Beatles=most overrated band ever!
 

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

according to this guy













debate

not rly

nirvana is.

That article is so unerringly abysmal it made me forget for a few minutes how much I dislike the Beatles.

When you pay attention to the timeframe the Beatles had their main success it's pretty much justified. They followed Rock'n'Roll on the heels and made guitar music available to a vast audience. With their development as a band, they also began to use more obscure elements to their music, which were still accepted by the masses.
I always thought of the term "overrated" as something a pimplier sixteen yearold pubertarian would use. As he just hasn't been available to recognise what the artist actually did in history, as he is still focussed on the now, the present.
Nontheless I find it a bit weird, how the Beatles are one of the most well known bands - of course they wrote excellent popsongs as well - but other pioneers such as The Velvet Underground, CAN or Neu! aren't nearly as much present to the masses out there. Sure there music isn't comparable to the pop the Beatles created, but they still deserve some recognition. And especially Neu! Offspring Michael Rother created really noticable melodious music, though little know of it.
So I would say that in comparison to other revolutionary musicians the Beatles are not overrated, but a bit too much ahead, if combined with the aspect of what they did for music.

Though the Beatles were Nazis ;)

nirvana is.
but the beatles are also quite overrated.
i guess it's just the fact that i don't find them special or amazing at all.

BEATLES OVERRATED?????
nirvana overrated.....

seems like if a ground breaking band becomes huge and legendary that its uncool to say you love em. beatles are certainly not overrated, neither is nirvana. possibly the finest bands that eve stalked the earth (i am presuming we are talking of kurt and not the original british nirvana..... :-) )

ill give u overrated...
led zeppelin
elvis
pink floyd (after syd left, namely dark side of the moon- the single most overrated piece of music ever)
awesome color (sorry)
be your own pet (sorry again)
and hendrix (i know i know, im sorry)

cue atari!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, that's sort of how I feel about you haha...
ever since I joined up to this sonic youth dot com thing there's been nit-wits Beatles-bashing to seek their little attention trip.
YEAH YAH SAVE IT SPARE ME
Don
't care if it's a link or not, go fuck yourself.
YEAH YAH SAVE IT SPARE ME
I'm listening
to a '69 Floyd right now and it kicks the ass of all the bullshit you people listen to
----------so
SUCK
my
fucking christmas cock.

go schlob
a knob &/or fuck yourselves.

nice entrance atari..........

Fuck All Beatle Haters!

Brilliant pessimism. And I sort of agree. Except for the fact that I'm a Beatles-basher (nice to see the hyphen making an appearance). Although I'm generally quite low-key about that. Or perhaps I'm not?

I like the logic that 'incredibly popular band x' are over rated while 'incredibly popular band y' are too popular and thus it's hip to dislike them. Circular arguments, see? Might I offer that any band past a certain popularity is made more obscure to alleged qualia applicable to non-popular music(s)?

Phew. Talking about music is a rum deal, eh?

I'll admit that the talent level wasn't up to par as people claim they were. George was a minimal lead guitarist, John, although the wisest of all, was a minimal guitar player, Paul WAS a brilliant musician/songwriter, but there have been better bass players since his arrival. & as for Ringo, I think we all can admit he wasn't the best drummer ever to walk the earth. Somehow, they took whatever talent they had, & added , in the later years, a certain type of intelligence & wisdom in their music. So for that I don't think they're overrated.

no, the reason the article says they were overrated was because many other bands who were contemporaries of the Beatles (VU, Fugs, Pink Floyd) were doing the groundbreaking stuff, but no one knew about it. Once the Beatles experimented, people gave them the credit for it, yet it was much more "polished" for the mainstream.


Anyways, I agree with certain points the author makes here. Bands have done better (musically) than the Beatles, yet, they're still highly regarded, merely because of the impact on pop culture, and that rock could be sold to the masses. But, people still are under the impression that the Beatles broke more ground than the VU(who most have never really heard of).

For example, one time in class about last month, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds came on over the radio. After the first verse, one of the girls in my class (who is a fan of OC-approved "indie" rock) stated "Holy Crap! these guys must have taken drugs when they were doing this." I then looked over at them as if to say "you're a fucking idiot." Lucy only has wierd lyrics, nothing else about it is really that avant-garde.


I am now intent on blasting Butthole Surfers in class next semester, just to see what she thinks of THAT.

The problem with that article is that the person obviously has no appreciation of anything other than boorish soloing. I don't like the Beatles, but their technical proficiency is utterly a moot point. I love the Shaggs to the point where they bring me to tears, and they can't play for shit. Technical proficiency = shit criticism. The Beatles weren't terribly adept soloists, but they were writing relatively sophisticated songs. Still don't like them, but I wouldn't criticise them on that level. In fact, I don't have a teneble argument against them, except for the personal fact of my never having liked them.

I've always agreed w/ the fact the VU & PF & other gorups of that era were doing more experimental music, but what makes their story soo different than the Beatles. Y can't they be appreciated for trying to do something different.

I don't think the Beatles are particularly overrated as they were not merely experimenting with music - they were experimenting with pop stardom as well. That's something that the Velvets, Fugs, Red Crayola, West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, and even Syd's Pink Floyd really couldn't do. The Beatles went from being a crazy phenomena of middle of the road r&b covers by good looking white kids striking a chord that made teenage girls scream much harder than during an orgasm or bad trip, to be 2.5 serious revolutionary artists with the world willing to look at whatever the fuck they did and even actually listen to it. What they did actually stands up pretty well considering.

You want overrated rock bands? How about the fucking Doors? Not a bad jazz rock group with a cool organ sound, but just because the singer wore tight leather pants and seemed to attract heterosexual males even more than females, they are the stuff of legend. Oh yeah, don't forget that Morrison is a "poet". Can anyone think of worse acid casualty poetry than on American Prayer? And that's the album Doors fanatics always point to and nod knowingly about how "deep" he was.

The Beatles are great. End of story/debate.

The Beatles were consistent with whatever they tried...they deserve their status in my opinion. They also paved the way for bands to get respect for writing their own songs instead of covering others like they were originally expected to.

i agree with Norma J and Chout, and i don't really like their music that much, the amount of influence can not be denied, geez even some of sonic youth's poppier stuff is very remenicient [sic]

I agree 110 percent that Nirvana is overrated.

The Beatles are NOT overrated. They are Pop Culture Gods!

Kurt is little more than a bump in the road. A poor white boys wannabe version of Jimi Hendrix with none of the talent.

Hell the Foo Fighters are better than Nirvana was. Nirvana just got better publicity.