Write an apology
An apology is a formal justification or defense of a position.
I don't mind if you have a different opinion than me. It's your right to not personally like them. What upsets me, though, is when people bash things that they know very little about.
I used to be one of those people who thought The Beatles were overrated. I listened to a few of their radio hits and concluded that they were pop garbage. I then delved into their catalogue, heard their more experimental songs and gained a greater appreciation for them.
I wouldn't call them the best band ever, but they have the best catalogue ever.
A big part of The Beatles experience is having lived through the period in which their music changed pop and rock music. For those who didn't, they are only getting a small part of the picture. The emotional component and memory of what they meant to their time does not exist. So then it is really a question of musical tastes which obviously vary so much. I am not saying these opinions are not valid only that without having lived through their era, one cannot really understand their significance to the world.
Ok, first of all, being influential and being the best at something are two completely different things. You could be a total shit band and still be influential. Now I'm not saying the Beatles are a bad band, but they aren't as praiseworthy as people make them out to be either. Yes, they've released some memorable singles, but in overall, their albums just aren't that amazing to me and it just annoys me how people believe they are "the best band ever." In order to even be considered that, they would have to have the most talented instrumentals, the most talented songwriting, etc which the Beatles clearly do not have. I can name at least 10 other bands who are superior in terms of both instrumentals and lyricism. I think it's more of a case of "image over music." I think people have just grown so fond of the band members themselves that they are completely blinded from the fact that their music really isn't that good.
They were so good that kids today are mimicking them. Now that tells you all you need to know.
Schubert, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lennon-McCartney. That's how good they were.
Sorry, but if you think The Beatles are overrated, you prove that you have no appreciation of good music. Your opinion is therefore of no consequence.
They have good songs, most of them stolen from other artists but most of their songs is blaa. They were beggining to get really good at the end, specially with Abbey Road. That album is a masterpiece. I would say they began as a crappy band and got better and better. When tehy were starting to shine the band fell apart.
The Beatles were bigger than Jesus.
I understand many would say The Beatles are overrated because of how praised they are. But of course I see great work put into their songs for how the way it was produced by George Martian and I, a Beatles fan, praise his producing for the songs. But when it comes to their work, I more prefer their songs between 1967-1970 as their early work is praised a lot but they sound more like another 1960's band, it's great that they've went into the psychedelic phase at the time as in my opinion 'Sgt. Peppers' was the album that changed rock music. 'Revolver' is just 50% '62-66 Beatles and 50% Psychedelia. There are bad songs from them, in my opinion, 'Revolution 9' it's just John Lennon trying to be artistic, and sometimes I always thought that John Lennon is overrated because of his artistic point of view. But I do enjoy listening to his work of course, but I always avoid 'Revolution 9'. I do love The Beatles but of course there are things I don't from them. Though if there's one thing I hate about Beatles fans is this 'The Beatles are prophets' and this is on every single video you'll find on YouTube when it comes to The Beatles, newsflash: THE BEATLES ARE NOT GODS THEY'RE JUST FOUR TALENTED MUSICIANS.
I always hear how the Beatles "stole" their sound from earlier acts, but being influenced by an artist and emulating them in some way is expected. You can trace back Britney Spears to Motzart if you try. But here's the thing: Nearly all of the great modern musicians name The Beatles as their single biggest influence. Many who knew the Beatles (including Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger) have called their work underrated, as those not educated in music tend to overlook the great talent they held. So the Beatles may have taken a lot of inspiration from Buddy Holly, but everybody since has proudly taken inspiration from the Beatles.
"a revolutionary record.. it seems now that we will view this album [revolver] in retrospect as a key work in the development of rock and roll into an artistic pursuit"-richard goldstein
The Beatles are considered the greatest band of all time. They are.
The Beatles have to be the most overrated rock band of all time, especially considering that their earliest influences were American pioneers such as Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, Eddie Cochran, and Chuck Berry. People rave ad nauseam about how the Beatles changed music, but if it hadn't been for the Americans, they would have never existed.
Beatles got inspired and copied greats like Presley, Berry, Sinatra, Holly, Richard, Charles, Fitzgerald,
Diddley, Lewis, Domino, to name more than a few, and more to come.
It is not possible to overrate them.
Overrated...People always have to say how better they were compared to modern day music...I hate that! They are flat and just plain boring! Whoever disagrees must be a butt hurt fan
When you're a fish, it's hard to compare the water you're swimming in to anything else. It's just always been there and always will be (you hope.) The Fab Four are like that. Half a century later, most people alive today weren't around when this band started popular music as it currently exists. This is why some of their stuff can seem common or overrated today; they were the first to do it and everyone has been re-doing it and trying to improve on it ever since. Sure some musicians and producers have done some of those things better since then, given forty to fifty years to do so. We have better airplanes than the Wright Brothers too, but we didn't invent the airplane; they did.
They're a great band, easily the best of all time, but I think they're overrated for what they really are.
I honestly think the quality of production for The Beatles is top notch, and for what it's worth you should be grateful those CDs and vinyls and tapes are what'll be passed down which is an important think to take in mind...
... But the subtle undertones of their music is so abstract that at times it makes me wonder if they only held the attitude and attention of fans and listeners alike to like them for similar tones and messages, rather than what the sound is.
And in music, that is a reason why a band is overrated. They're all over the place and they are large. They knew they would sell. "The Beatles" are right. They're overselling little bugs that help make things run, and that's what they are. Not saying they're talentless, just saying they're very overrated for what they truly are.
20 number one hits, still widely played over 40 years after they broke up, I wouldn't say they are the greatest band ever (I wouldn't say that about any band) but they are up there.
Don't get me wrong, The Beatles are great, but aside from their influence, nothing is really special about them. I know a lot of music wouldn't exist without them but if they existed now they wouldn't be liked near as much.
The greatest band of all time, about right I would say.
As a whole, the Beatles are probably underrated when you look at how most of the music today can ultimately be traced back to draw some influence from the Beatles, ranging across many different genres. However, John Lennon gets far too much of the credit for the band's success, as it is Paul McCartney's songwriting that led this band.
From a songwriting perspective, speaking of hooks, arrangements, melodies and not particularly the lyrics/themes, the Beatles are absolutely AWESOME. Three writers who could write hooks all day, every day: and did. Whatever about anything else, the Beatles deserve huge respect for their ability to effortlessly create hook after great hook for ten years. and for their experimentations with modernism and their interest in the avant-garde: an influence depressingly absent in today's unimaginative rock bands (who only think to reference other rock bands).
The Beatles are incredibly mediocre. Their sound is completely generic. Like Elvis, they were successful because of their image and what they represented. John Lennon's feigning wisdom is tiring and absolutely borrowed and perverted from the influences he drew from. Their best music came when they started dropping acid and learned a little something from Bobbie D. Without a doubt the Beatles are the most overrated band of all time. Sorry, their is no easy way to say it.
The Beatles may not be the "best" band of all time (like that could be determined), but I certainly think their popularity and rating as a band is "about right." Not only did they write songs that a broad array of people can enjoy, they were a loveable group of individuals that people enjoyed following. They were the right band at the right time. The Beatles are loved as much for its members and story as much as they are loved for their memorable tunes. You just can't separate the two in this case, and that's OK. So, yes, it could be argued there were "better" bands around at the time, but it's undeniable how influential, prolific, and damn catchy the Beatles were (are). Not only that, their tunes have endured, and I don't think it's due to some bandwagon/dogmatic fangroup upping the status of the group. It's simply because the Beatles caught on so well in popular culture that they are now part of western cultures (and worldwide as well). That, in no way, makes them overrated... They are kind of beyond overrated/underrated, because their influence transcends music. Even if they were somewhat lucky, that doesn't mean they're overrated, it's just what happened... and I, for one, am satisfied with that.
They are ok but I guess you had to be there.
4 lads who filled the void of the assassination of JFK. Timing is everything. They were incredibly talented but never would have reached the level of fame they did if they were not filling this void. Loved them.
I used to use the blanket statement that the Beatles were overrated, but upon further analysis I think it's certain eras of their history that I find overrated. Particularly, Sgt. Peppers and a lot of their later stuff. I'm not too crazy about their early stuff either, my favorite era is Rubber Soul or Revolver.
To say the Beatles are over-rated is just stupid. To say the Beatles are under-rated is just stupid. Exactly right. With that said, most people will never even comprehend what the Beatles have done for modern music. It would take an essay to go into detail about why, but to sum it up, they expanded the idea of multi-track recording (George Martin), and paved the way for nearly everything you hear out of a studio now.
Very over-rated, but that's because people of a certain generation think that they're more important than Mozart. If you look at them objectively, they ARE (were) a very fine popular music band, but they are (were) not miles and miles ahead of every other band in the world as many would have you believe.
Half the people commenting on this page probably couldn't name 3 albums, and even if they could, obviously hav'nt listened to them.
I think their early stuff (Please Please Me, A Hard Day's Night, etc.) is extremely overrated, whereas their extremely drugged-up stuff is a tiny bit underrated.
I'd say their legacy as a whole is overrated.
Rolling Stones are so much better
You can appreciate this band for what they did to the advancement of music, but that doesn't mean you have to like any of their work. I personally find this ban somewhat repetitive and slightly overrated, but I can also see why people rave over this band.
I believe that McCartney/Lennon were overrated as songwriters. Having said that, McCartney and Lennon were great singers. McCartney is/was an unbelievable basist. George Martin was the best producer in Rock and Roll - bar none.
The Beatles ongoing fame is a product of a population bubble. Pop Music is the soundtrack of youth....The Baby boomers have bullied the rest of us with the music of their youth.
They not invented all modern music, but they helped to do it
There's no such thing as "The greatest [anything] of all time" but The Beatles were an all-encompassing force of creative genius. They really did succeed in everything they set out to do. In their constant drive for innovation, they blended and even created elements from all over the music world. They are the only pop band hailed as they are worldwide. That much cannot be argued. Yes, the Stones or Zappa may have done this or that first, but would anyone else be doing this or that had the Beatles not put their spin on it? Probably not.
1 Billion sales means the Creation of Metal, Progressive, Psychedelic, & Punk Rock all by 1 Band
band that changed everything, not overrated at all.
Beatles are overrated. They are not the greatest band in the history of the universe. They wrote a lot of great songs and a lot of bad songs (Yellow Submarine anyone?)
But they are the most important band of popular music. But 1 Billion sales doesn't mean they're the greatest band ever. It just means they were the right band, at the right time. And the promotion of their music and image was very good. Just like how iPod's are not the best portable music devices.
And they weren't trend setters, they were followers.
People think that the Beatles are overrated because it's so easy to say that they are, because they are the most praised band in history. Who else would you say is overrated? The problem is that the Beatles are far from overrated. A miracle happened to music. Appreciate it.
If 61% of the people (47% + 14%) thinks that The Beatles are either "about right" or underrated, it means that most of the people think that Beatles ARE NOT overrated. If the majority of the people thinks so, then the minority is simply wrong.
I do not discuss its importance to the history of music, but hthey are extremely overrated, it seems like it is a obligation to like The Beatles to be able to call yourself a musician or a music connoisseur, or simply someone with good taste, in my opinion the technique it is poor, as the lyrics, Bob Dylan was an influence far greater in the modern lyrics than The Beatles, I could spend all day putting all of my arguments to support my theory, but i dont want to wate my time, so I tell u they are overrated...but i respect them by their influence.
It seems to me that the Beatles are underrated - not by scholars or people who are really into music but by the general population. Whenever I suggest to my friends that we listen to a Beatles record I alway get vetoed, this is because a lot of people associate the Beatles with the black and white TV footage and the earlier, cheeser Beatles sound. Not that this sound is bad, from a melodic perceptive they are only really equaled by the Beach boys for melodic consistency during this period. Where the Beatles really shine is from Rubber Soul onwards where they have matured as songwriters and musicians ultimately leading up to the B side of Abbey Road that is simply genius. They where the first to do so many things that there is too many to list. However even if they were not the first there music would still be among the best regardless of their ability to play or not play well. Trashing through a few guitar scales at the speed of light does not make a good song anyhow.
The Beatles naturally did what any people need to study in terms of harmony and melody, the fact that they were not amazing musicians but still wrote such good songs and so consistently over almost ten years is testament to their natural ears for what makes good listening.
As a side not Paul Mcartney was an extremely able bass player and his bass work is among the best ever recorded, Ringo's drums are also underrated - it is really difficult to find a drummer that will do exactly what's needed for a song and not go over the top.
I could type so much more but I will say don't judge them on the early boy meets girl poppy stuff (although this is excellent if our into that) take a look at Revolver, Abbey Road or the White Album and you might just change your mind.
Sgt. Pepper might be a little overrated, but that doesn't change the fact that they are The Greatest Band of all time.
From a musician's standpoint they may be a tad overrated in the sense that they weren't the greatest instrumentalists of all time. But in terms of artistry, and their impact on everything that followed, they're incomparable. They reinvented themselves on every album, and if it wasn't for their recognizable voices, you would swear that every album from A Hard Days Night to Abbey Road was recorded by a different artist. To say that you hate The Beatles but to like anything else after them is deliberately being contrary and proof that you don't really LISTEN TO the music that you CLAIM to like.
Holy Sweet Jesus, everyone here who has written that The Beatles are overrated, you guys have no respect or taste in music, The Beatles revolutionized and 100% affect the shitty ass bands that you children listen to today, so not for one second can you guys talk shit about them...
And towards "jjla25" you say that The Beatles have never been criticized, you must be an idiot, not trying to be rude or anything but come on, do you happen to recall the time Lennon said that they were more popular than Jesus, thousands and thousands of people burned and destroyed all of their merchandise, The Beatles were always criticized as a band but there is not doubt that they were in fact the greatest band ever....
The Beatles is overrated due to his nostalgic side of listening. I think the "happy 60's fuck" is way too overrated. I think that their more "obscure" songs like She's heavy, Helter Skelter and their later are quite good but not so much appreciated.
sooooo overrated it's not even funny. i'm not saying they're bad, i just think they sound like every other 60s mod band from the time (personally i prefer the yardbirds). i also think it is unecessary how every year a new beatle product has to come out. rockband? remasters? are any of those things necessary? i mean, we've all heard of them, is it really necessary to buy the same shit over again? plust they're the only band that NOBODY ever criticizes. i think that is completely unrealistic, i mean no person is perfect, let alone musical artists, why are the beatles any different?
And for the love of god, I've seen a four year old on youtube drum better than Ringo.
Well, this is one of the most controvercial topics one could talk about. When it comes to my opinion, I think their image was way bigger and better than they were. I mean, they definitely did some genious things, and they were ground breaking. But that does not make you the best. At all. Certainly, one would agree that back in the 60's, if you went to The Beatles concerts, it would really be to LOOK at them. You wouldn't really get too much out of what you hearing. And to support that statement, notice how in most of their concerts, the girls were screaming so loud, you couldn't even HEAR them? They're an image. They were a great band. Genious in some ways. But really. Take them off of their pedestal. Take away all the rewards. Try to hear from a person's ear who has never heard them before. Surely, they would not be so great. One cannot dismiss the influences of the past so therefore we will never forget what they represented to the world media and the youth. Definitely great. But how many times could you possibly listen to "Strawberry Fields Forever" from an unbias person's ear and continue to blindly say, "They're the best." Oh and by the way. I just recently visited a Led Zeppelin page and people were saying that Led Zeppelin could've never been had it not been for The Beatles. How the hell is that even plausible? Jimmy Page's heroes included Bert Jansch, Elvis Presley, Fats Dominoe, and many more in that genre. And pretty much the same with Robert Plant. And does John Bonham even play remotely close to Ringo Starr? Really think about that and what've I've said.
They're just overrated because they're accessible; Lennon is one of the best pop singers ever, among the first to do it in the higher register. They are the template for most popular music these days, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Their songs are very well written, though admittedly they're a 60's pop band, and most of their songs fit into that 'monkees' formula or gain fame for breaking what is simplicity inherent. A very good band, a great band...hell, maybe they're not overrated at all? Personally I prefer R. Zimmerman.
Most of their earlier stuff is just crappy pop. Their later stuff is pretty good but does not deserve all the credit it gets, so I gotta say overrated even though I do like them(I accidentily clicked about right dammit)
the most overrated thing in the history of music. no more than a pop/harmony band with little instrumental talent. How can people think Bob Dylan and Led Zeppelin are more overrated than the beatles, NOTHING is more overrated than the beatles.
a middle school band could play their music but wouldn't sound as gay doing it
Just an overhyped boyband who had to change their tune in order to survive, simple. Some good songs, but horrifically overrated
Indeed, I love the Beatles & they're my favorite group. But I must admit they're sometimes overrated. Specially John Lennon. But don't take me wrong, I still think they're the best of all.
The Beatles' legacy is precisely where it should be. Obviously not an impressive technical band (McCartney is the only member who could be considered technically great), but their innovations, diversity of catalog and, most importantly, melodic genius is what sets them apart. Oh and to say that the Beatles' vocals were average is supremely ignorant (and idiotic). Lennon didn't a large range, but he had a signature voice and soul, and McCartney in his prime is probably within the top 3 of greatest male vocalists ever.
I do enjoy the Beatles music.
I also have not heard every song every made before, during and after The Beatles.
To discount all of these songs is something I won't do.
There are many songs that I have heard before and during the time of The Beatles that I find quite enjoyable and won't limit myself to one artist.
No comparison as far as British bands go. I can name very few Brit bands that came after them that weren't influenced, and rightly so.
Man, some people are really stupid on here. Oh and by the way The Beatles are one of the most overrated bands in history however they are one of the greatest at the same time. Weird but true. A band with so many fans has to have so many haters and personally John Lennon and Paul McCartney are 2 of the most overrated lyricists ever.
The Beatles is the epitome of a band with average talent. They were the sex idols of the 60s-70s, which is the only reason they got all the fame they did.
The Beatles had easy guitar riffs, no complex drum parts and average vocals. If they came out today they would be just another pop boy band but because they came out 45 years ago they are so well respected, which is wrong.
Hard to say overrated or underrated. By all accounts, the best band ever, and that is hard to argue with. So, 'about right' it is!
highly rated and for a good reason, their music is still relevant to this day, true visionaries.
The Beatles were born to be the greatest band in the history of music! they influenced more than jesus and everything else put together!!! The Beatles are bigger phenomenal than ufo! for some reason they are definitely underrated! they had many many fantastic songs!
the rolling stones are the most overrated band in the history of all time!!! yeah yeah yeah!!!
They are generally rated as the greatest rock band in history. As that is true, id say they're about right.
(above was stolen from chuck kolsterman. =D)
Overrated or underrated I don?t know but this all happened before 1960/61
Les Paul has always been considered an innovator in recording history. His use of multi-tracking, overdubbing, looping and other techniques have been well documented throughout the years, starting in the 40?s.. I believe his early work was done without the benefit of magnetic tape and was direct to disc.
His guitar playing and contribution to the guitar itself has had long lasting effect on music.
The Columbia Records Echo was interesting, recording a vocal and playing it at the bottom of a stairwell with a microphone a few floors above the speaker to record the stairwell echo. Then taking that recording back to the studio and adding that to a live vocal track.
I think it was Mitch Miller that wanted a nice sound so he place a microphone in a toilet bowl and recorded that echo.
Norm Petty?s work with the Crickets/picks produced some fine records. Buddy Holly?s musical progression in a short time was very good.
The Del-Vikings had guys sing in closets to get a certain sound. The early Del-Vikings history is strange tall too. Plus the Luniverse record label which was known for Buchanan & Goodman?s cut-in sampling novelty records spawned some crazy offshoots.
One was Spencer & Spencer, the song Russian Bandstand contained backwards tape playing.
Their song Stagger Lawrence was a trip, merging a Lawrence Welk imitator and Lloyd Price records.
Lloyd Price released some good Rock and Roll, with the mighty Earl Palmer on drums for some of the songs. Palmer?s work with Little Richard was some cool drumming put to wax. Other musicians on some of the Price songs were Fats Domino, Dave Bartholomew and Huey ?piano? Smith.
The back of Preston Epp?s 1960 Bongo Bongo Bongo album says ?Bongo Bongo Bongo took over a year to plan and produce, but we think you?ll agree it was worth the wait for. This album employs the work of over forty musicians, arrangers, singers, engineers and producers (Not including the animals).?
The song -Bongo Rock- it just what it is and the almost 13 minute side b song -Call of the wild-
Somewhat primitive was Link Wray poking holes in the his amp speaker to get nice distorted sound.
I read he once shoved the microphone through the speaker for a raw sound. The man had some good feedback too.
Jackie Brenston - Rocket 88 has some cool distortion
Who knows what Pasquale & The Lunar-Tiks were thinking with the song -Moon Madness-, but it was some strange noise for the late 50?s
I?m not one to say who invented what, but music has been around for a very long time and I?m sure there are more to add to the list
I?m listening to a song from one man band Joe Hill Lewis circa 1950. It?s as primitive as can be but when he says ?go? at the beginning of -Gotta Let You Go- its just slays.
First of all, it's 'She Love You'. Secondly, Lennon and McCartney were 22 and 21 years old respectively. It was written in a hotel room over the course of a couple of hours. And lastly, 'She loves you' was certainly not the pinnacle of Lennon/McCartney's or the Beatles song writing.
She loves me yeh yeh yeh - I could write that
There is a defining line in music history when the Beatles hit the charts. Their first songs were raw, but for their time, they were cutting edge; always writing something new and challenging.
A band whose popularity has survived perhaps longer then it should have. They are not bad but they also are not the sole creators of music as we know it, all too often people refuse to accept that someone else had the same ideas as them, they just had the chance to do it first.
They bore me.
they were not gods or geniuses. they had a knack for penning the odd tuneful ditty and clearly have been a major influence on pop acts that came after them. let's not get carried away and proclaim them anything more than being a decent pop group
the beatles were gods and we should be ever thakful for the way they developed modern music.
they got the credit they deserve!
There's no way Beatles can be considered overrated. They, along with The Who and the rest of the British Invasion, revolutionized rock music and set the stage for things to come. Even if you don't like their music directly (I'm ambivalent to a some of their work; Abbey Road is one of my favourite albums, though), you have to appreciate the impact they had on music.
Overrated is when you're ridiculously popular, but you "can't meet the hype", rather, riding the back of a one-hit wonder. While the Beatles most certainly fit criteria one, they had the talent and ability to put out incredible, enduring works. I think they earned their world fame, as I know no other band still loved by even today's youth and who not to mention consistently produced incredible songs.
The Beatles are incredible. Their music stood the test of time, and their catalog is incomparable.
The Beatles are great. They wrote wonderful music.
Sgt. Pepper=Overrated. Everything else? UNDER RATED. The Beatles are great for both their talent and especially for the way it blended. Many bands have more than one very good songwriter, none showcased them all as well (together) as The Beatles.
haha i was just about to say that paul, ehem i mean pnbllwzrd
Ok well first I need to say that the Beatles definitely deserve their position as the greatest band because of their diverse catalog and incredible skill and crafting songs. Secondly I need to correct chunkyshoes. It is completely implausible that the US killed Lennon to stop the decreasing of popularity of the vietnam war because he was killed FIVE YEARS after the war in vietnam ended.
The beatles were actually nazi and communist supporters. When the Vietnma war was beginning to lose support from the U.S. citizens, the government was forced to intervene and killed John Lennon. The U.S. had to. We were trying to win a war and the beatles were singing a bunch of peace songs. stupid hippies. If the beatles were still around we would all be speaking Russian. Long Live GWAR
Listen to all the albums. No one has been more diverse and groundbreaking.
They're the best. Especially their later stuff. It's unfortunate they had to go down the way they did.