ChatterBank1 min ago
The Beatles - demi-gods of music or, at best, an average band?
Interested in opinions on this one!
I have a very wide taste in music and can find good in most things (C&W aside, which is awful) and at one point was a reasonably serious collector (10,000 + CDs), so I like to think I'm pretty clued-up music wise.
But, try as I might, I just don't 'get' The Beatles - I've tried, on numerous occassions, but I alwys come back to the same conclusion that they were, at best, average. Certainly no match for the Stones.
So, is it just me?
I have a very wide taste in music and can find good in most things (C&W aside, which is awful) and at one point was a reasonably serious collector (10,000 + CDs), so I like to think I'm pretty clued-up music wise.
But, try as I might, I just don't 'get' The Beatles - I've tried, on numerous occassions, but I alwys come back to the same conclusion that they were, at best, average. Certainly no match for the Stones.
So, is it just me?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think it's just you flipflop.
I like some of the Beatles' music, and am quite ambivalent about some. I think they had a handful of classics which were astoundingly good, but also some, quite frankly, cr@p stuff.
As always with music - it's a matter of taste. They were certainly a band "of their time", but no way do I think they were demi-gods - they were in the right place, at the right time, with the right look & the right sound.
Like you, I prefer the Stones.
I like some of the Beatles' music, and am quite ambivalent about some. I think they had a handful of classics which were astoundingly good, but also some, quite frankly, cr@p stuff.
As always with music - it's a matter of taste. They were certainly a band "of their time", but no way do I think they were demi-gods - they were in the right place, at the right time, with the right look & the right sound.
Like you, I prefer the Stones.
That's it sky - I don't think they were a brilliant band - but were just what the youngsters wanted at that particular time. They were new, different, a bit rebellious and they changed the face of 'pop' music.
I always liked George Harrison the best (although I was only very very young in the sixties) :-)
I always liked George Harrison the best (although I was only very very young in the sixties) :-)
They are okay, but not Gods in my opinion. I feel that they are comaparable to Elvis Presley in the respect of if you have a recording contract and put out such a large body of work, some are highly likely to be hits.
I was too young in the 60's to appreciate how different they are said to have sounded.
I was too young in the 60's to appreciate how different they are said to have sounded.
Well of course no matter how popular someone or something is, there will always be people who dont
like it. This applies to pop music, films, art, comedians, books, holiday resorts etc.
So just because the Beatles were big it does not mean to say you have to like them.
The Beatles were of course a "pop" band and the Stones were more of a R&B and rock band, so
somewhat heavier.
But as someone who "grew up" in the 1960s it is impossible to say what a massive influence they had on music and fashion and art all over the world. Even the Stones tried to "copy" them with their album "Satanic Majesties".
If you take just one Beatles album, Revolver. It had 16 songs, all of them written by band members, and the range of music on that album is immense, from pop, to humour, to folk, to soul, to ballads, to psychedelic. And each track still sounds good today. Just listen to say "Eleanor Rigby" or "Here there and everywhere" to hear classic songs.
The fact that the remastered Beatles albums have sold in such huge quantities shows how popular they still are, after all these years.
In less than 10 years they produced classic song after classic song, people are still do cover versions of their songs, and X Factor and show like that always seem to do a "Beatles week" where people sing versions of their songs.
like it. This applies to pop music, films, art, comedians, books, holiday resorts etc.
So just because the Beatles were big it does not mean to say you have to like them.
The Beatles were of course a "pop" band and the Stones were more of a R&B and rock band, so
somewhat heavier.
But as someone who "grew up" in the 1960s it is impossible to say what a massive influence they had on music and fashion and art all over the world. Even the Stones tried to "copy" them with their album "Satanic Majesties".
If you take just one Beatles album, Revolver. It had 16 songs, all of them written by band members, and the range of music on that album is immense, from pop, to humour, to folk, to soul, to ballads, to psychedelic. And each track still sounds good today. Just listen to say "Eleanor Rigby" or "Here there and everywhere" to hear classic songs.
The fact that the remastered Beatles albums have sold in such huge quantities shows how popular they still are, after all these years.
In less than 10 years they produced classic song after classic song, people are still do cover versions of their songs, and X Factor and show like that always seem to do a "Beatles week" where people sing versions of their songs.
I'm with suem on this one. People who don't 'get' the Beatles are like the people who say Picasso couldn't paint or Beethoven was rubbish, or Shakespeare is boring.
They're really just demonstrating their own ignorance and/or lack of taste. Sorry, I know it's all subjective etc, but I reckon some things are sort of beyond subjectivity. If you don't like them, you're basically just wrong.
It's easy to look back and say, well it's nothing special is it? but that's because you have the benefit of having listened to everything that came after 1963.
You have to see it in context. At the time they pretty much single-handedly invented a new genre of music - 'Pop music'. There was nothing before them other than Rock and roll, Jazz, crooners and people like Max Bygraves.
They're really just demonstrating their own ignorance and/or lack of taste. Sorry, I know it's all subjective etc, but I reckon some things are sort of beyond subjectivity. If you don't like them, you're basically just wrong.
It's easy to look back and say, well it's nothing special is it? but that's because you have the benefit of having listened to everything that came after 1963.
You have to see it in context. At the time they pretty much single-handedly invented a new genre of music - 'Pop music'. There was nothing before them other than Rock and roll, Jazz, crooners and people like Max Bygraves.
The Beatles to me represented the sixties and became iconic because they were the first of a kind. However, I don't think they were a brilliant band, but a very good band - somewhat above average. They had the likeability factor and received parental approval. However, a lot of their music hasn't lasted the time test. It sounds really dated now. George Harrison was the one Beatle that I really did like then and still like his music now.
I have always loved The Stones, who were the bad boys of music in the 60's. Their sound is timeless and they hold there own amongst the really good groups that are around today. However, most of my contempories (I am in my 60's wouldn't agree with me!!)
I have always loved The Stones, who were the bad boys of music in the 60's. Their sound is timeless and they hold there own amongst the really good groups that are around today. However, most of my contempories (I am in my 60's wouldn't agree with me!!)
>And I think Paul McCartney is the most overrated Beatle of them all. I just don't get his popularity!! ;o)
If you think he is over reated just listen to Yesterday (which he wrote and had NONE of the other Beatles on the track)
Or listen to Penny Lane, or Eleanor Rigby, or Here There and Everywhere, or Michele, or Fool on the Hill, or And your bird can sing, or Drive my Car, or Hey Jude, or Long and Winding Road, or I'll follow the Sun, or I Will, or many other Beatles tracks.
He wrote them all (probably without much help from John). Even though they were Lennon McCartney songs, later on most of the songs were written by EITHER John or Paul.
If you think he is over reated just listen to Yesterday (which he wrote and had NONE of the other Beatles on the track)
Or listen to Penny Lane, or Eleanor Rigby, or Here There and Everywhere, or Michele, or Fool on the Hill, or And your bird can sing, or Drive my Car, or Hey Jude, or Long and Winding Road, or I'll follow the Sun, or I Will, or many other Beatles tracks.
He wrote them all (probably without much help from John). Even though they were Lennon McCartney songs, later on most of the songs were written by EITHER John or Paul.
Of course the fact we are STILL talking about them here on this forum, over 45 years after their first single came out, shows they are NOT an average band.
There are plenty of average bands from the early 60s who are TOTALLY forgotten.
And there are even GOOD bands from the 60s, like the Hollies, who dont get much mention and nobody rushes out to buy remastered albums of the Hollies.
There are plenty of average bands from the early 60s who are TOTALLY forgotten.
And there are even GOOD bands from the 60s, like the Hollies, who dont get much mention and nobody rushes out to buy remastered albums of the Hollies.
I agree about 'Yesterday', but still think he is overrated!! I hate his self importance these days too. I just think of the music from 'Wings' and the dreadful 'Mull of Kintyre'. Sorry.
Actually, I loved their very first album. I was in my early teens and it was so different from any other music.
Give me the Stones anyday!!! ;o)
Actually, I loved their very first album. I was in my early teens and it was so different from any other music.
Give me the Stones anyday!!! ;o)
No, it's not just you, flip_flop.
I think the bands 'iconic' status,which was generated in the greater part by their original look and sound, coupled with their prolific output; together with the fact that the generation of fans from the time the band started have been the generation 'in control' of the popular media/music press, at least until fairly recent times, has ensured that the rose-tinted spectacles have remained firmly in place.
There can be no doubt that they collectively, and individually, wrote some seminal tracks; but the Beatle-mania that persists is a mystery to me.
I think the bands 'iconic' status,which was generated in the greater part by their original look and sound, coupled with their prolific output; together with the fact that the generation of fans from the time the band started have been the generation 'in control' of the popular media/music press, at least until fairly recent times, has ensured that the rose-tinted spectacles have remained firmly in place.
There can be no doubt that they collectively, and individually, wrote some seminal tracks; but the Beatle-mania that persists is a mystery to me.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.