Do the Beatles get too much credit..

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

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. 

^ I've heard bigger claims than that: Most original, most innovative, most influential, never mind the past 60 or so years, best ever period, the greatest musicians ever. Also, I've found the Beatles credited with inventing tape-loop techniques, and other innovations, which they borrowed/ adapted from musique-concrete composers. My primary focus was on claims of origination and innovation. If no one had ever given undue credit to the Beatles, it would be remarkable.

Chris S wrote: They deserve every shred of credit.

That's where my biggest disagreement in this thread lies. They deserve lots of credit, but not credit for every claim that has ever been made by an individual, or that an individual might make. I found an article in response to him before which was replete with hyperbole, but unfortunately the link is dead. I shall now credit the Beatles with inventing jazz, ragtime, musicals, Western and Indian classical music, folk music, Greek tragedies, were the actual writers of On the Origin of Species, engineered the Corona virus and developed the atomic bomb.

Edited by Logan - March 23 2020 at 19:20

siLLy puPPy wrote: Logan wrote: ^ I've heard bigger claims than that: Most original, most innovative, most influential, never mind the past 60 or so years, best ever period, the greatest musicians ever. Also, I've found the Beatles credited with inventing tape-loop techniques, and other innovations, which they borrowed/ adapted from musique-concrete composers. My primary focus was on claims of origination and innovation. If no one had ever given undue credit to the Beatles, it would be remarkable. Chris S wrote: They deserve every shred of credit. That's where my biggest disagreement in this thread lies. They deserve lots of credit, but not credit for every claim that has ever been made by an individual, or that an individual might make. I found an article in response to him before which was replete with hyperbole, but unfortunately the link is dead. I shall now credit the Beatles with inventing jazz, ragtime, musicals, Western and Indian classical music, folk music, Greek tragedies, were the actual writers of On the Origin of Species, engineered the Corona virus and developed the atomic bomb. Ah, i get your drift. You know i think the Beatles were very inventive in how they stitched together different styles of music and applied them to catchy pop hooks in a rock format however they probably BORROWED more than they created. They definitely deserve credit for what they achieved but there wouldn't be any Beatles without all the influences that came before. They were just born into the right place and time and had the help of the music industry to make them rise to the top.

Well said, and understood. They were more innovative than originative. They were great adapters, and took those influences and techniques and wrapped them into something new, in a sense, that was popular and really influential. I am a fan of the Beatles. And there are those who don't give the Beatles (including those who helped them to realise the projects) near enough credit. I do consider the Beatles to be the greatest pop rock band and major force, so influential, in modern music -- at least in the West, I can't speak for every nation in the world, but surely it has had a huge world impact.

Edited by Logan - March 23 2020 at 20:19

rogerthat wrote: Logan wrote: 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?" But you know, Bach is a bad example from that standpoint.  Bach developed and advanced techniques and styles rather than originating them.  Likewise could arguably be said of Mozart and Beethoven but they tend to be the three names people think of when they think of classical composers.  Does anybody actually go around thinking that is a grave injustice? I for one don't. Because the granular detail of who originated what technique doesn't determine who was the most influential and impactful of composers and all three have a strong claim in that light (though Handel's is equally strong).  I would say it's much the same when it comes to Beatles.   There is absolutely no way to draw a straight line from classical to rock and compare the level of influence (and I would always put jazz, blues and the motown genres in separate categories as well).  To that extent, yes, the speaker was going over the top if he claimed Beatles to be the best that MUSIC per se has to offer.  But wouldn't that claim be equally ludicrous if any other band or artist (or indeed classical composer) was substituted in place of Beatles? There is no one single artist who can lay claim to such a wildly over the top set of superlatives.   Now the question is how many such people though have regurgitated that Vancouver guy's claims about Beatles?  I know a lot of Beatles fans, being one myself, and I don't believe in those claims myself. In this entire thread, Floydman might possibly have been the only one who would have subscribed to such claims. So is it fair to say Beatles get overrated because one Vancouver dude decided to give an over the top talk about them?

Yes, it's not just one, but even if just one individual was found to have overrated any aspect of the significance of the Beatles, then the band has been given too much credit. What I've been saying in this thread is that everything is overrated and underrated (meaning given too much credit or too little credit) by someone. I know I've been overrated by people like my wife -- most intelligent perhaps I can understand, but sexiest man alive? Maybe to her I am, but objectively speaking, well, hmm, okay, bad example.

This is a famous in these parts Vancouver dude who had a large audience, not that that matters in the least. My example would stand if he was a drunk asking for money on some street corner while extolling the supposed virtues of the Beatles. Bach was what I thought of at the time, and I mentioned Stockhausen, rather pretentiously. That was in reference to his claim that the Beatles were the greatest music-makers, or composers, of all time, not in terms of origination. I know well how Bach advanced techniques and how other composers built on him, so I wasn't claiming that Bach was more original.   

I have found others who have made equally poor claims. There was an online article, now missing, full of such hyperbole. I went through a Beatles fan forum and also found all sorts of dubious claims, and I have heard claims that the Beatles were the first to use tape-loops and such things, which in fact they borrowed from musique concrète composers -- first in popular music, okay. I don't import much significance to these claims, people often aren't terribly rational, intelligent, or knowledgeable, and we all make mistakes. Some learn better from their mistakes than others and are better at and more interested in research. Many people spout uninformed opinions about all sorts of things -- sometimes I do.

You're right, such claims would be ridiculous when it comes to any artist, and that's kind of been my point.

That was but one example used as an illustration, but like I also said in that much longer post:

"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.... As I often say, I'm not an absolutist, and I don't believe 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 thread was a reaction at the time to people making claims of greatness, using terms such as underrated and overrated, best and worst, which I find issue with and had hoped to use this topic as a springboard to explore those notions -- my epistemological concerns.   The poll itself was intended as a somewhat humorous accessory, and the approach itself done in a rather light-hearted fashion I had hoped at the time, and I had recently been to that the Beatles rather "tragical history tour".

Edited by Logan - March 23 2020 at 23:16

Without the Beatles there would be no flora or fauna.

The Beatles taught me everything I know about pan-sauces.

Thanks Macca.

I’ll never forget the first time I tried the capers sauce with Ringo.
Uhhh mama!

This thread is full of win.

Catcher10 wrote: Mascodagama wrote: I prefer onion Ringos. Baked Lobster McCartney & Cheese is really good.....

Cheese and onions, how nice. This is my favourite song that the Beatles didn't quite make.



Whether or not the Beatles get too little, too much, just the right amount, or all of the above credit, I hope we can all appreciate that The Rutles did the Beatles, only better. ;)

Edited by Logan - March 24 2020 at 12:24