles themselves, but with the Beatles being such an influential and important band, it seemed a good one to use as an example to explore that and share some of my thoughts. I've delved into specific claims in the thread. A lot of what I said then wouldn't be quite how I'd phrase it now (I think I tend to be a little more nuanced now and use 30 percent more provisos in formal discussion to cover my ass more in the spirit of fun than anything). As is often say, I'm not an absolutist, and I don't believe anything anything with absolute certainty, including the statement that I don't believe anything with absolute certainty. Some may have taken it as an attack on the Beatles, but on the contrary, I chose the Beatles as an example because of how important to modern music they have been. Methinks most everyone underrates and overrates something.

This old topic got bumped cause I mentioned it in Morttes thread as an illustration (surprised to find it unlocked as I don't recall unlocking it, but I probably did at one time). I find it sad that threads do get auto-locked, since I would rather a topic be explored more and more deeply, and the issues refined over time, rather than repeating the same kinds of topics again and again. I also have had the feeling that good topics are often a work-in-progress, and it's a shame that people put so much thought and time into trying to present good arguments, or be creative, and the writing and the people sometimes are just forgotten about.

Edited by Logan - March 23 2020 at 11:00

dr wu23 wrote: Too much credit for what....?    ;)

I believe that Z is influenced by A in a supply side trickle down fashion.

There was rock music before the Beatles (BB) and after the Beatles (AB). No other artist has that delineation associated with their name.

No 

No. (my arguments are in Beatles vs Zappa poll).

The Beatles were really good at understanding the positive vibe that can be obtain
just by knowing some music theory and making it something that everyone can enjoy.
I think that's what's missing in a lot of complex or "intelligent" music, it's too pretentious.
It's trying to impress about .001% of the audience, and not even really in any way that's ahead
of it's time.   There was something very sonically fresh in what they were creating that
no one else was doing. 

Barking Weasel wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ He was online just now looking at this thread so I was trying to second guess it. He's offline now. Maybe he knows he's beaten? I doubt it though. Your logic fascinates and disturbs me.  Perhaps you are more eager to hear what I have to say than you readily admit?

Edited by Snow Dog - May 02 2011 at 04:28