[marleypumpkin]

Originally Posted by LittlePuppetBoy

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.

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.