VIBE

The Beatles are overrated, enough said

The Beatles suck.

How can a band who stopped playing live shows in 1966 and started making just studio albums be ‘the greatest band ever’?

Nothing is more annoying than somebody trying to convince me The Beatles revolutionized music and, without them, we would not have (insert band here).

That argument is weak and false.

I wish this statement was true because, if it was, we wouldn’t have pop sensations Britney Spears, T-Pain or American Idol.

The Backstreet Boys were revolutionary. But they sucked, too.

And don’t even attempt to sell me on fact The Beatles were about love and world peace.

John Lennon and the rest of the band preached love and tolerance, yet hatred and jealousy among band members tore them apart.

The Beatles supposedly quit playing live shows because crowds were getting out of control?

Unruly concertgoers never made The Who, The Clash or AC/DC hang up what they did best.

But you know what bothers me the most? The fifth Beatle no one talks about.

Wait, there is a fifth Beatle?

Yes, George Martin.

Who’s George Martin?

He is the greatest Beatle (if there is such a thing) and he is to The Beatles what Rick Ruben is to Metallica, The Beastie Boys, Jay-Z, Weezer and every other band he has had his hands on. But you know so much about music, you probably already knew that.

Martin is responsible for the making of every Beatles album except for one. Without him, The Beatles would still be in a basement doing drugs and trying to make albums.

The George Martin Band would have been a better fitting name than The Beatles.

But someone will still argue George Harrison was the best Beatle because he was an amazing guitarist or Lennon was the best because of his lyrics. The problem is they may be the best Beatles to some, but they aren’t the best at what they did.

Take, for example, my favorite Beatles song, ‘Hey Jude,’ and compare it to Wilson Pickett’s version. Listen to how much more emotion and energy comes through in the lyrics and guitar.

It should also be noted guitarist Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band sat in on the studio session of this song. He also is ranked second on Rolling Stones list of 100 great guitarist of all time. George Harrison is ranked 21st.

Sure, they made some good music, but it was not because they were the best at what they do.

Jimi Hendrix had more talent in his left hand than the Fab Four combined.

Apparently none of this matters though. For some reason, people still buy into the hype of Beatlemania.

435 Comments

  1. For me the Beatles were heavily overatted. Ive listened to there songs and i am the walrus, sgt pepper and cant by me love are the only really good songs. The rest is very basic song writing and if it was released today they wouldnt reach the top 40. If you listen to albums by oasis for example, there are at least 80% of great songs on their albums. Another overatted band is U2. They have a handful of great songs, then theres loads of weird electro crap like discotech.

    • you are idiot! the beatles is the best!

    • Tim Killeen says:

      Hey Ashley, Noel Gallagher of Oasis never would have picked up a guitar if it wasn’t for The Beatles. You obviously havent listened to “Rubber Soul”, “Revolver”, or “Abbey Road”. Those albums are 100% good songs. Oh and you think there songs are basic? Have you ever listened to “A Day in the Life” or how about “Martha My Dear”? Do your homework before you say dumb shit online.

      • ElmiraGultch says:

        The Renaissance would have never happened without the Dark Ages. Does that mean the Dark Ages were inherently good?

    • It’s hard to take you as credible when you don’t even know the song’s names. Very basic song writing? Dear Prudence, You Never Give Me Your Money, Eleanor Rigby, Love To You, In My Life….they had 100+ incredible songs.

      This article is really strange though, because the author actually has some points. Overall though he’s still missing it.

  2. The Backstreet Boys did not suck, and though I’m not a huge Beatles fan, I don’t think they sucked either.

    The fact that both bands could get so many people to like them is an amazing feat, whether or not they were the “greatest band of all time” or not.

    There’s a reason why so many loved them, and even granted that part of it was due to “clever marketing” or “hype” – the fact that even now, after their peaks, there are still so many people who remain loyal fans speaks a whole lot. I for one continue to appreciate BSB songs and can’t wait for their new album to hit the stores.

  3. You make some good points but they created some amazing music. Jimi played Sgt. Peppers live in from of the Beatles 2 days after the album came out…blew their minds…

  4. The Beatles are sweet and its not because they were the best at what they did. It is becuase they consistently tried new things and consistently SUCCEEDED at it.

  5. Dude, your premise is so full of holes – and based almost entirely on a knee-jerk reaction rather than anything factual – that I had no problem dimissing it as the irrelevant scribblings of an uninformed and musically illiterate neophyte.

    Hate on the Beatles all you want; people like you enjoy entertainment while those who “get” the Beatles appreciate art.

  6. Ah yes, the token iconoclastic dip of a kid who thinks that because they are able to be published in a college newspaper it makes their opinion relevant.

    Well, sir, your attempt to either troll or parody Beatlemania is a boring failure.

  7. Uh, yeah; The Beatles didn’t “try” new things. If anything, they actually repressed rock music into (2-3 minute) pop ditties. However, I think everyone can agree that they were all good at making money.

  8. Kevin Conlon says:

    Thank you – finally someone who agrees with me. Overrated!

    I understand that they were immensely popular – but popularity alone does not make them the “best band ever” or “most talented” – not even close!

  9. I love your argument, but it is wrong!

    Stevie Ray Vaughan covered many of Jimi Hendrix’s songs and improved upon the difficulty of the guitar, yet he is nowhere near as talented of a musician as Jimi Hendrix. Not even close! Stevie Ray Vaughan could never write those songs! Same thing with Wilson Pickett.

    You are basing your argument solely on talent. That’s wrong. I don’t think any musical historian will argue that they are the most talented musicians of all time. They are arguably the most influential band of all time! You did not explain how the statement “The Beatles revolutionized music and, without them, we would not have (insert band here).” is false and weak. Explain to me how it is false and weak! The musical theory in their songs was astonishing. To this day I compare songs like Eleanor Rigby and Strawberry Fields Forever to modern music and I am still stunned at the musical theory. They bridged so many gaps for styles and uniqueness. They affected the sound of so many bands that came after them. You can’t deny that.

    All you have to do is study the music that was coming out when the Beatles started making music and compare it with the music that came out afterward. Compare the influences that they had on current bands out. Other hit bands started experimenting with their styles and pressing the boundaries of recording technologies because of the techniques that the Beatles had used in their albums.

    However, they are not the greatest band of all time. Just because they tried new things and influenced pop music as greatly as they did does not make them the greatest band. The Beatles never would have existed without Elvis Presley. I could argue his influence on pop music. He’s not the greatest musician to ever live.

    To say they suck is based out of your bitterness and dislike for their music and has no respect for history. You need to respect what effect they had on the history of music without factoring in the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears.

  10. The crowd at Shea stadium was crazier than any metal band every stood in front of – they couldn’t hear themselves – remember this is 1960 amplifiers and sound systems – too boot Shea was a mega baseball stadium packed to the rafters with screaming teenage girls – the Band couldn’t hear themselves – in fact their fans were so crazy they couldn’t get from the airport to the shows – couldn’t go out in public period and poor John got shot by a deranged fan – you didn’t live it – so you couldn’t possibly know it – go back and look at the Beatles anthology – rent it from net flix – that was sheer madness and on a level that Michael Jackson, Miley or Elvis didn’t even experience.

    The paparazzi nowadays chasing Brittney is nothing compared to what these guys went through.

    They went into hiding and rightfully so. It wasn’t until john came back out with a new album that he got shot – wish he never recorded the damn thing…

    Your points about George Martin are right but overstated – the Beatle songs are not easy to play – pick up a guitar and try and play I Will – its a two minute little love song tucked away on the White album – sounds simple right – there’s about a hundred chord changes going on in a matter of a minute and a half – not that complicated is good or simple is bad (big AC/DC fan and John Lee Hooker as well) but to dismiss the Beatles is generational envy perhaps – that none of your favorites have achieved Beatle like acclaim although you think their music is better. How music speaks to the individual is what it is all about – so you are “allowed” to think your tunes are the best….it’s a question of taste and its up to the individual – that being said….

    Think about this – everyone knows who Neil Armstrong is but can’t name the last set of astronauts to go up to the Space Station – and I think that was last week…anyway the Beatles broke barrier after barrier in what popular music was, how it was made, what it was about,and what it could be…they aren’t the only ones – but they had the biggest impact.

    Sorry Chuck Berry

    A case could be made for the Allman Brothers being the second most influential band – they introduced a whole new genre, expanded on it and are still refining it today. The Allmans are my favorite and have been for a long time —

    If I had more time I’d talk about jazz and the hard bop era – Harlem – in the 50′s – Dizzy, Miles, Coltrane, Coleman Hawkins, Monk and Molby to name a few…

    Variety is the spice of life – it applies to music too – I’m listening to Telemann right now.

    • Im going to have to say your wrong when it comes to Michael Jackson he’s in the book of world records for the biggest concert. Not to mention that he had to rent out a grocery store just to have a normal shopping experience. Thousands of fans would stand and chant outside of his hotel room. At the age of 12 his fans stormed the stage and they had to end the concert early. Fans would climb the gate and break into his house. Hundreds of fans would pass out at concerts so he had to have ambulances on call . Not to mebtion fabs,would run on stage and try to kiss,and grab him

  11. If you can say the Beatles suck, than I can say your an idiot.
    A band can stop playing live shows when accumaltivly there record sales have soared near one billion. Nobody needs to convice you of anything. The Beatles were revolunary, nothing is more annoying than you trying to convice somebody they were anything but. The only thing weak is your argument. You reak jelously, your favorite band Good Charlotte never made it. Get over it. Love and peace were a generartional issuse, just as it is now, brought back by popular band, or for victoria secret to make a buck. Jelousy will take over anyone. Such as your jelousy with Brittney Spears and the BackStreet Boys,they had real talent unlike your writting. Quite contradicting that you bash a band yet still have a favorite song. Your points arent valid.Thank you for proving to CMU that you will all make horrible journalist. CMlife blows.

  12. Are you kidding me?

    Your entire article comes off as a pretentious display of music knowledge that is filled with your personal hatred of The Beatles. You said, “But you know so much about music, you probably already knew that,” I’m sorry we do not all have the immense music knowledge someone like you does. Hey, good for you that you do not like The Beatles, but saying that they “suck” and they are “overrated” is ridiculous. Look at all of the bands and artists who covered The Beatles songs. How does that not show immense respect for a great band? You mention Hendrix and Allman being excellent guitarists, which they both were, but those are individuals. Yeah, MAYBE Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison could not compare to other musicians individually, but when they played together as The Beatles there is no doubt they made great music. It is too bad you are too busy writing articles like this and bashing an influential band like The Beatles just because you think you “know” music. I’m also glad you compared The Beatles to the Backstreet Boys because that makes complete sense to do something like that. The Beatles are going to be relevant long into this current century and hopefully by that time you will have realized how good they really are.

    Also, to the person who said used Oasis as an example of a “great” band, go look at who their biggest influence was/still is……yep THE BEATLES. Good for you!

  13. you misspelled “Rick Rubin”

  14. Figures garbage like this would appear in a Chips publication. Go eagles, and go to hell.

  15. You have no idea how much I wanted to punch this guys in the face when reading this.

    To say the Beatles were not talented is crazy! From the years 1963-1970 they released 13 albums. 13. Nowadays, we would be lucky to get 4 albums in that time frame from any band.

    And I find the argument of George Martin invalid. Yes, he was “the fifth Beatle” and yes, he did help them immensely. But when it comes down to it, nobody remembers the producer, only the artists. As sad as that is, it’s true. Unless you are an avid music fan and know the ins and outs of every band out there, you couldn’t tell me the producer of many bands out there.

    And past personal opinions, what do use to rate success? If it’s personal opinion than you are part of a slim minority that will normally turn out to be wrong. But if it’s stats that you look at to measure success than here are a few:

    One billion discs/tapes/CDs sold.

    19 number 1 albums.

    132 weeks at Number 1 for albums.

    Lennon and McCartney combined for 58 number one songs as songwriters.

    First and only band to ever hold the top five spots on the Billboard singles charts.

    If this doesn’t go as talent, then I don’t know what does. Please somebody educate this fool!

  16. Wow. You got one thing right. George Martin was truly the fifth Beatle. Though they were underrated – they were not GREAT instrumentalists – true. Who is? Probably some jazz or classical cat. Rock is not about being precise. Jimi Page was THE most innovative guitarist of the 70′s – but he was sloppy as all get out. So what?

    What really set the Beatles apart was their ability to crank out album after album of great melodic tunes…written by them…and not some behind the scenes songwriting team. Any wannabe can bang some bar chords, scream some mindless lyrics and call it a song (no offense to them – as I like those songs too!) – but few can write a creative and catchy melody – let alone scores of them! Songs that you can tear away the special effects, the overdubs, the decibels – and still have something left.

    They stopped playing live – not because of ‘unruly’ crowds – but because it was pointless to perform to a crowd that screamed at the top of their lungs non-stop. Those trying to listen – could not hear anything.

    West Archer obviously knows nothing of the 60′s. It was the Beatles who finally broke the 2:50 pop song mold. Have you never listened to the White Album? The Beatles were so innovative that their contemporaries were watching their every move – and either following their lead – or trying (unsuccessfully) to outdo them. Sgt. Pepper drove Brian Wilson over the edge.

    I’m a big fan of Hendrix…but to say he had more talent? Puh-leeze!

    Backstreet Boys? Do (did?) they even write their own songs? Do they even play instruments?

    Hey – I hear Eminem is a master poet. You’d probably like him.

  17. If the Beatles were to read this they would say, “Thank you” Good press or bad press it doesn’t matter. Someone who reads this is going to wonder what you’re talking about and will find a Beatles song or someone is going to go turn on an album and listen to their favorite song just to spite you. Either way they are STILL getting more attention.

    The Beatles were not JUST band they were a lifestyle. This is how people felt, this is how people lived, this is how people sang, and this is how thought in that time. There are still so many people that are this way today.

    Just because you can’t hear it and just because you can’t feel it.. that doesn’t mean there is isn’t something to be felt.

  18. Boy oh boy people sure are defensive.

  19. You’re lack of knowledge is evident. The Beatles learned their craft on the road for 8 years before they stopped touring. They had become bigger than the technology out there to support a concert of any quality. They turned the recording studio into a creative tool. There was no Pro-Tool and pitch correction. Sgt. Pepper was recorded on 4 track machines linked together – tell me what recordings made in the digital age sounds better than a Beatles record? They took technology of the day and pushed it past it’s limits by being innovative. Technology today is far superior to most of the “artists” using it. And what about the Rolling Stone top 100 guitarists? Pete Townshend is # 30!!! Those pols are meaningless. And it’s great that Wilson Pickett did “Hey Jude” , but someone had to write it. You obviously have no business writing about music.

  20. This has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read. The Beatles “suck”? Sorry, but I think the only thing that sucks is your inability to understand music. The Beatles catalog is indeed the greatest in pop music and the musical contributions the band made are both revolutionary and ground-breaking. What they did for pop music was amazingly remarkable and has never been matched or equalled.

    Obviously, this will not change your mind as it is apparent that you are extremely myoptic in your perspective. Unfortunately, you have been given a forum for your woefully inadquate assessment of music. Don’t you find it interesting that every other valid critcal assessment of the Beatles runs counter to what you say?

  21. People are not buying Beatles Rock Band and the new remastered CD’s because of name recognition but because of song recognition…and that is not hype.

  22. You are completely ignorant on the subject of music, and by the looks of your picture, probably at most things in this life. You have quite possibly just written the most nonsensical, worst researched, and all around stupidest article I’ve ever read…and I am sad to say I actually did poison my brain with the entire article. I didn’t think your writing style was completely worthless but please stop writing about subjects that you have no understanding of.

  23. Oooookayyy… Glad you got that off your chest guy.

    Why is this in CM Life?

  24. Phil Spector says:

    This is pathetic. Your journalism is more of a rant than an explanation. You give no expertise in music. This is tabloid junk. The Beatles merged pop and rock & roll, something the Who, The Clash, and AC/DC should all thank them for. And why talk about George Martin when you don’t even talk (or know) about Phil Spector?

    Honestly, why did The Life even publish this?

  25. I agree that the Beatles are very overrated, but this article is condescending and ignorant. “You know so much about music you probably already knew that.” Who are you arguing with? The only person coming across as a self-obsessed music connoisseur is yourself.

    I’d debate you point to point but it’s clear from the first sentence of this article that you’re just trying to be sensational and inflammatory. I see you already have 17 comments online, so congratulations.

  26. Phil Spector says:

    Honestly, just pathetic.

  27. The Beatles hit at the right place, right time, for the right sector of society. Does this mean they sucked? No. But this does mean they were benefactors of amazing timing, which still plays a huge role is music today.

    It seems silly to pose anachronistic examples, but if the Beatles came out now, I doubt it would be the same reaction for their oeuvre, and if the parents of this generation didn’t grow up listening to/being heavily exposed to this music, then I do not believe the younger generation would have so much reverence to the music as they do.

    Again–good band? Yes. Life changing, existential crisis solving experience? Not necessarily. The “new” the Beatles brought is very much dependent on what music people already listened to, which is a whole other issue altogether.

  28. The Beatles are number ONE!

    Three cheers for Stu, Chelsea and Zachary.

    To compare the Beastie Boys, Jay-Z, or Weezer to the Beatles in any way, or to say the Beatles would “be in a basement doing drugs and trying to make albums” without George Martin only demonstrates spectacular ignorance.

    And speaking of ignorance, Jimi Hendrix’s playing hand was his right.

    I think Matthew Stephens sucks.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

  29. I admit that the Beatles do have some good songs but I dont understand the “greatest band ever” hype either.

    When it comes to sixties music, I always prefer Motown, Simon and Garfunkel and other musicians.

  30. Garret Ellison says:

    So, you hate the Beatles because their instrumentation was simple, they’ve become a pop culture phenomenon and have over-adoring fans… I suppose you never stopped to think, Matt, that your anger is misplaced.

    Rather than trashing a band who became famous in an entirely different and unique era, perhaps you might instead direct your sizable anger issues toward the annoying come-lately Beatles fans you keep calling out in the second person. Yeah, they’re irritating. Get used to it. They’re almost as annoying as pretentious student journalists who use their forum to complain, not to contribute.

    You should stick to taking photos and leave the pop culture commentary to people who actually understand pop culture.

  31. Articles like this make CMU look retarded. Please pull this garbage from the site. This kid has no idea what real music is, he said Backstreet boys were revolutionary? Matthew Stephens I would love to see what is on your Ipod.

  32. Are you really this ignorant? I am trying to figure out what in the hell might have been going through you head when you wrote this.

    Your are right, the Beatles didn’t revolutionize music, they however did make what music is today possible. It is about thinking outside of “the box” to create something so creatively talented and likable that yup, today we still love it. How does that not influence any other musician that is alive today?

    You wrote that “…without them, we would not have (insert band here).” You are very correct, we would still have the “insert band here”, however we all know it wouldn’t have been as good.

    How can you possibly compare Wilson Pickett’s version of ‘Hey Jude’
    to that of the Beatle’s? Do you even know who wrote the song, and what it was written about? Wilson Pickett just added some R&B to it then collected some money for what? Being influenced by the Beetles. By the way the Beetles version ranked US #1, Pickett ranked #23.

    I think that your upset because your in a one man kazoo band with a cow bell and a triangle and just can’t catch any rhythm to ‘Hey Jude’ after years of failure.

    Sucks to be you!

    To the editors of the paper, what were you thinking?

  33. This is a solid article. The people attacking it are simply diehard fans of the Beatles. They don’t see things the other way at all, and take that as an attack, or whatever, but it’s the truth.

    How can people sick back and comment and say none of this is factual. Almost, if not everything he mentioend in this article is 100% true.

    The plain and simple truth to this is that The Beatles were a good band for their time – they’re music was popular for that generation, it’s no different than Elvis. Do you think Elvis would be as popular as he was now if he had just been releasing music today? Of course not. The simple fact of the matter is is that the Beatles made good music, a lot of it. They basically created a new genre, and when you do that, it tends to be popular.

    Now, to say they are the BEST BAND EVER!!!111 is extremely ridiculous, and just like people feel there are holes in this article, there are holes in that theory.

    Just because you’re popular DOES NOT mean you’re the best thing music has ever seen, and people need to get that through their head.

  34. You had to know that you were going to be ridiculed and lambasted for writing this. Having said that, I commend you on having the intestinal fortitude to do a little truthtelling and offend all the Beatles sycophants out there. They are a nice pop band…that is all. All the hero worship is simply misplaced.

  35. You are soooo over your boundary here. There is no basis of fact in your argument, AND any musician from the last 40+ years will tell you that The Beatles were of some influence in their own recordings. You have no real taste in music. If you did, you would realize this and not be such a pompous over blown idiot. Go back to your apartment and keep listening to Moby. Leave the Beatles alone…Moby probably got some of his style from them also.

  36. Oh Matt Stephens, I know how you love causing controversy and riling people up. Well, bravo on this one.

    I like The Beatles, but I understand how you can think they’re overrated, you make some good points in your column.

    But then you go and say they suck, when I feel like you don’t mean it.

    I think Paramore sucks, I couldn’t list one good thing about the band. You seem to at least appreciate SOME of the Beatles’ music (otherwise, why would you have a favorite Beatles song?) You didn’t want to write an article people would agree with, making good points. You wanted to make people angry. Well, you’ve done that (but not this guy, no siree).

    If I were in Mt. Pleas, I’d be your bodyguard, buddy.

  37. No, people defending against this article are not just die-hard Beatles fans, rather music fan.

    And to CMLife, it isn’t very “professional” to let an article come out that starts with “The Beatles suck.” Just saying…

  38. Noone Special says:

    Don’t give up your day job. Seriously, is this meant to be journalism?

    What’s next? You’ll tell us how Nickelback is underappreciated I suppose?

  39. What a great way to drum up readers for your website! Next time, please have some valid content that is not pure flamebait.

  40. I posted this on a few message boards, and I think the reply from Sean, a professional musician and developer at Harmonix, put it best.

    “This guy is an idiot.”

  41. You will never get a real job in journalism if you keep writing unintelligent and unresearched articles like this, to untalented attention whore.

  42. To all those suggesting that The Beatles aren’t the best band ever, I’d love to hear what group you think is “the best ever”. I have yet to see anyone offering their opinion on that since The Beatles were “great for their time” even though they are EVERYWHERE in media these days. Can you think of a more timeless and relevant band who’s music was created 40 years ago?

  43. You’re just looking for attention, aren’t you?

  44. Your argument is terrible. Every big band/artist had someone behind the scenes who discovered or helped them. They also all had issues with band members internally. So what’s your point? You don’t like them…that’s your point.

    This is isn’t a “Staff Report”, it’s better suited as a rant on a personal Blog.

    It’s just an embarrasment to CML.

  45. You sir are an idiot. What journalist worth his salt starts off a constructive criticism article with a line like “The Beatles suck”? I am not a die-hard Beatles fan, but I appreciate music history enough to know that is a wholly unqualified statement. When you have the volume of number one hits and records the Beatles have, then you are obviously going to be an influence on other artists, pop culture etc. To deny their influence or to compare it to a band like the Backstreet Boys, or an artist like Brittany Spears is missing the point completely. You would have done better to compare them to New Kids on the Block, who influenced a whole generation of “boy bands” like NSync, 98 degrees and the afore mentioned Backstreet Boys. Even then their influence is just a small fraction of the Beatles. Music inspires music. It is an evolutionary process. The Beatles were undeniably a huge step in that evoultionary chain.

  46. You’re such a douche lol.

  47. I hope your major isn’t in journalism…

    Not because you think the Beatles suck, but because your “editorial” reads more like a bad blog.

    It’s your perogative to not like the Beatles or to consider them hacks even, but if you’re going to publish an article claiming such, you might want to include some facts that bolster such a claim and not rely on your own limited knowledge of the band.

    It’s not fair of people who lived through that time period to expect today’s generation to fall all over themselves worshipping the Beatles, the Stones or anyone else from the era. You weren’t there, you’ll never dig it.

    But it’s a fact that you weren’t there…you don’t know the feeling of the times, of experiencing the death of a president, of living through a social revolution, fearing a war going wrong and being drafted into it, being the kids of “the Greatest Generation”…these very things that made up the fabric of the times helped created the artists of the time, the Beatles being the foremost of the era.

    And because of not being there, it may not give you appreciation of the band, which is perfectly fine, but if you want to be taken serious about the venom you spit, get a clue about what you speak of…or maybe that’s what your afraid of. Maybe you’re afraid that if you actually got knowledgable about them, you’d have to at least repsect them, even if their music doesn’t grab you.

    For starters, here’s some people for you to research: Brian Epstein, Pete Best, Stu Sutcliff, Klaus Voorman…and that’s just from the early days.

  48. This argument is weak. There was no backing evidence for this argument. He makes statements then just jumps to the next without even completing it or telling us why it matters. The Beatles had a producer that recorded their albums and this detracts from their greatness how? They aren’t the most talented musicians on their respective instruments, but they are undoubtedly talented songwriters and collaborators. Dissect the band by each part and they aren’t the greatest, but together they did something in their short time together that is still enjoyed by people of every age, every nationality and every walk of life. This is mainly an issue of personal taste and I enjoy The Beatles a lot, though they’re not my favorite band, but I don’t think you can really deny the power that their songs, albums, themselves had when they first existed and the power they still do today. I think that is why people consider them the greatest.

  49. Saw this on the Rock Band’s forums (thanks BigOne). Looks like this is where he got all his info

    http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/beatles-over-rated.php?ssid=2

  50. Sean says:
    September 10, 2009 at 5:44 pm
    Saw this on the Rock Band’s forums (thanks BigOne). Looks like this is where he got all his info

    http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/beatles-over-rated.php?ssid=2

    Wow, looks like he lifted the entire article. Plagerism at its finest. Credibility lost.

  51. Well it was just a rambling Blog really.

    Anyway, one could argue till the cows came home about the “talent” of the Beatles. Problem is, some people overvalue musicianship and undervalue song-writing. It’s alot harder to write a catchy song and add lyrics than it is to learn to play an instrument.
    The Beatles were great songwriters and average musicians. That doesn’t make them over-rated at all. THe ability to write a song that sticks in peoples heads is far more important than being able to lay down an awesome guitar solo. Our memories are far more tied to lyrics and catchy riffs and that triggers our emotions.
    Any band that can have 45 songs on a disc that everyone is familiar with has to be considered one of the greatest bands of all times. Even if some of there earliest tunes were fairly simple, they definitely grew as a band musically and certainly were influential. Hell Nirvana was very influential as well and none of their music was overly skillful. But both the Beatles and Nirvana changed things up and struck a chord with the populace. If you look at what was popular when the Beatles hits were out, their sound was nothing like what everyone else was doing.
    Well, he got what he was hoping for. Response. This sort of thing is nothing new, though, nor is it unique to him. Every generation has people who try to kill the previous generation’s idols. It’s what separates the good from the great and the ordinary from the legendary.

  52. Sounds like this guy has never been laid! And probably never will be!!

  53. I bet you listen to bands that don’t even exist yet.

  54. Take a deep breath. Relax.

    Now, take one day go and listen to Beatles albums in order.

    Then, form an opinion.

  55. Sucks that you don’t get the Beatles.

    PS – Shave. Now.

    PPS – Now that you are done shaving, you may KYS.

  56. thanks for the laugh Matthew Stephens

  57. Boy, I’m no a huge fan of them, but I think you are such an idiot. In first place, if you write this in a serious way, the first thing you should have done is knowing well of what you are going to write, and after reading you, It’s clearly for me you haven’t done your homework boy.
    Your comments of beatles facts, shows you are so closed-mind to see why almost millions of people say that THE BEATLES are the best band of the history. Do you Know anyhing from that period, or the music that was sounding in that decade?I’m refering to making music, not picking a song other guy write, and played it, and sold it. It’s not so easy.
    They changed so much things in all the music business, from the beginning (start writing)to the end (videos, Lps, shows, movies!)they changed the way of making music.I believe almost all the people of the world would be capable of whistling at least, one of their songs, and there have been Big bands and singer after them, but I don’t think this could happen with britney spears, don’t you?
    Don’t you seem a little strange that you say something against million of opinions?be smartier boy, took perspective and think maybe you’re wrong. Or missinformed. I can understand all people could not love Beatles songs, but saying what you’ve said just put you in evidence.
    If you only were trying for a bit of attention…well, you’ve done it. But The prize has been beeing such a retarded young boy to all people that have read this. Congrats
    PD: Took a good faith advice: the next time you write something, try to argue things with something in your hand, not only your opinion. If you don’t do it…It’ll be like a child could say about, I like it, or I don’t like it ;)

  58. Haha. Laughing my a$$ off at the poor lil’ boy and his childish rant about what other people like.

    You don’t like The Beatles, fine, everyone’s entitled to their opinion. To paraphrase you lil’ one, “Nothing is more annoying than someone tyring to convince me The Beatles weren’t the most innovative and influential band ever.

    The Beatles get exactly the recognition they deserve. Enough said.

  59. Hey, idiot. You don’t have to be the best guitarist to make good music.

  60. I just lol’d; Lou, you mentioned that The Beatles broke the 2:50 mark? To what extent? By making their songs 3:30? Do some research kid. The Beatles were innovative at practically nothing except for making rock music more marketable.

  61. Bradley (lol), your logic is very weak.

    Richard Nixon influenced a whole generation after his term, but that does not make him a great musician.

    Given the subjectivity of this debate, it is quite humorous that you are trying to logically prove that The Beatles are the greatest band by referring to “45 singles” on one album. Also that you cite such another lousy band, Nirvana, to prove your case is so faulty in argument that there really is no point in responding to your demands.

    Plus, how do lyrics promote good music over the actual sound? This isn’t rock literature; this is rock music. If you were trying to compare their lyrics to say-classical poets- their lyrics would be too obscure and strange to actually have any artistic quality.

    It is unfortunate that neither of us can win this debate considering it is all formed on opinion. However, the fact that you Beatlesfanatics get so upset (like a stubborn German) makes me giggle.

  62. Before this comments section continues, let me clarify a few things.

    1) This is not an article. It’s a column – an opinion. Some people were questioning why CM Life would run this as news, when it is not. It is simply somebody’s opinion acting as a counterpoint to The Beatles’ legacy. Hence, why it ran with the main Campus VIBE package, “Re-meet The Beatles.”

    and

    2) Many are asking “Why would CM Life ever run something like this?” Campus VIBE is an off-beat section of the newspaper and is not treated like a normal news section. It is a place for our writers and editors, at our discretion, to publish opinion pieces such as this one, when they package well with centerpieces such as The Beatles.

    Whether you agree or disagree with Matthew is completely up to you. I happen to like The Beatles. But I thought I would defend Matthew with people calling his and CM Life’s journalistic qualities into question.

  63. How come an unprofessional, unresearched and unintelligent article like yours is posted online?

    I suggest you to get a life.

  64. Matt’s a great photographer and a smart guy, so I’m going to go at it on his turf.
    Big point is that his contention is that X sucks but he only goes about proving that X is over rated.
    Here’s how Matt did it and in () why his arguments fail:
    Ansel Adams sucks.
    How can a guy who thought color was not real photo art be considered the greatest photographer ever? (Making assumption that everything that is not greatest therefore sucks, as well as admitting that conventional wisdom holds something is the greatest that you contend sucks)
    Without him we wouldn’t have to suffer Annie Lebowitz’s Lavazza glossies. (Why does Lebowitz’s on and off work depend on Adams, like there wouldn’t have been others?)
    Adams reprinted Moonlight, New Mexico and a few others for the last 20 years of his life, he could have added to his art, met his followers or produced more work. (Even artists have to pay the bills and I find inspiration to be fleeting so it follows that aging or tired artists would be less productive than hungry ones)
    Adams had collaborators and promoters and connections that drove his fame as much as anything else. Fred Archer did as much to develop the zone system, Adams’ most famous technical achievement, as Adams did. (How does a lack of credit for Archer take away from Adams and promoters promote that because that’s what promoters do, give credit to the talent and cash that check)
    For every great Adams print there is another boring, composed-by-numbers piece in some museum. (Duh, most artists make alot of crap but when you become famous people dig through your crap and like it or at least pretend to)
    Adams preached environmentalism and conservationism (But he also advocated for 1940/50s suburban sprawl and had several houses, produced tons of toxic materials in his labs).
    Sure Adams took some good pictures but he was not the best at evoking emotion, Henri Cartier-Bresson bested Adams there.
    Statistically speaking, Stiglitz is the most important photographer by surveying textbooks. (This is just throwing out a survey that may prove that Adams isn’t the best but there are suckage surveys if that was really to be proved.)
    Experiment over.
    While a lot Ansel Adams’ work is tedious, he was ahead of his time, and much of his work is timeless, visionary, technically years ahead of its time and still influential. (Sound like I’m making a point?)
    You can’t give Adams any points for environmentalism if you deny it to the Beatles for their hippy-dippy ways.
    You can’t give him influence on others or ground breaking or innovative if you deny The Beatles that. His work holds up as well as The Beatles. George Martin isn’t as obscure as you seem to think he is, but Archer is.

  65. I would certainly second Brian’s point. I’ve worked with Matt and he does lots of great journalism at the paper, which itself does some of the best college newspaper work in the country. This column is one small part of one issue, if you disagree with this please read some more because there’s plenty of good stuff here.
    I disagree with Matt’s logic and conclusion in this column but think he came at it in a fun and challenging, albeit ultimately poorly argued way. I think he hit two of those three marks of good journalism right on the head.
    At the end of the day, it’s Matt’s opinion and I doubt that my post or any of yours will sway him.
    But I enjoyed getting fired up for a lengthy response (now two responses) and I think I wasn’t the only one.

    - Mike Ellis
    former CM Lifer

  66. The Backstreet boys were revolutionary but the Beatles were not?? How was this artical even published. This is a disgrace.

  67. I read this last night and I was surprised at how much this “article” got to me. I was mulling it over as I tried to fall asleep and my initial reactions were that Matthew wrote this simply because he knew it would get people all fired up and that somewhere in this town this young man was giddily giggling at all the attention he is getting. I understand that this is an opinion piece in the vibe section where rebellious young writers can spew hip and un-hip thoughts alike, but this day, this opinion is wrong and ignorant. You don’t have to like the Beatles, you don’t have to like their music. There is however a basic respect and understanding one must grasp as to where their legacy is in the scheme of popular music and rock ‘n’ roll. Schooling you in simple terms of music revolution might be beyond the scope of what your closed mind is willing to accept right now. Backstreet Boys revolutionary? How? Ironically one could argue The Beatles started the “boy band” craze and lets not forget The Jackson 5 and The Osmonds. You shouldn’t have to be sold on the fact the The Beatles promoted love and peace as much as it promoted Helter Skelter. There comes a point in any human’s life who has tremendous influence where their message becomes bigger than themselves. Greed, in-fighting, and jealousy will of course come with the territory, it’s rock ‘n’ roll and they are human. You can’t ignore “Give Peace a Chance” was sung by a quarter million Vietnam protesters in D.C. in 1969. Put yourself in the context of the sixties and imagine how immensely powerful that must have been. The Beatles were fortunate enough to have the greatest record producer of all time. You can argue what would have happen had he not be there but your point is null considering Martin WAS there and part of the package which help solidify The Beatles role in music history. Like Bobby Dylan, the Beatles were not the best at what they did, they were the only ones. Like Booby Dylan, there is a reason musicians cover great songs and make them “better” or “theirs”, it’s because those were the songs that spoke to them and help them discover what it is about the music that moves them. I would encourage you to take a walk over to the music department and stop anyone who is still breathing and ask them how they were influenced by the Beatles and I challenge you to go an entire day without seeing something in music, advertising, headlines, or idle conversation that doesn’t reference the Beatles in some way. I would also encourage you to do some research into how innovative they were in the studio. Technology became an instrument. Hopefully some basic “Google-ing” isn’t overrated in your eyes.

    I also think the Rock Band game is silly but that’s just my opinion.

  68. They stopped doing concerts so they could focus on what bands are supposed to do: Make music.

    I know it’s the beginning of the semester and you want to get right out there and shock some people with your uncompromising journalism, but you just listed a bunch of minor complaints and then blew them out of proportion.

    Are they the greatest band ever? No, The Beach Boys are… but still, the effect that The Beatles had on music and culture are so rediculously huge and undeniable that it’s laughable that anyone would question it, regardless of whether they like the band or not.

    Also, people always make it sound like George Martin was some sinister invisible hand pulling along the band by their puppet strings. He was a producer, not a dictator. If he mixed a song, and it didn’t sound like Lennon (as an example) had imagined (lol!), John Lennon is going to tell him it sucks, and give his input. There might not be many Beatles albums without Martin’s fingerprints on them, but there are plenty of songs.

  69. Well great job at saying absolutely nothing intelligent. You have the right to your own opinion, but, to say that the Backstreet Boys were even remotely revolutionary makes you an idiot with an opinion. The Beatles stopped playing live shows because it was too loud to hear the band playing and they weren’t getting any better. Even just a little research would’ve made this “article” much more factual.

  70. this sucks you have no idea what youre talking about

  71. What a horribly written article. Seriously, have you ever heard of a freaking paragaph? It doesn’t bother me that you don’t like The Beatles, even if you are wrong about their influence, but it bothers me that you have no clue how to write a proper article.

    I also find it ironic that someone who hates The Beatles so even knows who George Martin is, and even has a “favorite Beatle song”. That’s a bit like me saying “OH I hate McDonalds, but Ray Kroc is a marketing genius and a Big Mac is my favorite burger there.” Or saying “Oh I hate Starbucks, but geez those three men knew what they were doing when they made my favorite drink, a caramel non fat frappucino”.

    As to the statement that The Beatles aren’t the greatest band of all time, just freaking READ something why don’t ya? You quoted Rolling Stone, yet you failed to mention that they have 4 BEATLE albums among the top 10 of all time, and 8 in the top 100.

    Oh, since it’s obvious you don’t do any RESEARCH, here is a quick snippet from RS for you to read:

    “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is the most important rock & roll album ever made, an unsurpassed adventure in concept, sound, songwriting, cover art and studio technology by the greatest rock & roll group of all time.”

    I’d love to see who you consider the greatest rock and roll group of all time…. care to share?

  72. Matthew Stephens: I can’t tell whether your article is an attempt to provoke people and thereby make a name for yourself, or you’re an idiot. I hope it’s the latter, because the rest of us can take comfort in the fact that a man who writes such an ill-conceived article that doesn’t contain even a scintilla of irony is an idiot; nothing more, nothing less.

  73. anyone who likes the beatles is an idiot.. period.. Put any rolling stones song to the beatles and the stones would win, They are the greatest band of all time

  74. Hey Alex look I can do it too,

    anyone who likes the Rolling Stones is an idiot.. period.. Put any Beatles song to the Rolling Stones and the Beatles would win. They are the greatest band of all time

    No I don’t really think the Rolling Stones are bad I just hate it when people try to assert their OPINIONS as facts. Those are two wildly different things and most people on the internet aren’t intelligent enough to discern the difference.

  75. Okay Matthew. i guess whatever underground holier than thou band you listen to, somehow makes you the god of music.
    Every idiot who picks up a guitar thinks they can rate past bands with some kind of insider insight. Some simple facts for you and the unfortunately possibly mentally deficiant, west archer person.

    1. No band in the history of the WORLD has ever been covered BY PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS , more than the beatles. ( that should tell you enough, but hey your ignorant anyway so ill continue)

    2. here are some quotes by some people maybe you will know.

    All you could do was to see them. We were backstage when the Beatles were on and you could just about hear a noise. It was just literally screaming. They were the greatest there ever was.
    Roger Daltrey

    Almost everything The Beatles did was great, and it’s hard to improve on. They were our Bach.
    T-Bone Burnett

    And I said, ‘Why not? It’s the truth! Why can’t I say I’m a Beatles fan?’ I used to get criticized for that. But I am and always will be a fan, they are what we all aspire to be.
    Buck Owens

    From 1962 to 1965, the guitar became this icon of youth culture, thanks mostly to the Beatles.
    Pat Metheny

    I don’t think anybody comes close to The Beatles.
    Brian May

    I just got into the Beatles a couple years ago, you know, I like it, they are great.
    Ziggy Marley

    you can say all guitar bands after the Beatles were just a waste of time because the Beatles were the best.
    Stephen Malkmus

    My favorite artists have always been Elvis and The Beatles , they were the greatest , and they still are!
    Johnny Ramone

    So whenever I hear The Beatles I always feel I’ve got a lot in common with everybody else.
    Robyn Hitchcock

    I went through a lot of musical phases, and one was when I’d learn everything that The Beatles ever recorded. After I started drums, I fell in love with their music so much that I just wanted to learn everything.
    Eric Carr

    You can’t beat The Beatles, you join ‘em.
    Peggy Lee

    You know, I was such a big Beatles fan, and when I’d buy a new album I’d invariably hate it the first time I heard it ’cause it was a mixture of absolute joy and absolute frustration. I couldn’t grasp what they’d done, and I’d hate myself for that.
    Andy Partridge

    i could go on for days.
    i guess thousands of professional musicians, artists, rock and roll hall of fame members, from a wide range of genres all are just lying, just to upset 20 year old know it all’s like you.

  76. found another dumb one says:

    What kind of comments did you think you were gonna get when this was posted. Your only talking about the greatest band in history. And by the way,when you try to compare the backstreet boys to the beatles, you are basically kicking the beatles in the balls. Horrible, horrible comparison on your behalf. You have to realize that the backstreet boys had a real live faggot in their band…that fucks it all up for your little gay theory. You are basically trying to compare the greatest song writers ever to some fucking faggots.

    p.s.
    Whether you want to believe it or not, The Beatles are the greatest band in the world. No band was ever as big as the beatles and no band will ever be as big as the beatles.

  77. Yes! I am not the only one! I just can’t stand The Beatles. I read this blog a few days ago who were actually bashing The Beatles in a humoristic kinda way. It was funny, informative and contained facts. I don’t know if you accept URLs in your comments, but if you do, here it is: http://www.whythisblogsucks.com/

  78. I’m sick of this argument. Especially when you’re just trying to get views.

  79. Its true what they say, opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one, and they all stink.

    This is the most piffy dribble I’ve read on the internet, do some research, The Beatles quit touring because they were receiving death threats after the John Lennon vs. Jesus fiasco. Also they received death threats from Japanese concert goers for having a concert in the Budokan.

  80. Theotilda IV says:

    That guy looks like Layne Staley. lol

  81. You should read this Article: “The night Jimi Hendrix played tribute to The Beatles”
    http://www.nme.com/news/jimi-hendrix/28660

    You should try to stop getting your “facts” out of some magazine.

    And as the Wilson Pickett’s version of “Hey Jude”… well he didnt compose the song did he?? so your argument is irrelevant, you are just dumb :)

  82. To “found another dumb one” – seriously, get your facts straight before you comment – Not only was your language crude and dim-witted, the Backstreet Boys did not have a “real live faggot”, as you so elegantly put it. It was Nsync’s Lance that announced he was gay a few years ago.

  83. After playing The Beatles: Rock Band, I must say, they are a completely UNDER rated band!

  84. This should be in print,in my bathroom,so I could wipe with it.

  85. Shame on the Editor for letting this article get published. This has no facts and is nothing but a childish rant.

  86. I can’t help but think that you don’t knw anything about the band and that all your info was taken from a quick google search of ‘The Beatles’.

    This is a child ranting because he wants to get noticed. Good job, Editor.

  87. I believe this video best shows my feelings towards this article.

  88. I would say they influenced almost every genre of rock music. Prog, metal, pop rock, everything. I can’t think of any rock band (to a respectable level) that would say something bad about the Beatles. They are a huge influence on music in general and most influential popular act in the last 50 years.

    Bob Dylan

    “They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. They were pointing the direction music had to go.”

  89. Basically lifted from here…

    http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/beatles-over-rated.php?ssid=1

    so much for journalistic integrity

  90. Saying you don’t like the Beatles is like saying you don’t like music….

    They were and are a cultural phenomenon , a phenonemon which absolutely transcended popular music….

    Listen,do you want to know a secret? ….If, anything, the Beatles legacy is UNDER rated…

  91. I think you should ask for police protection. Seriously! Beatles fans are zealots, and you know what zealotry leads to!

  92. Effin’ A, Matt! You are so right. Motley Crue is the greatest band ever and anyone with taste knows it.

  93. Motley Crue? Motley fuckin’ Crue? I hope you’re joking BSF. If not, maybe you should ask for police protection along with your soulmate Meathead Matt.

  94. YOU YOurself are a product of your own generation . Those millions of baby boomers out there who appreciate all the BEATLES did for thier own generation…DO THINK THEIR ALL THAT! YOU ….. Think that the new music is all that too! Its all in the new music thats out there to be discoverd in the future. Your kids will beleive that YOUR music of your generation will SUCK!

  95. Although the argument may be weak in the article, the author is right. The Beatles are not that great. They have been overhyped for four decades. Sure, they made some good stuff, but when it comes down to it the reason they have such a huge following today is because of all the media outlets that inflate them so much. Face it, the millions of twenty somethings who claim the Beatles as their favorite band and the founders of all things musically great would say the same thing about Right Said Fred if Rolling Stone and every other music magazine kissed his butt as much.

  96. i think its funny how people voice their comments about the Beatles as if they were even alive when the Beatles played. this piece is clearly an opninion, which is ok to have. but please people, most of you not agreeing with the writer’s opinion doesnt make him wrong any more than you being write. NONE OF YOU WERE AROUND IN THE 1960′s, so really your opinions on the Beatles successes are irrelevant, seeing that all the opninions are in retrospect to the actual time period.

  97. Huh? So I’m not allowed an opinion on Beethoven or Mahler because I did’nt witness them composing and preforming?

    In 40 years time they will still be discussing the Beatles like this….but they won’t be discussing any of the acts around now…

  98. What a tosser!

  99. “Face it, the millions of twenty somethings who claim the Beatles as their favorite band and the founders of all things musically great would say the same thing about Right Said Fred if Rolling Stone and every other music magazine kissed his butt as much.”

    Mike, wtf are you even talking about? Rolling Stone touts the greatness of every single album Dylan or Springsteen puts out, but they don’t have anywhere naear the fanbase that the Beatles do, especially amongst the younger crowd. And millions of young people were running out to buy Beatles Rock Band on opening day just because news outlets told them to.

    In short, your argument- just like the argument in the article by Matthew- is weak. We get it. You don’t like the Beatles. We get it. But you guys need to stop coming up with these asinine arguments to support your ridiculous contention that the Beatles weren’t good.

  100. I know responding to this is exactly what drives you to be a total douche, but screw it I’m doing it. I’m not a big fan of The Beatles, but just because YOU don’t like a certain band or genre of music, that doesn’t mean it’s instantly terrible. I really love intense death metal, but do I expect anybody else to like it? Hell no. I’m really just interested in why you (and Central Michigan newspaper for that matter) think your opinion on a band that DID change music, matters so much. I bet you’re an absolute nightmare to have an intelligent argument with, you make me and so many other people sick.

  101. Mr. Stephens poses an interesting argument but doesn’t really see it through. Also, his point about Rick “Ruben” (it’s Rubin) doesn’t really hold water, because he had very little to do with the success of Metallica, Jay-Z or Weezer. Better luck next time.

  102. “anyone who likes the beatles is an idiot.. period.. Put any rolling stones song to the beatles and the stones would win, They are the greatest band of all time.”

    Actually, anyone who makes this kind of comment is an idiot. Period. But I’ve come to expect this from whiney Rolling Stones fans- they simply can’t mention the merit of the Stones without first cutting down the Beatles.

    Simple fact: if we listed the twenty best songs by both the Beatles and the Stones, the latter would have MAYBE one or two songs on that list. HTFH.

  103. Everyone keeps talking about the article…let’s point out the article title. “The Beatles are overrated, enough said…” this would imply that the author actually said something of value…enough said.

  104. This is very funny. In the area I live everyone thinks they are the greatest band ever. And I constantly tell EVERYONE who likes them that they are overrated and don’t even sound very good. I only like a few of their songs but I just thought it was funny that I came across this article extremely irrelevantly. But what he is saying is true. The Beatles are EXTREMELY overrated. I guess people just like jumping on bandwagons (no pun intended) they probably do not know half of the stuff they are singing about, but they like it because of ‘the message it sends’ and the ‘true meaning behind the lyrics’. What the hell does ‘strawberry fields forever even mean?!?!?!

  105. It’s hard to argue with someone when their thesis — that The Beatles are overrated — is fundamentally false.

  106. I’m inclined to agree with Ben here.

    No, the Beatles did not revolutionize ALL types of music. But so many bands these days (even the smaller/local ones) list the Beatles as an influence (either lyrically, harmonically, or melodically) that it is impossible to ignore the impact they’ve had on music. No, not all of their works are strokes of genius, but with the hundreds of songs they wrote and released, cut them a little slack.

    The main problem with your comparison between the Beatles’ fan problem and AC/DC etc.’s fans is completely bogus: they were in DIFFERENT TIMES. The Beatles were the first incredibly major international group to tour, and no one was really sure of how to deal with these crowds yet. The only thing that maybe came close was Elvis and his crowds. You cannot compare groups from different times that have different social codes applying to them.

    And don’t pull this elitist crap on us with the “oh I’ll bet you didn’t know about George Martin” business. Some of us didn’t just jump on the Beatlewagon, some of us do know something about the Beatles.

    And OH NO the Beatles were somewhat hypocritical in their messages versus their lives just like EVERYONE ELSE. You’re in no way being profound.

    The Beatles are huge because of what they mean to people, not because they were the best musicians to ever exist. I’m not saying that.

    It is one thing to say that they are sometimes overrated and you just don’t care for them. But to downright say they suck is insulting. But clearly you weren’t looking for agreement here. You’re one of those writers who just likes to tick people off. If my assumption is indeed correct, then congratulations. You just offended the vast majority of the population of CMU.

  107. You’re adorable.

    You’re not breaking any new ground with your opinion, and what’s more your argument is so vague I can’t help but think the only reason you wrote is was to tick people off.

    You certainly have a right to your opinion, and I can totally see your point of view (my mother is right there with ya, and she’s been explaining it to me for as long as I can remember), but this entire article sounds like you slapped it together within 10 minutes of the deadline.

    Your opinion has been noted, but your argument is incredibly weak. I was kind of hoping for an engaging article, but I guess this is what CM Life has been reduced to.

  108. The Beatles are by far the greatest ever..They recorded the best albums ever: Revolver , Sgt Peppers, Rubber Soul, The white Album, Revolver..The rolling stones , the who, U2 etc have not recorded an album that would have gone further then the studio bin where the Beatles are concerned. They wrote songs in every style one can think of: Jazz, soul, Rock, Ballroom, Ballad, Classical, yet all these songs were integrated into their own unmistakable sound. They sold more records than anyone else, their songs have been covered more than anyone elses..John Lennon was a great Rhythm guitarist and a master lyricist, George Harrison a great Lead guitarist and Paul McCartney was superb on many instruments from Drums to bass and noone could write a catchier tune then him….
    Anyone who came on here to post anything negative about the Beatles is obvioiusly deaf and stupid…..Beatles , only second to Mozart!

  109. The Beatles are by far the greatest ever..They recorded the best albums ever: Revolver , Sgt Peppers, Rubber Soul, The white Album, Abbey Road..The rolling stones , the who, U2 etc have not recorded an album that would have gone further then the studio bin where the Beatles are concerned. Bono and Mick Jagger are technically poor singers. John and Paul are superb singers! The Beatles wrote songs in every style one can think of: Jazz, soul, Rock, Ballroom, Ballad, Classical, yet all these songs were integrated into their own unmistakable sound. They sold more records than anyone else, their songs have been covered more than anyone elses..John Lennon was a great Rhythm guitarist and a master lyricist, George Harrison a great Lead guitarist and Paul McCartney was superb on many instruments from Drums to bass and noone could write a catchier tune then him….
    Anyone who came on here to post anything negative about the Beatles is obvioiusly deaf and stupid…..Beatles , only second to Mozart!

  110. THEBEATLESWEREBRILLIANTCOOL&VERYGOODMUSICIANS! says:

    zissi,

    *YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!!!!*

  111. Pathetic pseudo-argument. People who have chosen to believe the overrated narrative (and I can partly understand why they would; it’s annoying when tons of people go on and on about stuff I don’t get or care about) are hard to refute, because A. most of their argument rests on subjective–thereby irrefutable–statements (ex. Song A is not that great) and cherry-picked supposed counter-examples that are actually used as hasty-generalization or knights and knaves fallacies (ex. Duane Allman played on a song, therefore all of the music came from people other than the Beatles; George Martin innovated parts of the Beatles’ sound, therefore the Beatles are responsible for none of their sound).

    Learn about music, Matthew (ooh…he found out about George Martin! The big secret is out! Oh no!). Actually listen to what happens on Beatles albums (especially after Rubber Soul). Your “argument” is, quite simply, wrong.

  112. If the Beatles are being used to teach in very reputable sound and music schools, I would say they are not overrated.

  113. Chris Walczak says:

    That was a terrible argument. stay in school

  114. You’re an idiot, enough said.

  115. Mr. Morozov says:

    *sigh* While all people are entitled to their opinions, I disagree with you on so many levels. I personally grew up with The Beatles, and I can listen to their music until the day I die. How can you not like them? I dare you to listen to “Octopus’s Garden” and not crack a smile.

    Another thing, The Beatles wrote 292 songs. If you can’t find 10 or more that you like, then you just don’t like music.

    So, by your logic, those millions of people who went to their concerts and bought their albums are idiots, too.

    Also, like many have said before me, you don’t really seem to give very many valid reasons why The Beatles are overrated. I mean, the first line of the article: “The Beatles suck”. Ok then, why? “Jimi Hendrix has more talent in his left hand.” Umm… you seem to not understand how to make a valid debate, my friend.

  116. 2010: A Space Odyssey

    A Proposal.

    Beatlehaters are considering establishing a Tribunal similar to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. The purpose of which is to establish a raft of sweeping draconian laws, backward bureaucracies and legal biases in order to stamp out “Beatleness” wherever it is found, lest it should ever happen again.

    Secondly, to put on trial before the court, all “Beatles” and their “Fans” who are accused (dead or alive) of crimes against music as determined by the Tribunal.
    Thirdly, to publicly defame and summarily strip “The Beatles” of all merit and/or accolades and punish accordingly.

    Four mop-top heads are going to roll.

    Upon determining The Beatles crimes against music and subsequent guilt:

    The Beatles Summary Offences Act shall be legislated and proclaimed.

    -NASA Space exploration program will be cancelled due to funding redirection.

    -Any surviving Beatles members and their family members will be whisked away to a remote windswept field in Northern England and unceremoniously bludgeoned to death with a blunt instrument.
    Their remains burned and sent into the centre of the sun.

    -George Martin will be killed, if he isn’t already dead.

    -Mark Chapman will be pardoned.

    -Phil Spector will be left right where he is, as a living memorial and deterrent.

    -Expired Beatles remains shall be exhumed, symbolically executed, and then launched into the centre of the sun.

    -The “Beatles” entire audio back-catalogue; including but not limited to; master tapes, reference acetates, press plates, out-takes etc. shall be summarily deleted and/or destroyed.

    -Any material alluding to the prior existence of the aforementioned back-catalogue shall be summarily deleted and/or destroyed.

    -Any existing “Beatles” merchandise and/or warehouse stock will be crushed, burned and launched into the centre of the sun.

    -Musical instruments (ab)used by “The Beatles” and any subsequent reissues, signature series or any other musical instrument that may remind any unsuspecting innocent bystander of “The Beatles” will be burned, jettisoned into the sun.
    -This means all hofner violin basses, epiphone casinos, Ludwig drums, vox amplifiers etc, etc.

    -Anyone found to be in possession of material(s) pertaining to; performing, acting out, impersonating, miming, humming, whistling, thinking, interpretive dancing, or other act deemed being either directly, indirectly, pertaining to, or unreasonably about “The Beatles” back-catalogue will be killed.

    -Any existing “Beatles” tribute bands, cover acts, stage shows, cabaret acts, licensed franchisees, pretenders, troubadours, buskers or other persistent nostalgic impersonators and/or their immediate next of kin will be killed.

    -Remastering, reissuing, remixing, rehashing, rehearsing and generally regurgitating any “Beatles” material or part thereof will be punishable by death.

    -Persons involved with audio/video production, post-production, recording, engineering and/or producing found to be engaging in sonic misconduct not entirely unlike “The Beatles” will be deemed “Beatlesque” and killed.
    This means you Jeff Lynne. Todd Rundgren etc, etc.

    -Fire-on-site orders will be issued to roving death-squads equipped with flame-throwers for use on anyone who speaks of the back-catalogue. Ever.

    -An intercontinental nuclear ballistic missile will be armed, targeted at Abbey road studios and subsequently launched.
    (Nuclear winter party at pedestrian-crossing-crater everyone! Get your happy snaps of that one.)

    -Rockets, missiles, satellites and/or terrestrial bodies previously launched into space containing materials relating to “The Beatles” represent a threat to the entire universe and will be self-destructed or redirected into the path of the nearest oncoming astrological threat.

    -A large Electromagnetic Pulse weapon will be designed, built and fired in order to destroy all “Beatles” radio emissions previously broadcast from the Earth.

    -Internet, government and private databases will be hacked, cracked, sifted, trolled for every last solitary 0 or 1 of digital “Beatles” material, or the word ‘beatle’ and summarily deleted and/or destroyed. Permanently.

    -All subsequent operating systems and versions of windows to crash upon use of word ’beatle’.

    -All existing documentary evidence pertaining to “Beatles” rounded up and burned. Ashes collected, launched into centre of the sun.

    -Roving death-squads to be given draconian powers to kick in doors, search and seize all previous storage and retrieval formats from wax cylinders to BLU-RAY and everything in between. Collected material to be launched into the centre of the sun.

    (-Paraphernalia fanatics are particularly dangerous to the community at large and are to be singled out for special treatment. The criminal-music justice system must send a strong message and needs to set an example.)

    -If found in possession of more than 2 articles relating to “The Beatles”, fanatics can be deemed “Beatophiles” and strapped alive to the missile cone as we jettison the back-catalogue material into the centre of the sun.

    -Science will be funded with all the money we have saved at the NASA space program by jettisoning everything into the sun. New research will identify genetic predisposition towards “liking the Beatles” and we will have the scourge promptly isolated and engineered out of the human genome.

    -Anti-Beatle Intelligence organizations will be given not-very-special powers to detain without charge indefinitely, interrogate and torture with impunity (render), and kill anyone suspected of ever having been a “Beatles” fan. Anyone deemed potentially “at risk” of ever becoming a “Beatles” fan will be shot on site.

    The Tribunal hasn’t forgotten you snivelling lifelong faithful devotees who will be flushed out of the woodwork in their masses to line up like lemmings for a public love-in with their little round glasses, Chinese vox amps and crappy reissue guitars to get shot in the head as “Beatle martyrs”. I think I’ll draft in Chapman for that job.

    When I see an old “Beatles” record, I buy it, no matter what cost, take it home and destroy it. Gone.
    I would encourage other BeatleHaters to do the same. Original pressings are a finite resource and can be eradicated, just like original Beatles fans… This is a war of attrition. This fight we can win.
    Destruction of Re-issue vinyl just makes money for BeatleMart. They can punch the shit out faster than we can burn it.

    Phil Spector, the most tragic Beatles fan of all, and other nutcases like him are the only reason that I regrettably cannot put my name to my beloved work.
    Do not doubt the purity and strength of my hatred for all things “Beatles”. The fight goes on.
    Anonymous.

  117. ATTENTION WHORE. enough said.

  118. 2010 Space Oddysey. (Anonymous)

    Thanks for that!!!! You are Officially proclaimed RETARD OF THE CENTURY!!!

    By the way, wishing death on people sums a deadbeat lardbutt like yourself very well..

    MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORON!!!!!!!

  119. Mr Cross has put the argument to rest good and proper.
    THE BEATLES ARE THE BEST EVER!!!!!!!!!!!

    The Beatles are the Most Creative Band of All Time
    BACKGROUND HISTORY: The first musical bands originated in New Orleans among black musicians who have traditionally been the innovators. The first jazz record ever recorded was by The Original Dixieland Jazz Band in 1917, and of course they were white because racism always rears its ugly head to hold black people back. But during the Roaring 20′s, young white people couldn’t resist the dance beat laid down by the black jazz bands. Fletcher Henderson, a black man, became the first band leader to achieve national fame possibly because he featured Louis Armstrong on trumpet. Duke Ellington, a classically trained musician, brought a level of style and sophistication to jazz that hadn’t been seen before. But it wasn’t until 1935 that jazz bands with a “swing beat” achieved national attention due to Benny Goodman who I think was the best clarinet player ever to blow air into that instrument. Benny also had the good sense and taste to bring the first great drummer, Gene Krupa, into his band.
    When rock and roll exploded into human consciousness during the early 1950′s, black musicians like Bo Diddley, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Smokey Robinson pioneered the way, but a white DJ named Alan Freed is believed to have coined the term “rock and roll”. The first real rock and roll record was “Shake, Rattle and Roll”, written by Jesse Stone who was black and recorded by Big Joe Turner who was also black but it wasn’t a hit. The first big hit rock and roll record was “Rock Around the Clock” written by James Meyers and Max Freeman of obvious ancestry, and that one catapulted Bill Haley and his Caucasian Comets to stardom. During the 1950′s and early 60′s, there were countless “do wop” groups, rock groups, singers and songwriters but until The the charts, there had been very few bands which contained talented songwriters. The vast majority of jazz and rock bands recorded songs written by songwriters who were not performers, with occasional exceptions like Duke Ellington and Buddy Holly. As time goes on, it’s increasingly clear that Lennon/McCartney songs are brilliant classics which will never be forgotten. Now here’s why The Beatles are the most creative band of all time:
    1. BEST EXAMPLE OF FORM = ConTENT
    As I sit here writing this at the keyboard of my computer facing the unique and colorful Beatles poster in my bedroom, I’m aware that I have been directly and indirectly inspired by John Lennon’s music as well as by the way he lived his life offstage. Squarely in front of me is a full color poster of all four Beatles standing in a heavenly-like flower garden at about the time of the Abbey Road album. Paul is angelic in his pink suit with a white laced shirt. John is enigmatic peering out from the background. George is charismatic staring directly into the camera from the lower right. Ringo is on the left with a stylish blue suit and his pink ruffled shirt. I always wished I could dress like those guys but obviously there’s a bit of a problem with a money differential there. Surrounding this gorgeous poster which I have never seen elsewhere are my 45 speed original records, including I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, Please Please Me, Twist and Shout, Can’t Buy Me Love, She’s A Woman, Yesterday, and of course, Hey Jude. And surrounding all that is a chain of 1-1/2″ long orange flicker flame lights which are the most beautiful and unique Christmas lights I’ve ever seen. I chose to decorate the wall directly in front of my work station this way because, as I’ve written elsewhere on this site several times, The Beatles were my major musical influence and having them on the wall in front of me inspires me to write web pages like this one. I was also among the millions of people who were inspired by how The Beatles were actually living their off stage lives. The Beatles’ music creatively stimulated millions of people to change the way they were living, and The Beatles behavior encouraged people to have fun by trying new life style experiences. That’s what I call a perfect example of FORM = ConTENT. In this case it means that the creatively and masterfully varied music The Beatles were producing (form) embodied the real life styles which each of the four Beatles were living (content), together as a band as well as separately as unique individuals.
    2. BEST SonGWRITERS
    This should be self-evident, but just because Paul McCartney has the title of the most popular songwriter in history doesn’t necessarily make him the best songwriter in history. The qualities which do make both Paul and John the best songwriters in history go beyond writing the greatest number of catchy classic songs. “Catchy” means that their melodies and lyrics are instantly memorable. “Classic” means that they stand the test of time. But both Paul and John wrote very sophisticated melodies that moved beyond the simple groups of 2, 4 and 8 patterned phrases used by almost all other songwriters. John and Paul’s melodies soared, floated, cascaded, dived and peaked with true dynamics, naturally following the syllabic lyric patterns – but not always. Sometimes the melodic and lyric patterns were independent of each other, almost counterpoint in nature, and as a songwriter, they never ceased to astonish me with their brilliance and originality. In the beginning, their lyrics were simple and their songs were simple love songs. But they soon began exploring new territory by writing about subjects that hadn’t been covered before. Inspired by Bob Dylan, they wrote true poetry with feeling and depth, using evocative and unusual words. Rubber Soul marked the beginning of their evolution as mature songwriters, Revolver was a break-out album, and Sergeant Pepper was an historic landmark album in terms of new and innovative songwriting as well as production. Every song they wrote was significantly different from the last one even though each song had their unmistakable sound.
    Most songwriters are only average players on their instruments, but John and Paul are both sophisticated guitarists who were able to integrate their playing into their songs and even into their song structure so that the “licks” they played became as catchy a part of their songs as the choruses and verses. Blackbird and Dear Prudence are only two examples of songs which couldn’t possibly be written by any other songwriter because of the guitar playing which forms an integral part of the song structure. In similar fashion, Lady Madonna is the best example of a great song which derives from the unique and beautiful bass part which only Paul could possibly have created.
    Average songwriters achieve the catchy quality by repeating a phrase endlessly or by beating a chorus to death. John and Paul found countless ways to be memorable without ever overly repeating something. The only time they repeated something over and over again for a long time was in Hey Jude, and what they chose to repeat is so gorgeous that one can only wish they had never ended the song. The Beatles were my biggest musical influence and I used to think, “If I could write just one song that’s as good as John and Paul’s worst song, I’d be happy.” People tell me I accomplished that goal and they say one good example is John is Alive, which is my sincere tribute to Sir Lennon.
    3. BEST SINGERS
    Even Ringo could sing when he got a little help from his friends who lived in the yellow submarine. But to say that Paul and John are two of the best singers in rock and roll is to state the obvious. Combining John, Paul and George created the best harmony vocals the world has ever experienced. Even their two part harmonies were unusual, catching us all by surprise on their first hit record with the fast harmony melisma in the chorus of I Want to Hold Your Hand. John had a knack of placing a unique low harmony line underneath Paul’s high melody line so as to form a second melody which created unusual harmony effects. He did that right from the beginning in the verses of She Loves You. Both Paul and John could blast out screaming rock and roll (i.e. Long Tall Sally and Twist and Shout), and both could break our hearts with touching, deep feeling ballads (i.e. Yesterday and Julia). There seems to be no end to their emotional vocal range, and John even explored the heights of vocal psychedelia in songs like She Said (Revolver) and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.
    4. MOST CREATIVE PLAYERS
    Paul brought a new style of melodic playing to the bass guitar, reaching a new high of creativity on Sergeant Pepper with a level of sophistication never heard before. Many other musicians besides me recognize Paul as being one of the best bass guitar players ever. George is underrated as a lead guitarist by people with average or below average musical knowledge or ability, but most guitarists (including Eric Clapton) know better. George’s strength is in melody, pure and simple. It would be difficult to find a George Harrison lead which is not melodic, and each of his leads has a strong beginning, a stronger middle and a well defined ending. In fact, that’s Eric’s definition of what makes a good guitar lead. George continually developed new guitar sounds for each Beatles song. John and Paul are also excellent guitarists and both recorded great leads as well as innovative rhythm tracks. All three of the Beatles guitarists may lack showy technical fireworks but they make that definition of guitar mastery irrelevant by overwhelming the senses with creativity, style, and pure melody. The exact same thing can be said about John and Paul’s keyboard playing. Ringo may be underrated as a drummer by the public but he is not underrated by other professional drummers. Ringo mastered the art of drum sounds. No drummer has ever recorded so many different sounds on so many different sounding records. Ringo invented a new style of slow drum playing, epitomized on A Day in the Life and Strawberry Fields Forever. John said many times, “Ringo has the best back beat in the business” and the successful studio drummers understand why John was correct.
    5. TOTAL CHARISMA
    A good definition of charisma needs to include “an unusual ability to influence people and arouse devotion” and “a personal attractiveness which enables a person to influence others”. No musical group prior to or after The Beatles features true charisma emanating strongly from the entire group as well as separately from each member. The Beatles stunned the world with their photogenic quality, their charm, their bubbling and lovable personalities, their cuteness and their unique style. Even before The Beatles achieved fame, people in Liverpool were imitating their haircuts, the way they dressed, the way they behaved, and the way they lived. Such a simple subliminal message about smoking marijuana got communicated to all the hippies who were waiting to happen without actual words ever being spoken. The Beatles had a lot to lose by being explicit on that subject, but they successfully avoided trouble by keeping it very subtle while at the same time clear enough so that we all got it. The Fab Four kept changing their styles rapidly, almost with each album cover, and soon the message became one of explicit spiritualism. After visiting India, The Beatles introduced eastern mysticism and meditation to the Western world for the first time through the mass media. John’s long saga with internal angst, drugs, spiritualism, politics, personal battles, and ultimately his marriage to Yoko played out like a movie the whole world got to watch in fascination. Paul’s happy life with Linda, George’s great focus on meditation, and Ringo’s equanimity throughout were all perfect examples of the power, the truth, and the effectiveness of true charisma.
    6. SEXUAL AURA
    Need I say it? Ask the millions of girls who were screaming and fainting at the very sight of them. “The Boys” didn’t move like Elvis or dance like Mick, they just stood there shaking their “mop top” heads around, smiling, laughing, and looking gorgeous as they performed great music and that was it. on their first visit to America, some enterprising weirdo from New York City managed to cut up the hotel bed sheets The Beatles had slept on into 1″ square pieces, and these things were actually sold to girls over the public airwaves by adult DJ’s on the AM radio stations who should have known better. The Beatles phenomenon went way beyond the rock and roll sex star status that had been seen before. Teenage girls in uncountable numbers fell in love, their hearts to be trapped, their heart strings to be continually plucked, and ultimately, their hearts to be broken by the unobtainable object of their love. Worshiping a star from afar? Infatuation? Obsession? Not real love? For many of them, it was their first experience feeling love for a man/boy. Whatever it was, it was very real to all of them, and we all soon understood that The Beatles were The Real Thing.
    That’s why I call The Beatles the Most Creative Band of All Time. They were The Real Thing. The Creative Zenith. The high point on the bell curve of musical history.
    Back to Inside the Crossfire
    Back to the Home Page
    Web page design copyright 1996 © , text copyright 2005 © Peter Cross

  120. The Beatles are the Most Creative Band of All Time
    BACKGROUND HISTORY: The first musical bands originated in New Orleans among black musicians who have traditionally been the innovators. The first jazz record ever recorded was by The Original Dixieland Jazz Band in 1917, and of course they were white because racism always rears its ugly head to hold black people back. But during the Roaring 20′s, young white people couldn’t resist the dance beat laid down by the black jazz bands. Fletcher Henderson, a black man, became the first band leader to achieve national fame possibly because he featured Louis Armstrong on trumpet. Duke Ellington, a classically trained musician, brought a level of style and sophistication to jazz that hadn’t been seen before. But it wasn’t until 1935 that jazz bands with a “swing beat” achieved national attention due to Benny Goodman who I think was the best clarinet player ever to blow air into that instrument. Benny also had the good sense and taste to bring the first great drummer, Gene Krupa, into his band.
    When rock and roll exploded into human consciousness during the early 1950′s, black musicians like Bo Diddley, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Smokey Robinson pioneered the way, but a white DJ named Alan Freed is believed to have coined the term “rock and roll”. The first real rock and roll record was “Shake, Rattle and Roll”, written by Jesse Stone who was black and recorded by Big Joe Turner who was also black but it wasn’t a hit. The first big hit rock and roll record was “Rock Around the Clock” written by James Meyers and Max Freeman of obvious ancestry, and that one catapulted Bill Haley and his Caucasian Comets to stardom. During the 1950′s and early 60′s, there were countless “do wop” groups, rock groups, singers and songwriters but until The the charts, there had been very few bands which contained talented songwriters. The vast majority of jazz and rock bands recorded songs written by songwriters who were not performers, with occasional exceptions like Duke Ellington and Buddy Holly. As time goes on, it’s increasingly clear that Lennon/McCartney songs are brilliant classics which will never be forgotten. Now here’s why The Beatles are the most creative band of all time:
    1. BEST EXAMPLE OF FORM = ConTENT
    As I sit here writing this at the keyboard of my computer facing the unique and colorful Beatles poster in my bedroom, I’m aware that I have been directly and indirectly inspired by John Lennon’s music as well as by the way he lived his life offstage. Squarely in front of me is a full color poster of all four Beatles standing in a heavenly-like flower garden at about the time of the Abbey Road album. Paul is angelic in his pink suit with a white laced shirt. John is enigmatic peering out from the background. George is charismatic staring directly into the camera from the lower right. Ringo is on the left with a stylish blue suit and his pink ruffled shirt. I always wished I could dress like those guys but obviously there’s a bit of a problem with a money differential there. Surrounding this gorgeous poster which I have never seen elsewhere are my 45 speed original records, including I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, Please Please Me, Twist and Shout, Can’t Buy Me Love, She’s A Woman, Yesterday, and of course, Hey Jude. And surrounding all that is a chain of 1-1/2″ long orange flicker flame lights which are the most beautiful and unique Christmas lights I’ve ever seen. I chose to decorate the wall directly in front of my work station this way because, as I’ve written elsewhere on this site several times, The Beatles were my major musical influence and having them on the wall in front of me inspires me to write web pages like this one. I was also among the millions of people who were inspired by how The Beatles were actually living their off stage lives. The Beatles’ music creatively stimulated millions of people to change the way they were living, and The Beatles behavior encouraged people to have fun by trying new life style experiences. That’s what I call a perfect example of FORM = ConTENT. In this case it means that the creatively and masterfully varied music The Beatles were producing (form) embodied the real life styles which each of the four Beatles were living (content), together as a band as well as separately as unique individuals.
    2. BEST SonGWRITERS
    This should be self-evident, but just because Paul McCartney has the title of the most popular songwriter in history doesn’t necessarily make him the best songwriter in history. The qualities which do make both Paul and John the best songwriters in history go beyond writing the greatest number of catchy classic songs. “Catchy” means that their melodies and lyrics are instantly memorable. “Classic” means that they stand the test of time. But both Paul and John wrote very sophisticated melodies that moved beyond the simple groups of 2, 4 and 8 patterned phrases used by almost all other songwriters. John and Paul’s melodies soared, floated, cascaded, dived and peaked with true dynamics, naturally following the syllabic lyric patterns – but not always. Sometimes the melodic and lyric patterns were independent of each other, almost counterpoint in nature, and as a songwriter, they never ceased to astonish me with their brilliance and originality. In the beginning, their lyrics were simple and their songs were simple love songs. But they soon began exploring new territory by writing about subjects that hadn’t been covered before. Inspired by Bob Dylan, they wrote true poetry with feeling and depth, using evocative and unusual words. Rubber Soul marked the beginning of their evolution as mature songwriters, Revolver was a break-out album, and Sergeant Pepper was an historic landmark album in terms of new and innovative songwriting as well as production. Every song they wrote was significantly different from the last one even though each song had their unmistakable sound.
    Most songwriters are only average players on their instruments, but John and Paul are both sophisticated guitarists who were able to integrate their playing into their songs and even into their song structure so that the “licks” they played became as catchy a part of their songs as the choruses and verses. Blackbird and Dear Prudence are only two examples of songs which couldn’t possibly be written by any other songwriter because of the guitar playing which forms an integral part of the song structure. In similar fashion, Lady Madonna is the best example of a great song which derives from the unique and beautiful bass part which only Paul could possibly have created.
    Average songwriters achieve the catchy quality by repeating a phrase endlessly or by beating a chorus to death. John and Paul found countless ways to be memorable without ever overly repeating something. The only time they repeated something over and over again for a long time was in Hey Jude, and what they chose to repeat is so gorgeous that one can only wish they had never ended the song. The Beatles were my biggest musical influence and I used to think, “If I could write just one song that’s as good as John and Paul’s worst song, I’d be happy.” People tell me I accomplished that goal and they say one good example is John is Alive, which is my sincere tribute to Sir Lennon.
    3. BEST SINGERS
    Even Ringo could sing when he got a little help from his friends who lived in the yellow submarine. But to say that Paul and John are two of the best singers in rock and roll is to state the obvious. Combining John, Paul and George created the best harmony vocals the world has ever experienced. Even their two part harmonies were unusual, catching us all by surprise on their first hit record with the fast harmony melisma in the chorus of I Want to Hold Your Hand. John had a knack of placing a unique low harmony line underneath Paul’s high melody line so as to form a second melody which created unusual harmony effects. He did that right from the beginning in the verses of She Loves You. Both Paul and John could blast out screaming rock and roll (i.e. Long Tall Sally and Twist and Shout), and both could break our hearts with touching, deep feeling ballads (i.e. Yesterday and Julia). There seems to be no end to their emotional vocal range, and John even explored the heights of vocal psychedelia in songs like She Said (Revolver) and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.
    4. MOST CREATIVE PLAYERS
    Paul brought a new style of melodic playing to the bass guitar, reaching a new high of creativity on Sergeant Pepper with a level of sophistication never heard before. Many other musicians besides me recognize Paul as being one of the best bass guitar players ever. George is underrated as a lead guitarist by people with average or below average musical knowledge or ability, but most guitarists (including Eric Clapton) know better. George’s strength is in melody, pure and simple. It would be difficult to find a George Harrison lead which is not melodic, and each of his leads has a strong beginning, a stronger middle and a well defined ending. In fact, that’s Eric’s definition of what makes a good guitar lead. George continually developed new guitar sounds for each Beatles song. John and Paul are also excellent guitarists and both recorded great leads as well as innovative rhythm tracks. All three of the Beatles guitarists may lack showy technical fireworks but they make that definition of guitar mastery irrelevant by overwhelming the senses with creativity, style, and pure melody. The exact same thing can be said about John and Paul’s keyboard playing. Ringo may be underrated as a drummer by the public but he is not underrated by other professional drummers. Ringo mastered the art of drum sounds. No drummer has ever recorded so many different sounds on so many different sounding records. Ringo invented a new style of slow drum playing, epitomized on A Day in the Life and Strawberry Fields Forever. John said many times, “Ringo has the best back beat in the business” and the successful studio drummers understand why John was correct.
    5. TOTAL CHARISMA
    A good definition of charisma needs to include “an unusual ability to influence people and arouse devotion” and “a personal attractiveness which enables a person to influence others”. No musical group prior to or after The Beatles features true charisma emanating strongly from the entire group as well as separately from each member. The Beatles stunned the world with their photogenic quality, their charm, their bubbling and lovable personalities, their cuteness and their unique style. Even before The Beatles achieved fame, people in Liverpool were imitating their haircuts, the way they dressed, the way they behaved, and the way they lived. Such a simple subliminal message about smoking marijuana got communicated to all the hippies who were waiting to happen without actual words ever being spoken. The Beatles had a lot to lose by being explicit on that subject, but they successfully avoided trouble by keeping it very subtle while at the same time clear enough so that we all got it. The Fab Four kept changing their styles rapidly, almost with each album cover, and soon the message became one of explicit spiritualism. After visiting India, The Beatles introduced eastern mysticism and meditation to the Western world for the first time through the mass media. John’s long saga with internal angst, drugs, spiritualism, politics, personal battles, and ultimately his marriage to Yoko played out like a movie the whole world got to watch in fascination. Paul’s happy life with Linda, George’s great focus on meditation, and Ringo’s equanimity throughout were all perfect examples of the power, the truth, and the effectiveness of true charisma.
    6. SEXUAL AURA
    Need I say it? Ask the millions of girls who were screaming and fainting at the very sight of them. “The Boys” didn’t move like Elvis or dance like Mick, they just stood there shaking their “mop top” heads around, smiling, laughing, and looking gorgeous as they performed great music and that was it. on their first visit to America, some enterprising weirdo from New York City managed to cut up the hotel bed sheets The Beatles had slept on into 1″ square pieces, and these things were actually sold to girls over the public airwaves by adult DJ’s on the AM radio stations who should have known better. The Beatles phenomenon went way beyond the rock and roll sex star status that had been seen before. Teenage girls in uncountable numbers fell in love, their hearts to be trapped, their heart strings to be continually plucked, and ultimately, their hearts to be broken by the unobtainable object of their love. Worshiping a star from afar? Infatuation? Obsession? Not real love? For many of them, it was their first experience feeling love for a man/boy. Whatever it was, it was very real to all of them, and we all soon understood that The Beatles were The Real Thing.
    That’s why I call The Beatles the Most Creative Band of All Time. They were The Real Thing. The Creative Zenith. The high point on the bell curve of musical history.
    Back to Inside the Crossfire
    Back to the Home Page
    Web page design copyright 1996 © , text copyright 2005 © Peter Cross

  121. Uh, the Beatles DID revolutionize music. Rubber Soul. Sgt. Pepper’s. Revolver. Each was a revolutionary album – not just in terms of musical style (which they were), but also technologically. Remember “Rain”? The crazy guitar sounds there? Nobody else tried it before.

    But this says nothing of the most obvious point – their music was awesome. How can this guy say with a straight face that it wasn’t? Were the Beatles the most talented musicians? Was Paul the best bassist, George the best guitarist, Ringo the best drummer, and John the best songwriter of all time? Perhaps not, but they are most definitely NOT overrated.

  122. No, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard revolutionized music! Beatles wouldn’t even make the top 10!

    • Well, yes, those guys definitely revolutionized music, too. But why wouldn't the Beatles join them in the top 10? Simply because you say so? Yeah, okay…

  123. i like how he said they suck, yet then admits they have good songs and even calls hey jude his “favorite” which implies that he likes more than one beatles song. hypocritical to say the least

  124. I agree(with the author).

    I don’t have a problem when people say their music is good. I don’t even have a problem when people say they’re the greatest band ever(something I wouldn’t be caught dead saying).

    It just ticks me off when people(especially younger people) treat them like gods and put them on this pedestal like they deserved to be worshiped. There is not a person alive that makes millions of dollars doing something, that continues to do whatever they do for the sake of doing. Money makes the world go ’round and they’re is nothing godly about it. It’s not a bad thing, by any means, but it’s nothing to be worshiped for.

    As far as their music, most of the stuff they made, was influenced by drugs. Still, not necessarily a problem. Try making dozens of number 1 songs while sober. That’s true talent.

  125. As far as Mr. Cross’ article….

    A friend psychologist once told me, “Fanaticism is one step below, and often a symptom of, schizophrenia.”

  126. TheCorrectAnswer says:

    The author is correct. While I’m sure many of the “Beatles Cult” here would like to tear him a new one for even uttering this blasphemy, citing things such as his “flawed argument”. The fact that the Beatles are overrated doesn’t require argument, it should be apparent. I am incredibly familiar with the entire Beatles Catalog. I’ve heard their stuff, I’ve heard dry recordings, I’ve heard friends preach aimlessly and constantly about how brilliant they are… I’m sorry, but in no way were the Beatles artists. While their music was sometimes honest, it was honest in an aimless and meandering way. “Whimsical” describes it best. In my experience, people who worship the Beatles use this as a lure to ward others off the scent of their woefully inadequate understanding of the musical artform, of which they are only sometimes aware of.

    • IsNotYourAnswer... says:

      Right. Let's ignore the plethora of brilliant arists from a wide range of genres whom have described the Beatles' work as genius, because some anyonymous moron on the internet with no respect for sound arguments (not to mention, no argument of his/her own) has said that the author of this article is correct. That's all we need to know!

      • I have a feeling that no one is going to think any more of the Beatles because some artists said they love them or wanna be them or were so heavenly inspired to be them. Who cares? It does not make them sound any better to me. That just looks to me as if you like them more BECAUSE other people said they are so great.

  127. Bromancer of the stone says:

    Lol, I bet this writer listens to Nickelback.

    SICK BURN.

  128. Eric Hargrove says:

    You say that The Beatles are overrated… yet you use Jimi Hendrix as an example.

    How ironic.

    If there was a prime example of “talking out of your ass”, this article is it.

  129. I am 44 years old and I am so tired of hearing the Beatles that I feel like I should collect a royalty every time I have to hear one of their songs. It is terrible the way older people try to brainwash youth into believing that the music from their era was the best. The baby boomers tried to do it to us and I am stopping the cycle of abuse in my own lifetime; my daughter is three and I am just going to tell her that punk is something that only we understand and she shouldn’t listen to.

  130. You know what, I use to think The Beatles were overrated, but now after reading this article I no longer agree, because I would never ever want to be on the same side as someone as stupid as you are.

    Congratulations on writing the most pointless article ever.

  131. u know what. all of you ppl are like soooo wrong. what is your deal? the beatles did nothing wrong. just enjoy their music. if u dont like their music, then just dont listen to it! stop critising(did i spell dat rite?)them and listen to sum thing else. i personaly think the beatles are great. STICK THAT IN UR JUICE BOX

  132. Matthew Ward says:

    Before I start. The comment on Jimi Hendrix was bull because he didn’t. His lyrics were shit. He was a good guitarist thats it. He couldn’t sing. He was less popular. He had less hits. Has less money. He was a hippy not the Beatles. And your comment on George Martin saving them and they’d be still in a basement! No they wouldn’t becasue the Beatles split up becasue of Yoko Ono. So they wouldn’t still be in a basement. People like Paul McCartney have so much money. You are a nothing. He is superior to everybody below him. Everyone who doesn’t like them have probably never listened to them. And even if you don’t like the Beatles. More people like them than dislike them.

    Now for some facts that will tell you why they are good and not overated (also don’t reply and say “we don’t need that much detail” because you wanted an arguement so you had better look at the facts, and see how great the Beatles are;

    Even, Ozzy Osbourne said in an online 2002 Bender Magazine interview that The Beatles Are The Greatest Band To Ever Walk The Earth! He’s been a huge fan since he’s been a teenager and he says not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen! The Rolling Stones were very good friends and fans of The Beatles and Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with them!

    Also,The Beatles even wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits with the song,I Wanna Be You’re Man in late 1963. As for the other inaccurate comments that some people say The Beatles didn’t even stay together for 2 decades,well they didn’t have to because they did about 50 years worth of innovative,creative,diverse,prolific great critically acclaimed popular songs and albums in just a remarkable 8 year recording career!

    The Beatles are in The Song Writing Hall Of Fame &The Vocal Hall of Fame,and As The All Music Guide says in their excellent Beatles biography,”So much has been said and written about The Beatles and their story is so mythic in it’s sweep that it’s difficult to summarize their career without restating cliche’s that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans ,to start with the obvious,they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era ,and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century.” “As vovalists John Lennon &Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive in rock and the groups harmonies were intricate and exhillirating.”

    And music critics as well as brilliant classical composer Leonard Bernstein called John & Paul the most brilliant song writers of the 20th century when they were still a band . As for The Beatles playing live,they sounded pretty good playing live considering that when they were playing in 1963,1964,1965,and 1966 the sound systems back then were very limited and primitive,they only had 100 watt amplifiers,no feedback monitors so they couldn’t even hear themselves play and sing,yet they amazingly played in tune and in sync anyway,and at the August 1965 Shea Stadium concert which was the first big outdoor rock concert with over 55,000 fans,they were plugged into the PA system that they announce baseball games with plus the screaming crowds drowing out their great music! Can you imagine The Rolling Stones and The Who playing on these very limited primitive sound systems? They wouldn’t have sounded much better!

    Thats why they gave up touring,because they were serious music artists,composers,and musicians and they wanted their great music to be heard and valued. It would be like Beethoven playing on these limited primitive sound systems and screaming crowds! Also they were now writing music that was too complex to reproduce on stage at that time.

    On the roof top concert in The Let It Be Film,they sounded great,because by January 1969 the sound systems had improved somewhat(although not anywhere near the 1970’s,1980’s,1990’s and especially today’s!) and they had changed and people had changed so there were no more screaming crowds so they could be heard.When I was a teenager I met 3 people who saw The Beatles in concert two of them were teachers who saw them in 1966 and he and she told me they were great,and my cousin saw them at age 16 at The Baltimore Colsieum in 1964 the year before I was born,and she said they were great.

    Former Kiss guitarist and grammy winning producer Bob Kulick who made the heavy metal Beatles tribute album Butchering The Beatles last year,says in an online interview,that he saw The Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1966 and that he could only make out pieces of the songs because of the screaming,but he could make out the songs Baby’s In Black and Paperback Writer and he said they sounded amazing!

    He also calls The Beatles The Greatest Rock Band Ever! George Harrison at only age 14 would stay up playing his guitar until he got all of the chords exactly right and his fingers were bleeding! And One of The Beatles engineers Geoff Emerick says that in early 1966 when The Beatles were recording John’s song I’m Only Sleeping,George Harrison played backwards guitar the most difficult way possible even though he could have taken an easy way,and it took him 6 hours just to do the guitar overdubs! He then made it doubly difficult by adding even more distorted gitars and Geoff says this was all George’s idea and that he did all of the playing!

    Eric Clapton said in a 1992 interview when he and George were asked what they admired about each other during their Japan tour,that George is a fantastic slide guitar player. He and George were very good friends and they obviously admired and respected each others guitar playing and George played guitar on Cream’s song Badge.

    Roger McGuinn of The Byrds says The Beatles used unusual folk rock chords in their early music and that they invented folf rock without even knowing it! He started to play a 12 string guitar after he saw and heard George Harrison playing one in The Beatles great film A Hard Day’s Night in early 1964. In an online Eric Clapton interview called,Eric Clapton In His Own Words he says that John Lennon was a pretty good guitar player and he would have known since he played live in concert with John as a member of John’s 1969 Plastic Ono Band!

    On an excellent site called,The Evolution Of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style by Dennis Alstrand Stanley Clarke,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan,Sting,George Martin,and John Lennon are all quoted saying what a great,melodic,influential bass guitar player Paul McCartney has always been! The 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide calls Paul a remarkable bass player and rightfully calls John &Paul the 2 greatest song writers in rock history! Both Phil Collins and Max Weinberg both Beatles fans and both praise Ringo’s drumming and Phil Collins says that Ringo’s great drumming on A Day In The Life can’t even be repeated even by him!

    Also on Rankopedia The Beatles are # 1 Greatest Rock Band,# 1 Greatest Most Innovative Rock Band,John &Paul are # 1 Greatest Rock Song Writers,John &Paul are on The Greatest Rock Male Vocalist list,and Paul McCartney is # 2 after John Enwistle as Greatest Rock Bass Players,John Paul Jones is # 6,and Bill Wynman is # 20! And on Digitaldreamdoor where many musicians post,The Beatles are # 1 Greatest Rock Artists,John &Paul are # 1 Greatest Rock Song Writers,they are both on The Greatest Rock Male Vocalists list,and Paul McCartney is # 8 out of 100 Greatest Rock Bass Players,John Paul Jones is # 21,and Bill Wynman is # 95! George Harrison is # 54 On The Greatest Rock Guitarists out of over 100.

    And there are many music professors teaching music courses at good universities on the brilliance of The Beatles especially of John &Paul,including by award winning music professor and composer Dr.Glen Gass,who has been teaching a course on The Beatles and rock music at Indiana University since 1982.

    On his web site for his course it says the main purpose of this course is to get students to have a better appreciation of this extraordinary group and their remarkable recordings. Dr.Gary Kendal’s Beatles course is the most requested course at North Western University. And a music professor by the last name of Heinonen teaches a Beatles course at JYVASKYLA University in Finland,and the university of California also teaches a Beatles course etc.

    Also check out Keno’s Classic Rock n Roll Site he also runs a Rolling Stones &John Lennon fan site. And he made a Top 10 List and voted and the fans voted. He voted John &Paul # 2 after Bob Dylan as Greatest Rock Song Writers,the fans voted them # 1! He voted Paul McCartney # 2 after John Entwistle as Greatest Rock Bass Player,the fans voted Paul # 3. He voted John Lennon # 2 after Keith Richards as Greatest Rock Rhythm Guitarist,and the fans voted John in a tie with Jimi Hendrix and Brian Jones at # 4 ! He voted John Lennon # 1 in a tie with Elvis as Greatest Male Rock Vocalist and the fans voted John # 1,he voted Paul # 6 and the fans voted him # 7.

    Ken says Darn The Beatles were one great group in his review of The Beatles album 1967-1970,and he also says that John on Get Back showed why he should have played lead guitar more often because he did such a good job! He also said that John on their hard rocking great 1968 single Revolution,played one of the first and best acid guitar parts.And he also said that John played a pretty good slide guitar on George’s For Your Blue. And he says in his review of The Beatles 1962-1966,that if you don’t love or at least like The Beatles and their music than you are not a true rock fan and more than likely will never get it.

    And Brian Wilson said on a 1995 Nightline TV Beatles tribute show,that Sgt.Pepper is the single greatest album he ever heard,and he played With A Little Help From Friends on the piano and he said I just love this song. He also said he thinks John Lennon & Paul McCartney were the 2 greatest song writers of the 20th century! He also said when he first heard The Beatles great 1965 album Rubber Soul,that he was blown away by it,he said all of the songs flowed together and it was pop music but folk rock at the same time,and this is what he couldn’t believe. He said this inspired him to make Pet Sounds. Elton John said in a 1991 CBS morning news show,when he was asked who he musically admires,he said You can talk about your Rogers &Hammerstein but for the quality of quanity songs that Lennon &McCartney did in that short period of time,they were the 2 greatest song writers of the 20th century!

    Most music artists want to believe and want the public to believe that *their* the greatest so when they say other music artists are the greatest it really means a lot! The Beatles are also the most covered music artists of all time with everyone from Motown,jazz,classical,and even heavy metal music recording their great diverse music!

    And in 2001 VH1 had a panel of well known musicans and music critcs,that voted The Beatles The Greatest Rock Band Ever,and in 2004 Rolling Stone did the same thing and several people said on message boards that Rolling Stone had a recent panel poll like this and The Beatles were voted # 1 again and for darn great reasons too! Nobody created as much innovative,creative,quality,critically acclaimed,popular diverse songs and albums in such a short amazing period of time as The Beatles and thats why most people know that The Beatles Are The Greatest Rock Band That Ever Was Or Will Be!!!! Oh and A Day’s Night is a great pop rock album!!!!

    And even Bob Dylan said decades ago about The Beatles early music,that their chords were outrageous,and the harmonies were wonderful and they were doing things in music that nobody had done before,and music critics of The London Times were praising their interesting and unusual chords that they used even in early songs like She Loves You & I Want To Hold Your Hand. Which were not as simple as they seemed and had clever subtleties in them.Infact Bob Dylan said in a Rolling Stone interview this Spring that he’s in awe of Paul McCartney and he said he’s the only one he’s in awe of. He said that Paul has the melody,he has the rhthym and he can sing the ballad very good,and he can play any instrument.

    He also said there were no better singers than John Lennon &Paul McCartney and he said if George wasn’t stuck in the shadow behind John &Paul and he said who wouldn’t get stuck,he would have emerged as a great song writer in his own right anyway.

    And by the way I have read some people saying on message boards that they don’t think The Rolling Stones were the best technical musicians,and many even some fans have said they haven’t done anything good in 35 years, and that their overrated and I have also found many people saying they hate or don’t like The Rolling Stones and many people say the only Rolling Stones song they like is Paint It Black! Oh and by the way,in every major poll of The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones,The Beatles always win as # 1 even on sites and message boards that are not Beatles fan sites!

    And when we look at the solo career comparison of Mick Jagger’s and Keith Richards solo careers with John,Paul &George’s,the facts are John Lennon’s first brilliant solo album,and his second great album Imagine are rightfully critically acclaimed, and I love John’s Walls & Bridges album and Paul McCartney’s first solo album McCartney is very good,and he played every instrument all by himself at age 27,and he played so many different instruments great! Wings 1975 Venus & Mars is a great rock album too!

    And he and Denny Laine are the only musicians on Paul’s great 1973 Band On The Run album,which is critically acclaimed and popular,and he played every instrument by himself again on McCartney 2 in 1979,and most of the instruments on his 1997 Flaming Pie album,and his 2 recent acclaimed popular albums,Chaos And Creation In The Backyard,and Memory Almost Full.And John Paul Jones,David Gilmore,John Bonham &Pete Townsend all played on 2 songs with Paul and Wings on the last Wings album Back To The Egg, in 1979,and they played in the last Wings concert too in December 1979.

    You know I have found over 50 former Beatles haters on many message boards and web sites that are no HUGE Beatles fans and many say they are now their favorite band and that they were the Greatest Band Ever! I didn’t communicate with these people but they said in their posts that they had a lot of inaccurate misperceptions of The Beatles and they hadn’t even heard most of The Beatles great songs and albums!

    Most people don’t hate The Beatles in the first place, most people of all ages all around the world love or at least like their music.

    • I just can’t take seriously a band that wrote a simple song like I Want To Hold Your Hand. I’m probably (a jerk) for that but I just have no interest. Heard other stuff from them. It’s just not that interesting. I don’t understand how it’s divine to some people. But I guess not everyone can love it.

  133. Cool story, bro.

  134. How could you not like the beatles??? they where amazing and had touching songs with amazing lyrics and tunes! They may be kinda old now, but the will never NEVER be someone who, even though they deny it themselves, does not ike at least one of their spirit lifting songs.

  135. George Martin was a producer, not a musician, therefore not an official member of the band. The Beatles can from an age when people actually wrote and performed their songs where they were considered the artist, not some unknown producer/lyricist like today’s crop of “popular musicians.” Crap like Beyonce and whoever Lady Gaga is makes me sick.

  136. Alright. I respect your opinion and I give you credit for having the guts to write this article when it is absolutely guarunteed that most people will disagree with you. However, your argument is extremely weak and this looks like it took you maybe 5 minutes to write. Surprisingly, the thing that got me wasn’t even Beatles related. Rick Rubin only helped produce Metallica’s most recent album, Death Magnetic, and has not had much of an impact on the band as Bob Rock did. This leads me to believe your lacking facts and didn’t take much time at all to support your argument.

  137. The Beatles aren’t my favorite band, but they are up there, and this argument partially erroneous. The Beatles brought rock(ish) music to the masses and kicked in the door for the stones and the who (whom I prefer) in a big way. While a agree that George Martin doesn’t get enough credit, does the fact that he is often called “the fifth beatle” show that his accomplishments were also the band’s? Also, are you really using Rolling Stone lists AGAINST the Beatles? They hold 2 of the top 20 singer slots, 11 of the top 500 albums, and 10 of the top 100 songs on those respective lists by Rolling Stone. Without the Beatles, Monterey Pop never happens because Brian Jones doesn’t bring over hendrix and the who because he’s not famous because little red rooster is to bluesy for the british public because please please me was never made.

  138. 1964: Beatles begin touring in America, ushering in the ‘British Invasion’ therefore making popularity of the Rolling Stones etc possible.

    1966: Beatles stop performing in public.

    1970: Beatles break up

    1980: John Lennon assassinated.

    2001: George Harrison loses his battle against lung cancer.

    2007: Beatles LOVE wins Grammy award

    2009: Beatles entire catalogue remastered, Beatles Rock Band video game revolutionizes the music game genre.

    What other band has won a grammy more than thirty years after they disband and twenty years after a quarter of the original performers die?

  139. I was born in 1990 and I recognize the impact the Beatles had on the music industry.

    First, I want to say George Martin wasn’t the fifth Beatle.
    If anything it was seventh; Starkey replaced Pete Best and the Fab Four even acknowledged Epstein would’ve been the fifth.

    Second, the Beatles brought forth the British Invasion. That means that if groups like the Stones wanted to be big in America, they would’ve had to change their style.
    With all of your talk of your favorite bands, you fail to realize that they themselves were inspired by the Beatles.

    And Hendrix had to respect the band. I mean he took the time to learn and play live (with two Beatles in the audience) the title song for Sgt. Pepper.

  140. ManOf Reason says:

    Please understand this, your arguments make very little sense and are not grounded in substance but rather opinion. Also, to say this one is not the greatest guitarist and that one is not the greatest lyricist does not matter. The Beatles are the sum of their parts, and that sum added up to the greatest selling band of all time. Check album sales son and you may find the Beatles still outsell the vast majority of bands. Of course, using your logic all those people buying Beatles albums are idiots.

  141. Beatles sound like Disney or Brady Bunch music to me. I don’t understand the hype. Then again I don’t really rock music besides 50′s black rock n’ roll.

  142. Everyone else here have made a lot of great points, so I’m just going to add one thing.

    Starting the article with, “The Beatles suck,” and later on admitting, “Sure, they made some good music,” shows that you’re only writing this article to stir up attention and make people mad.

    I’m not disagreeing with the notion that they are overrated by some (my dad only half-jokingly remarks that it is a sin to switch the channel in the middle of a Beatles song), it is still my personal opinion that they were the greatest band ever.

  143. Whoever wrote this is an absolute ignorant tard.

    George Martin did the mixing sure, but the Beatles wrote the stuff.

    Jimi Hendrix had more talent? No. His lyrics were in no way in line with the writing talents Of Lennon/Mccartney. Jimi Hendrix loved the Beatles so much that he played The “Sgt Peppers” album live before the Beatles released it.

    “The Backstreet Boys were revolutionary. But they sucked, too.” They didn’t write alot of their shit or play any instruments. You cannot make a comparison.

    The person who wrote this is obviously a retard. Go and Worship Slipknot Mathew Stephens.

  144. We can’t be to hard on Matthew, he looks like a kid, I’m guessing born in the late 80′s, so he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If he had more knowledge of music history he’d get it. I mean, he actually thinks The Backstreet Boys are revolutionary. Seriously?

    For anyone else who doesn’t understand the impact of the beatles, please DO NOT ask a random fan and DO NOT listen to Matthew. Do your research and see just how many firsts came from this band. As far as influence, again seek out the many artists who site The Beatles as their influence.

    You could also just listen to The Beatles catalogue. Your local library could likely provide a free listen or two. They were prolific and ground breaking, all with out computers:)

    Anyway, not everyone can love everything and some people have to hate anything that’s deemed as too big. However, there’s a reason The Beatles got as big as they did and it requires a person to do their homework.

    Oh and George is an important part of The Beatles. This is true. However, even he admits that most of the ideas came from the boys in the band. He was simply their to help put ideas to record, again in most cases.

  145. A few things. You spelled Rubin wrong, and Chris Martin was the PRODUCER. He did not write any of the songs, and he only played keyboards a few times. Listen to the Escher tapes, it’s all of their demos, the songs are just as good. By the way, Hendrix didn’t produce his own music, nor did he know the members of the Experience before their first rehearsal. Who is your favorite band? My guess is that they don’t produce their stuff either. In Rainbows wasn’t produced by anyone in the band. Most people don’t produce themselves, and its a completely different art. Movies have a screenwriter and director. It’s the same thing. Listen to a few records, and tell me who was doing the things they were before them. NOBODY.

  146. Carol Ann H. says:

    Poor dude hates the fact that he missed out on the Golden Age of Rock ‘n Roll, and is stuck with today’s garbage as his generation’s legacy. hehehe….

    • There are plenty of great musicians today. Most that I think are great started in the 80′s or 90′s and by now have turned into prolific songwriters. Although they don’t get airplay because they are not R&B etc…they are out there. It just takes more of an effort to find great music as you can’t trust that the radio will appreciate all that is good. They will play easily memorized tunes that anyone can sing back within one or two listens. Lindsey Buckingham released an amazing album two years ago or so, probably one of his best ever & there was no radio play. Of course he’s been around awhile but so what? He’s still making songs now. You just can’t get played on the radio unless your song is more simple nowadays it seems. It’s just how it looks to me. There is plenty of great music being made still.

    • the golden age of rock and roll was the 50′s, not the lame, white bread, watered down, generic covers done later by the beatles.

  147. I can at least say that the Beatles possibly wrote “good” rock music, but no rock will compare to that of a Tchaikovsky symphony, or even a small Schubert lied.

    • asdfasdfasd says:

      people who say that usually don't listen to classical music, rock music is just as good as old classical music styles, it's just that it isn't as old so there isn't as many academics writing about it.

  148. Also, anyone who thinks that the Beatles were revolutionary needs to go and listen to the Rite of Spring by Stravinsky, and then put it in its historical context. Then see how revolutionary the Beatles seem.

  149. Live and let live. This argument is inconsequential to life. The Beatles are great/The Beatles suck, everyone has different opinions and at no time will everyone see eye to eye. Why keep causing problems and more hatred between people because youre wrapped up in unimportant things? Go do something meaningful with your life.

  150. I know how I'll get attention! I'll write an article on how the greatest rock band of all time sucks! Yeah, that's the ticket!

    “Jimi Hendrix had more talent in his left hand than the Fab Four combined.” What does this even mean? Of course he was a great guitarist. Does that mean he made better music? Hell to the no. And somehow ceasing to play live shows made them less of a great band? Good Lord. And I forgot how George Martin wrote all the Beatles songs. Oh, he didn't? Crazy.

    This article is just too ignorant to waste my time on. Major fail. EPIC fail.

  151. I know how I'll get attention! I'll write an article on how the greatest rock band of all time sucks! Yeah, that's the ticket!

    “Jimi Hendrix had more talent in his left hand than the Fab Four combined.” What does this even mean? Of course he was a great guitarist. Does that mean he made better music? Hell to the no. And somehow ceasing to play live shows made them less of a great band? Good Lord. And I forgot how George Martin wrote all the Beatles songs. Oh, he didn't? Crazy.

    This article is just too ignorant to waste my time on. Major fail. EPIC fail.

  152. “Jimi Hendrix had more talent in his left hand than the Fab Four combined.”

    What! Jimi Hendrix sucked. Most overrated guitarist ever.
    This is a fun game , Mr. Stephens, let me try some more.
    Pacific – world's most overrated ocean
    Tiger Woods – most overrated golfer
    Babe Ruth – baseball's most overrated hitter
    Jesus Christ – most overrated deity

    • IFollowNoTrends says:

      Ok, you as a Beatlefan, should be the VERY last person to deduce who is or isn’t overrated. Jimi Hendrix was a far more brilliant and accomplished artist, and what his band in those 3 albums puts the majority of the Beatles’ karaoke sessions to severe shame!

  153. Beatles are good don't get me wrong…but far from best,revolutionary,etc etc….

    The only Beatle I like is Lennon,and it may have to do with the fact that he showed signs of beliving in Communism…

    Back on topic…Hendrix is good too,and to be honest in no way overrated. And I agree,he had more talent than all of them together (excluding Lennon,in my opinion)

    • Talent at what? Playing guitar? Obviously.

      But overall musical talent? Songwriting, playing various instruments, creativity and innovation, etc.? Please don't be a moron.

      • Gabrielrios9 says:

        You are mixing musical talent with political/social talent.

        Musical=Hendrix/ Zeppelin

        Social: Beatles

        *Not saying Beatles don't have musical talent, but Hendrix and Zeppelin have more*

  154. sethdixson says:

    you are a completer idot, first of all the Beatles stopped playing live because the crowds were filled with girls just screaming at the top of their lungs. They could not hear themsleves at all play and the reason that they played live was becuase they liked the music that they made together. so it got to the point where it was just them standing thier and girls just going mad. another thing, George Martin of course was the producer of almost all of the Beatles albums. But if you would actually do your reasearch instead of going off assumptions, then you would know that since Rubber Soul the Beatles were bassicly the head of their work. They are the ones who came up with Sgt Pepper they are the ones who came up with medley at the end of Abbey Road, they were the ones that decided to use non conventional instraments in thier songs. All that credit does not belong to George Martin. To say that without him then the Beatleswould be in the Basement doing drugs is a sign that obviously you dont know a thing about the Beatles.

  155. The Beatles are not your favorite band and that's ok. But they introduced more innovations into popular music than any other XXth century rock band, and sorry, but that's a fact! With Sgt. Pepper's release Rock 'n' Roll was finally recognized as a form of art. Until that moment, it was perceived just as some 1960's version of “High School Musical”.

    Here in Brazil all important post-60's musicians were deeply influenced by The Beatles: Chico Buarque, Caetano Veloso, Milton Nascimento & Lô Borges (whose best song is “Para Lennon e McCartney”), Os Mutantes, Jorge Ben… The same about Argentinean ones. The greatest Spanish modern musician, Joan Manuel Serrat, was also inspired by them. No other English or American act was so relevant to the world.

  156. Chrisjmiller2001 says:

    All you need to do is listen to a Beatles album and then listen to the albums other artists were putting out at the time and you will see that they are light years ahead of most of the competition. I could care less about their performing career as I was born the year the Beatles broke up. Concerts are great but they are not what will endure and entertain people hundreds of years from now. George Martin was an incredible producer and the perfect recording partner for the Beatles but it wasn't Martin that wrote the melodies and the lyrics. He had very little input in the White Album or Let it Be and fans still listen to those albums. Many consider the White Album to be their best and if George Martin had his way it many of the songs would have been culled to make it a single album. Mentioning the Backstreet Boys in an Article about the Beatles is pure idiocy and I should have quit reading at that point. George Harrison wasn't the greatest guitarist nor was ringo the greatest drummer but they didn't have to be. A great song is about the quality of the melody, harmony, and lyrics. If Jimi Hendrix was playing the guitar parts it just would have messed things up. He was great at improvisation which is great for making a mediocre song better. The Beatles songs, however, were great and would not have benefited from the Hendrix experience. Ringo kept great time and didn't let his drumming overshadow the song. A lot of musicians have gone on the record saying Ringo is one of the very best drummers ever precisely because he knew when to stop and not put in that extra fill, etc. Mr Stevens, I really feel sorry for you that you can't appreciate the greatest band of the Rock and roll era. The best memories I have of my early teens are listening to Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and the rest. What they accomplished in just 7 years is nothing short of superhuman. The rolling Stones have been more or less together since 1964 and still have yet to amass as impressive of a music catolog.

    • I’d say Stewart Copeland would be my pick for great drummer over Ringo.

    • Mr. Dr. Mishmash says:

      Light years measure distance, not time, and f.y.i who cares if they were ahead of their time? that’s unrelated to the quality of the music, unlike other people here im not a beatle basher or fan, i just simply think they’re overrated.
      (BTW I know how old your comment is but i read through and decided to post)

      • I agree. It was not merely their musical abilities that made them what they are today. Their impact on society is too much for what they actuallt are : a music group that made very fine music. Remove them from their time and the fact that their exploits outside the studio were at least as important as their music, they would have been a good rock band but nothing of this magnitude. People would always look at the past and calculate worth of people and events by what they di directly and indirectly. They affected a whole lot of genres but believing only there musical abilities as a driving force is wrong.

  157. Sevencitylights says:

    I completely agree.

  158. Monique 1814 says:

    the beatles couldnt keep doing live shows because they were creating a sound that could not be produced on stage .

  159. Margrain Daniel says:

    I agree with the sentiments expressed in the piece. The Beatles are arguably the most over-rated band in rock history whose music was reactionary and conservative and whose lasting influence and legacy can been seen in both the 'boy bands' of today and turgid Brit-pop phenomenon and its various offshoots.

    'Revolver' was influential but for all the wrong reasons. This is because it spawned the notion of the “Brill-Building” – that is, the notion that those who blindly adhere to its artistic merits view it as a genre in and of itself by which all music ought to aspire to. Hence the reason why British rock music (and UK popular culture in general) has remained stuck within a creative cul-de-sac for 44 years since its release.

    Far from being influential, the Beatles (after one strips away all of the myths and marketing strategies of record company executives and their media lackeys) remained several steps behind many of their ground-breaking contemporaries.

    Essentially the Beatles, whose sound was based upon classic music-hall and vaudeville, had not advanced their music beyond the simple verse-chorus-verse structure of the melodious ditty.

    The same accusation incidentally can be labelled at the band who they imitated throughout their career, the Beach Boys.

    The main man behind the Beatles was in reality George Martin who layered their simple ditties with studio production and special effects from 1966 onwards at a time when their contemporaries were producing long complex jams and suites.

    It is no coinicidence that the Beatles gave up playing live during the late 1960s because many of their contemporaries would have exposed them as being the mediocre bunch of musicians that they were.

    In truth, the Beatles represented all that was conservative, backward and reactionary about British society, whilst it was left to artists like Frank Zappa The Velvet Underground and others to push the boundaries.

  160. Ignorance really. There's only one reason to like or dislike a band or artist: because you like the music or you don't. Arguing the point just makes anyone on either side sound like an ass. Personally I've always loved the Beatle's music – even before I knew who they were and thought the songs were played by different bands. However, it's no skin off my back if other's don't. I'm not i the band. The thing is, it's entirely subjective. I happen to think The Beatle's version of Hey Jude is perfect. All that extra “emotion” in Wilson Picket's version, to me, seems like an actor overacting, and I can't appreciate the performance. It's like he's saying to his audience: “no you guys, I really mean this; it's extremely important that my good friend Jude her understand that 'the movement he needs is on his shoulder.' Otherwise the worlds gonna explode.” Emotions are one thing, but there are matters of taste. But pop music has gone in a direction that seems bombastic to me. I believe we have Michael Bolton's version of Sittin' On The Dock Of The Bay for this trend. But as I said, taste is personal, and it would be nice if we could all just accept that it's possible to be intelligent and still enjoy music that other people don't understand the factual inaccuracies of your blog aside(which I really shouldn't take the time to enumerate) So you like Picket; I'll take Redding and McCartney(no I don't mean Lennon – though I love his voice) To me they sing appropriately and don't distract from the melody. Take care.

  161. I don't know if anyone reads this post any more, but here goes…
    The “anti-Beatles” stance taken by this author is, at best, uninformed. As one who is old enough to have grown up with the Beatles, lived through Beatlemania, watched their songwriting flourish, and became a musician because of the Beatles, I think I can say first-handedly, there has never been, nor is there likely to be, any group of musicians who will have more of an impact on the music industry or even cultural trends.
    First, there was Beatlemania, which amounted to the very beginnings of touring and rock concerts. The Beatles' equipment was akin to “stone knives and bearskins” compared to what bands use today. The Beatles had no monitors, so they couldn't even hear themselves. Thus, monitor systems were created to solve that problem. The Beatles couldn't be heard by fans because of the poor PA systems used (and the screaming), so an entire industry of industrial PA systems was created to solve those problems.
    In the studio, the Beatles were constantly looking for new sounds. If you read the books by Sir George Martin (“With A Little Help From My Friends”) and Geoff Emerick (“Here, There and Everywhere”), you will see how it was the Beatles' requests and demands which led the producer and engineer to devise ways to accommodate them, which resulted in new recording techniques which have become standard techniques in the world of recording.
    And consider the sheer number of hits and sales the Beatles accumulated A) in the short span between 1964 and 1970; and B) since that time. The compilation “1″ cd, released in 2000, has sold more than 31 million units, and was the best-selling cd between the years 2000 – 2009… 30 years after they split up.
    And, as for splitting up, that unfortunate circumstance owed more to animosity over business, and simple growing apart than it did to Yoko. I'm not saying she wasn't part of the reason, but she was not the Great Evil Beatle-wrecker people still make her out to be. Read Peter Doggett's book “You Never Give Me Your Money” for all the details about the Beatles' business disasters and conflicts.
    Mr. Stephens, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you cannot re-write history, nor can you erase it. The Beatles' place in music and world history is firmly established, and they will probably be remembered long after we are dead and buried.

  162. You're an embarassment to the music world. It's not even worth arguing and explaining simple facts to you. Keep believing that 2+2=5.

  163. Who is the most important explorer of North America?
    Anyone?

    It's not Columbus just because he got there first. (I know he wasn't the first actually, but just go with it for a second). Sure, he got there before anyone and claimed the land in the name of Spain and all that, but he only scratched the surface. He changed the entire face of the globe, but as far as the land itself, he was really unimportant.

    The point is, being the first at something doesn't make you the best, it just makes you the first. That is a weak argument in my opinion. I'm not saying doing it first wasn't important, because it was, but it wasn't the most important based solely on it's timing.

  164. winston o'boogie says:

    i agree with all of the pro-beatle comments.. spot on. another reason the Beatles stopped touring was because the KKK was after their heads after John's infamous “bigger than Jesus” remarks.

    their roots are straight rock, look at their covers on their early albums, but they then transformed into a world of music that was never imagined due to putting all their time in the studio and not writing songs locked in a hotel room. i'm also pretty sure that every band shows flashes of the Beatles and most cite them as an influence. read up on the Beatles then write a new article, thats my advice. and they were completely about love and peace because what it love and peace? inspiring more people to be about love and peace and they basically inspired the “hippie” generation, the summer of love, and in short, a revolution. when you see a half a million people singing give peace a chance, thats pretty magical and life changing. (i know give peace a chance was a Lennon solo song but it was released while the Beatles were still together.)

    to all of u supporters backing THE BEST BAND OF ALL TIME.. kudos! to the rest of u, just play the white album and then repost.. Peace and Love

    • the beatles are popular because they didn’t write very many personal
      songs. they mostly wrote generic, commercial, so-called universal songs
      about…love.

    • the beatles did lame, water-down, diluted, white bread, pop covers of rock and roll songs early on. they emasculated those tunes. their versions are limp wristed, girly remakes. they were a pop band. they got all lyrically ‘serious’ only after having heard bob dylan. when they heard the innovations the byds did they added that to their sound. they listened to pet sounds while recording sgt. pepper. do not give the lads from liverpool the credit for the hippie generation; that started on the west coast and the east coast of america. sgt. pepper was the beatles trying to stay relevant AFTER the hippie era had started. zappa’s freak out was a big inspiration for the beatles as well. the betales made a career was getting the innovations of others and making them more generic for mass consumption.

  165. I was just listening to Their Satanic Majesties along with Sgt Pepper, and it was hilarious, I felt embarrassed about The Beatles. I have no explanation of why some critics think that album is even good. People can think what they want, I mean, the history of rock is full of mediocre acts.

  166. JOSEPH WILLIAMS says:

    LED ZEPPELIN IS THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME , LED ZEPPELIN'S

    MUSIC IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX ,

    INNOVATIVE , REVOLUTIONARY , IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ,

    I WOULD PUT THE BEATLES AT NUMBER TWO !

  167. Patrick0921 says:

    Well I do disagree, but I also understand a bit. No they were,'t the most talented of musicians, but they WERE phenomenal songwriters

  168. Citylife80 says:

    Why is this idiot allowed to espouse his dimwitted opinions on the interwebs? Something is fundamentally wrong with this country.

    • Freedom of speech buddy. If you can't handle reading an opinionated article that you disagree with, then move the hell on. Not everyone is gonna like the same things you do. In fact, if everyone were the same in this world, what would be the point of living. The Beatles are no exception. However, if you are just writing something sarcastic, then disregard what I said.

  169. Gabrielrios9 says:

    You are mixing musical talent with political/social talent.

    Musical=Hendrix/ Zeppelin

    Social: Beatles

    *Not saying Beatles don't have musical talent, but Hendrix and Zeppelin have more*

  170. Interesting observations. The Beatles have always topped my personal list of overrated artists/bands, followed by Elvis and Led Zeppelin, in that order. When I listen I wonder what people see in them. I wont go into as much depth as the writer, but their sound just sucks. It just doesnt appeal to the ear musically. Granted some of the lyrics were creative, most likely due to the influence of foreign substances, but the drug influenced music of Clapton or Hendrix sounded much better, maybe they were just on better stuff. The Beatles sounded more like circus music on heroin.

  171. You are the king of the ignorants. The Beatles are underrated. They didn't tour after 1966 because KKK was after their heads. All of you suck.

  172. George Martin was no doubt the guy that glued everything together. But you can't deny that the Beatles was a tight live band. I mean, it was the early 60's and there were no stage monitors back then, yet they were able to stay in KEY on stage with all the screams going on!! (sigh) Obviously you never performed on stage.

  173. I'm not really sure where to start here. First of all, it matters not at all whether you like the Beatles. It actually doesn't matter what your musical tastes are at all. If you want to argue about who's good and who's not, then there are no facts, only opinions. I can absolutely see how you would be annoyed by anyone trying to convince you of anything, because from what I've read here, your mind is a closed book and you don't possess the intellectual curiosity necessary to actually understand what is really being discussed when the topic is something like the Beatles.

    Having an understanding of context would give anyone pause before dismissing the importance of a historically significant event (whether it be a band, world leader, technological innovation, etc.). Calling people's arguments “weak and false” just because you don't agree or don't understand is actually more ironic than anything. Your opinion about music is as unimportant to anyone as theirs is to you. Talking about talent (and declaring yourself as some sort of judge of it) belies a complete lack of understanding of the greater argument, and further diminishes your self-declared standing as any kind of intellectual capable of engaging in a discussion about cultural phenomena. This is completely separate from the fact that you are obviously not any kind of expert, possess no external credentials, and resort to name calling to try to bolster an argument born out of historical ignorance.

    Saying the Beatles are overrated is much like saying the iPod is overrated just because you don't like it or don't use one… or saying that Picasso is overrated simply because you don't like or understand his paintings. Sometimes things we don't like very much actually affect society in profound ways. The Backstreet Boys, the Clash and AC/DC are a part of a completely different conversation. They may have affected something… musical genres or something, but they didn't affect the culture at large in the way that the Beatles have, nor will they. Historians discuss music as it pertains to periods of societal growth or change. Whether individual historians think a certain form of art is “good” or not is simply irrelevant. It doesn't actually matter, much as you wish it did, what your opinion about any of the bands is. To say someone “sucked” is just wasted space and actually deflates the entirety of your attempt to sound like an informed correspondent of historical context. And, frankly, your opinion matters even less than you can imagine when you begin your entire thesis by declaring that people with a different opinion than yours actually “annoy” you.

    The point here is to try not to argue about whether the creations of a cultural phenomenon, taken out of context, are good or bad. That's entirely subjective. There are no “facts” in an argument of that nature. The fact is that whether or not you like the music of the Beatles, they are historically significant.

  174. you are nobody

  175. beatlemanialol says:

    I agree the beatles are overrated they were the equivalent of boy band early on got on drugs and made some trippy music had a few songs that I enjoy but most of the shit is just filler if you like the beatles so much as to say they were the greatest band of all time that's your opinion it is not a fact though. I think it's funny watching all these old hippies get all pissed off because somebody doesn't like them yes I'm only 33 but I still listen to classic rock imodium but the beatles are not that relevant to me so go ahead and hate me for saying they aren't the best band ever and if anything the argument can be made that these stooges were influenced by Elvis so sorry they didn't do anything original to begin with

  176. Get your facts straight – they quit because their music became too complex and (as John Lennon called it) “unworldly” to play live while remaining 'The Beatles' and not bringing in full complements of other musicians – that's why they started to make movies instead. In order to truly know why The Beatles were so great, you need to know more about music history [just like in order to truly appreciate Picasso, you need to know art history]. Research what the world was like pre-Beatles, then post-Beatles, then make your argument again.

    Also – The Beatles weren't the best individual singers, musicians, or songwriters – but put them together and they were the best BAND.

    While George Martin was the much forgotten 5th Beatle, it was actually manager Brian Epstein who made them revolutionary AND NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE MUSIC. Those blue jeans you're probably wearing right now? Popularized by The Beatles.

    Learn the facts, then kvetch.

  177. … You sadden me.
    Not necessarily for your accusations, but for the anger and bitterness that you don't hold back in your words.
    Why does it really matter whether you think they are overrated? They helped define a generation and they CONTINUE to put smiles on peoples' faces. Isn't that enough?
    Aaand they stopped playing live because of the technological changes in their music that could not yet be replicated on stage (as mister Jjfriedm mentioned).
    Also, your tensions would probably rise too if you spent every waking moment of about 10 years with the same people- constantly moving to get away from mobs and searching desperately for privacy. Just sayin'

    Also, I gotta say that starting your rant with “The Beatles suck.” does NOT give you much credit. That being the thing I read significantly subtracts from the amount of respect I would have had for you opinions.
    Can you just not like them and move on?
    I mean, you have cause you wrote this like a year ago. I just wanted to comment.

    Happy trails.
    :)

  178. I also have a hard time say the Beatles were the greatest ever. They made some catchy pop (Yes people they were a pop band) songs but I have a really hard time calling a band where half of their first few albums were covers. Led Zeppelin > The Beatles.

  179. BlahBlahBlah says:

    Naturally there are a lot of Beatles fans here calling the author a moron and such, but let me remind everyone that music is subjective. Not everyone needs to like the Beatles. I personally think they are overrated musically. Sure maybe they represented something greater than music at the time, but I wouldn't know because I'm not an old fogey. All I can go on is the music that they created, and from that standpoint alone, I have to classify them as being overrated in my book. That is not to say that I don't like some of their work, but for the most part it sucks.

  180. the who rules!

  181. I grew up with The Beatles; was still a kid when they split up.
    But as I am English could you explain waht ‘sucks’ means?

  182. Just because they weren’t the GREATEST at their respective parts in the band, doesn’t mean they weren’t a good/revolutionary band.

    Their style & the way they wrote their music was the revolution that they started. They began the trend of being unique with their music.

    Honestly, if you were to ask any big artist who their influences were, most would say the Beatles. & if not, their influences would say that they were influenced by the Beatles.

    You’re a teensy bit biased. & harsh.

  183. Music is subjective it’s true and many have enjoyed big crowds and great sales but what happened with that band “The Beatles” in the early 60′s was extraordinary. With almost no publicity and even opposition they got more and more fans because the hysteria effect from their music. It was a mix between music alone ,charisma and intelligent interviews. Still it is almost impossible to explain rationally why such a success? Remember they got into America only because “I wan’t to hold your hand” with no publicity at all got to n1. Few months later when people actually got to see them here they got the top 5 number one places on the american charts. So we have in our hands something like a miracle indeed. 4 lads with not much formal musical background conquered the world with almost no publicity at all. Once they became famous the papers wouldn’t stop talking about them and many started imitating them that is precisely why they are such a strong influence in contemporary music. The beatles strength is on composition and variationism of other composers works. It is irrelevant if you are not the best guitarrist or piano performer at the end of the day it is the composer the one that deserves the credit and George Martin was not the cause because he got many many other groups but never repeated the beatles success. Motzart was not the best pianist neither Beethoven, such huge names are remembered for their compositions. qualified guitarist you can find everywhere but genious composers very rarely. Even the songs given away by Lennon or Mc Cartney to other artists often became classics.

    • Agreed that individual skill is irrelevant in a rock ‘n roll band. What I want to inquire is how you equate commercial success to musical proficiency- of which the beatles had very little.

      Individually all four were mediocre musicians at best. Lyrically they were commiserate.
      One can argue that the beatles revolutionized rock music. They didn’t.
      Throughout their pitiful lifetime as a band they merely aped other more talented band such as The Beach Boys (a band they were almost obsessed with) And The Byrds.

      Through their entire career, from 1963 to 1968, the Beatles actually followed the Beach Boys within a year or two, including the formation of Apple Records, which came almost exactly one year after the birth of Brother Records. Pet Sounds had caused an uproar because it delivered the simple melodies of surf music through the artistic sophistication of the studio. So, following the example of Pet Sounds, the Beatles recorded, from February to May 1967, Sgt. Pepper- their most ‘innovative work.

      When the world was afire, when young people took to the streets, when Bands like The Who channeled an entire generation’s anger into some of the fieriest outbursts rock music has ever witness The Beatles were composing 3 minute ditties and writing on the most inane trivialities.
      You ask why the Beatles were popular. Their “popularity” is the result of commonplace chance. With the war, the tear gas, the violence and the drugs, The Beatles were welcomed as saviours- they were not. Their music was an anachronism- escapist and timid. The times were dark and turbulent, the Beatles provided a window of escape. The beatles were popular for the same reason Lady Gaga, or Britney Spears or any of today’s pop musicians are.
      .

  184. I think it’s comical that so many jump to the defense of the Beatles, just to give exceedingly shallow reasons for why they “are the best band in history.”

    1) “They were the most popular band.”

    - Popular artists today include Lil’ Wayne, T-Pain, Lady Gaga…..need I say more?

    2) “They have a lot of money.”

    - So obviously trivial that no response is needed.

    3) “They have millions of screaming female fans.”

    - When did hormonal, irrational teenage girls become the standard for

    4) “Lennon was a communist, and I like that.”

    - Good for him I suppose. He supports a political ideology that is both contrary to human nature and suggests that the population share in a type of common misery.

    5) ‘They were “Revolutionary.”‘

    - Whoever first used the auto-tune was revolutionary….unfortunately, revolutionizing shit music is doesn’t make you an objectively good musician.

    6) “They had charisma.”

    - Hitler had charisma…..

    The works of composers such as Handel, Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart are centuries old. Even hymns of the Reformation and post-Reformation period continue to live on in conservative Christian churches across the country. They have stood the test of time and continue to be recognized for their brilliance. The Beatles are a fad that just hit half a century. When the mindless drones of the pop/rock movement disappear, so will the legacy of the Beatles.

    • You’re such an elitist ****! How do you get through life being so difficult? I doubt you have any real friends, as you feel the need to take the contrarian view on every subject; I’m assuming as the Beatles are the most universally lauded group of all time. You’re definitely in the minority here, but hey you probably enjoy that!Your comparison with them and contemporary acts in regards to popularity is completely false. They had the best selling album of the 2000′s, if you’re not aware. It was their greatest hits album “1″ which far exceeded original projections going 11x platinum in the US alone. They absolutely were the most revolutionary band of all time. There is so much diversity in their discography, you would have to be a thick fool not to see it, and they did every thing in a matter of 7 years. That’s unheard of. They were responsible for the first concept album, and constantly utilized the studio as almost a fifth Beatle; they completely changed the music landscape at that time, and with no real reference. Imagine making all these advancement with nobody to whom you could compare; their ideas came out of thin air. Everyone else was still playing the same “Bee-bop”. Thank God for the Beatles, otherwise we might have had to endure that!And as a final kick in the nuts, refer yourself to Eleanor Rigby, or She’s Leaving Home, if you so strongly feel the same inclinations towards your precious Baaach and Beethoven. The Beatles are musical geniuses, and will remain the best band of all time regardless of your opinion; now **** off you wine-drinking panzy!

      • They most certainly will NOT remain the best band of all time as it is apparent already that many young people today don’t care at all about the tired old songs the Beatles put out. I just think they are too simple on a lot of their instrumentation. Some of it is clever as well. But best band of all time. That does not get to be held forever by any one band. Luckily I like music that sounds nothing like the Beatles. And nothing like what’s on the radio either. I think Collective Soul is way better a band than the Beatles.

  185. Fans of The Beatles are just hipsters who listen to indie music and think they’re “different”. They’re overrated as hell and most of their songs are unspectacular, mediocre at best. I look forward to responses.

  186. WHO IS SO MISERABLE THEY HAVE TO HATE ON THE BEATLES?!?!? SERIOUSLY!!! At least their music is heart-felt inspiring, fun, and not auto-tuned!!! Who cares if some of them didn’t make sense, at least they weren’t degrading women! Modern pop music is hot stinky garbage!!

  187. haha trollface if anything you want to be “different” by saying you dont like the best selling band in the world.. i dont understand how fans of a legendary band with great main stream and unique appeal relate at all to indie music and make people look “different”? i’d love to know..

  188. haha trollface if anything you want to be “different” by saying you dont like the best selling band in the world.. i dont understand how fans of a legendary band with great main stream and unique appeal relate at all to indie music and make people look “different”? i’d love to know..

  189. I am going to have to agree. I hear so much of the “without the Beatles” argument. Without the Beatles what? People would have learned how to play their instruments and write their own music? When would this have taken place. Its not like there were no other good bands around 1971. The Beatles were a below average group of studio musicians who were keeping it together to make money. Not good music.

  190. Jlaughton83 says:

    The Beatles and Elvis have to be the most overrated “musical geniuses” in gawddamn history! Michael Jackson topped them all and they killed him for it!

    • Nobody killed Michael Jackson…except maybe Michael Jackson.
      Not that I dislike his music. Just saying…he was actually a known fan of the Beatles, and he overdosed on painkillers. So…get you facts straight.

  191. Elvistelth says:

    I totally agree Matt.

  192. Do you realize how ignorant you sound? “The Beatles….will remain the best band of all time regardless of your opinion”. That’s an opinion right there. I for one agree with this article. I do think the Beatles are overrated. However, I’m not going to criticize others opinions because they’re different than mine. This is an opinion piece, so yeah, probably most who read it will disagree, but my god, realize that people think differently and have different opinions and don’t jump at their throats because of it. Try not to be so narrow-minded.

  193. your an idiot says:

    False idiot, I do like indie music, but i don’t think i’m different. I like eminem and about every other group on the top 10. SOooo ur an idiot

  194. Well that was probablly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. They have sold over 1 BILLION albums. Tell me someone else who had done that. They have the most #1 albums out of everyone EVER. They have 20 #1 songs in the US. And most other artist in the top 10 might have 1 other song. 20 is rediculous. They had the most diverse music of anyone. And they did this in 7 years. Tell me anyone who has ever done all of that in 7 years. They are THE BEST EVER

  195. whatanidiotyouare says:

    I guess you also think Lady Gaga is authentic rock, songs that go “my humps my humps, my humps, my humps, my humps!” is a sign of true songwriting, and musicianship includes repeating “blah blah blah” in songs.

  196. I just found this in a Google search and I have to say, this is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

  197. This has got to be the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Have you ever realized that maybe the reason The Beatles are as big as they are is because people enjoy listening to their music? It doesn’t matter if they stopped touring live and didn’t all play left handed or whatever point you were trying to make with that jimi hendrix comment. being a musician is about being a musician you … and because The Beatle’s music is so great (yes the music) it has reached every corner of the earth and literally across the universe. So bugger off shaggy doo

  198. This has got to be the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Have you ever realized that maybe the reason The Beatles are as big as they are is because people enjoy listening to their music? It doesn’t matter if they stopped touring live and didn’t all play left handed or whatever point you were trying to make with that jimi hendrix comment. being a musician is about being a musician you … and because The Beatle’s music is so great (yes the music) it has reached every corner of the earth and literally across the universe. So bugger off shaggy doo

  199. Agathomaiden says:

    You are correct sir. The Beatles kind of made decent songs, but when it came to playing instruments: nothing revolutionary about that. Most novice guitarists, drummers and bassists can play their mediocre style if they are beginners. Totally overrated.

    I am sure you know that you will get more musical fascists saying you are completely wrong, and there must be “something wrong with you” since you don’t like them. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Most of them probably when exposed to real musical ambiance and physical talent, will be speechless.

    Iron Maiden. Now that is talent, and revolutionary metal. Compare Adrian Smith vs George Harrison for example. No comparison. The talent lies with Smith. Light years ahead. Also Steve Vai, Yngwie Malmsteen etc etc. The Beatles are nothing when it comes to talent. They wrote decent songs, that is it.

  200. Ringo Starr says:

    1° Beatles are not pop, they never were. Beatles were rock.2° Overrated? why? cause people ENJOY their songs?? so i would say Metallica is the most overrated metal band only cause it has a lot of fans.. and a band with little fans is cool?… if The Beatles are so popular, its because they knew what the … they were doing, they wrote great songs, purely original and so on.having lots and lots of fans isnt being overrated, you’re just mad cause maybe a lot of people are fans and they play their songs and you’re just tired of listening to them.3° Lots and lots of bands were inspired by the beatles, (AC/DC, The Knack, Frank Zappa, The Mothers of Invention, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Prince) thanks to the Beatles. Also the beatles helped the rolling stones to become famous.4° If the beatles never existed, i doubt there would still be any rock, and we will be flooded with that shit hip hop/rap/pop shit.5° even that they stopped with concerts at 1966, they just did one little tiny thing: recording awesome music to show that the beatles were still alive. and the mythic Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album that its just the best album worldwide.So, dont be another “beatles r overrated cause a lot of people like em” im not saying beatles are the best band of all time (for me, it is), but everyone have their own preferences.

  201. Scuba Phil says:

    the beatles are pretty okay i guess

  202. Scuba Phil says:

    the beatles are pretty okay i guess

  203. Ian Atwell says:

    But… Central Michigan is a bad school…

  204. This is pretty hilarious really. Beatles and Beach Boys respected each other, and competed relentlessly. Pet Sounds was an amazing album – but it wouldn’t have existed without the Beatles, and this isn’t some critical assessment, it’s what Brian Wilson himself said. The album was inspired by the release of Rubber Soul, but the Beatles.

    “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs … that somehow went together like no album ever made before, and I was very impressed. I said, “That’s it. I really am challenged to do a great album.”

    And indeed he did – and Paul McCartney (the true force behind Pepper) never made secret of his admiration:

    “It was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. I love the album so much. I’ve just bought my kids each a copy of it for their education in life … I figure no one is educated musically ’til they’ve heard that album … I love the orchestra, the arrangements … it may be going overboard to say it’s the classic of the century … but to me, it certainly is a total, classic record that is unbeatable in many ways … I’ve often played Pet Sounds and cried.”

    Its release in turn challenged the Beatles and they released Sgt Pepper. Brian Wilson apparently thought it was so great that he sunk unto horrible depression after hearing it.

    “In April 1967, Brian Wilson (who was suffering growing mental problems) was deeply affected by hearing a tape of the Pepper song “A Day in the Life”, which McCartney played to him in Los Angeles. Soon after, Smile was abandoned, and Wilson would not return to complete it until 2003. Van Dyke Parks later said, “Brian had a nervous collapse. What broke his heart was Sgt. Pepper.”[27]”

    This is tragic, but it’s unfair and short sighted to say that the Beatles copied Beach Boys or vice versa. What is true is that out of the friendly rivalry between the two bands, we got two of the most incredible rock albums of the 20th century.

    Anyway, what it comes down to is that some people just don’t get it. You don’t have to like the Beatles (kind of like how I don’t really enjoy Mozart), but the fact that it’s amazing and innovative music really can’t be disputed.

    I still prefer the Stones, just for the attitude.

  205. Ellie_dairy444 says:

    george martin was there producer and a musician idiot..if you are going to criticize the beatles that get your information right.

  206. Maybe they stopped doing live shows because they were so loved by their crazed fans that if they hadn’t, they would have been crushed by the enraptured masses. I actually think you’re crazy now. George Martin? Are you kidding me? No point in trying to talk sense to a crazy person…
    And to “Agathomaiden”, sure, the Beatles weren’t known for being amazing singers, or genius guitarists, but they WERE genius musicians, which has probably gone over your head as you nitpick the technicalities. They manage to capture emotions perfectly within sound, and use words to convey feelings which words usually can’t describe. And as to being a music “fascist”: fascists are people who stifle creativity, resist change, and refuse to accept more than one way of looking at things. Beatles fans obviously don’t fall into this category, because the Beatles music was constantly changing and revolutionizing even itself, not to mention the music world.

  207. Distrbed22490@aol.com says:

    Most of these people don’t know what they’re talking about here’s the facts.
    1.) 1st band to play stadium gigs
    2.) first band to have fade ins and outs at beginning & end of tracks
    3.) invented metal with “Helter Skelter”
    4.) popularized psychedelic rock
    5.) each member had #1 hits as solo artists
    6.)popularized punk with “polythene pam”
    7.) invented progressive rock “I me mine”
    8.) had the longest #1 hit song at #1 “a day in the life”
    9.) had the most #1 hit songs
    10.) sold the most albums
    11.) first band to have backward solos & vocals on songs
    12.) “yesterday” is the most covered song of all time
    13.) first to put feedback on guitar also known as distortion
    Definitely overrated bahahahaha

  208. you would realize this and not be such a pompous over blown idiot. Go back to your apartment and keep listening to Moby. Leave the Beatles alone

  209. Wow, this guy is a total idiot. They stopped playing live because their song arrangements became massive and would be extremely difficult to pull off live, and when you don’t have to worry about playing live you can focus purely on making albums. Great albums. I do agree that George Martin in an unsung hero who doesn’t get nearly enough credit. Most all of those production techniques that people keep bringing up saying “The Beatles were the first to…”, it’s actually “George Martin was the first to…”, and saying that The Beatles invented metal with Helter Skelter is quite absurd. It was a stepping stone, but it did not single handidly invent the entire genre of metal music. No way. Nor did the Beatles invent progressive rock. The Beatles are an amazing group. My favorite band. Perhaps the best band. Who knows. But saying they invented metal, progressive rock and were the first band to use distortion is just plain wrong. They were extremely influential though.

  210. Sorry sir but you apparently don’t know much about music. I am a huge Beatles fan but will be the first to admit they are nowhere near the best of all times at their instrument.
    But they were a good with them. They were more known for their song writing and and voices. They created great harmony in their songs. If you want to use rolling stones as a source they have Lennon as the number 7 all time best singer and Paul is around 14 I think. And they were in the same band which is ridiculous. The Beatles are the best band ever not because they were the best at their instruments but because you have such talent in one band. You have two of the best singers of all time. Not to mention they could all sing decent. Harrison is a very good guitar player as well. It’s not the individual that made the Beatles great it is the group of them together. Even though we can see from their solo carrears that they are pretty talented by themselves as well. John and Paul were also two of the best song writers individually ever. Put them together and you have a killer band!

  211. R.johnson says:

    Say believe what you like about The Beatles you don’t have to like them that your valid opinion, but there are facts they are the most revolutionary and successful band to have lived if you judge that by records sales and there influence on other musicians.They may not have been the best technically as the instrument Hendrix was better at guitar(technically) then any of The Beatles but they were all very good songwriters they tried things nobody had done before. They expanded rock and roll from america to the world.I like the Rolling stones songs just as much as many as any of The Beatles songs which is my opinion it like pepsi or coke one is not better then the other it is your preference but statics can show the facts about which is more successful and nobody did better then The Beatles on paper.So how can the worlds most successful band be overrated?

  212. Devilleslac says:

    “Fun” DEFINATELY is not the word to describe Beatles’ music. i understand the love-filled messages and the number of albums sold and all that good stuff but The Beatles are overall a boring, dry-sound, band. Truth hurts. I dont care how “classic” their music is. It is very boring. thats why i never liked it and never will. They are HIGHLY overrated. The voices arent even all they are cracked up to be. ive heard TONS of better singers.. even in TODAY’S music where everything seems to be crappy. I hate the beatles. and i wish everyone would shut the hell up about them.

  213. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU MR.
    Matthew Stephens

    FUCKIN’ OVERRATED. PINK FLOYD AND LED ZEP ARE GREATER BANDS THAN THE BEATLES
    !

  214. He told us to imagine no possessions, and there he was, with millions of dollars and yachts and farms and country estates, laughing at people like me who had believed the lies and bought the records and built a big part of their lives around his music.

    • talkin about John Lennon

      • you sound like the guy who shot him. what do you mean laughing at you? have you ever seen how john treated his fans, he had loads of time for everyone, even the nutters. but part of his message was telling people to stop building their lives around him. the man made music. hes wasnt ghandi.

  215.  I completely agree. I absolutely can’t see what all the fuss is about. I mean I wouldn’t say they are horrible by any means but I definitely wouldn’t say they were the greatest either.

  216.  Can’t argue with anything you’ve said here.   I’ve been saying it for years.   In fact, I’ve been saying it since 1964, the night I saw them on Ed Sullivan as a 10 year old.  

    I would only add that the entire literature of the Rock and Roll genre could be spoken about in the same way.    In other words, it’s ALL childish crap.    

    •  Your the one being Childish. You have been saying that since 1964? Well im sure that is Untrue. If you ARE Telling the truth… you are just one of those people who just judge a book by its cover…

  217. i agree about the last line on Gandhi!

  218. All Jimi Hendrix did with his left hand (most of the time) was strum. But you know everything about music, so you probably knew that.

    • Jimi was a left handed guitarist, you dunce. Apparently you know everything about music… deja vu.

      • Right handed guitarists strum with their right hand so Jimi strummed with… see where I’m going here?

      • Ignorant_Article_Author says:

        At the moment, 1 person “likes” the original comment while 4 “like” the first reply to it.  Are people really that ignorant as to how right- & left- handers hold & play guitars?  Wow.

  219. Taxtherich says:

    For whatever it’s worth, the Pixies, Nirvana, and Radiohead were heavily influenced by the Beatles and often used the Beatles’ songwriting as kind of a template for their own. And the Pixies and the B-52s nicked a lot of ideas from John Lennon’s solo work.

    As far as why the Beatles quit touring, the story about them not being able to hear themselves over the screaming fans I agree is BS and a problem easily solvable by buying some decent amps. But another factor, which George Harrison for one has said was the real reason they stopped touring, was they received a lot of terror threats after Lennon’s “more popular than Jesus” gaffe. The Klan was really on their case about it. Ringo was particularly targeted because antisemites mistakenly thought he was Jewish. I think they just blamed screaming fans to put a positive spin on a bad situation and avoid giving any credence to the groups that were threatening them, which might be kind of obnoxious but whatayagonnado.

    I like them, obviously, but I can understand people being annoyed by all the ongoing hyperbole about them.

    • buying amps wouldn’t do anything. stage monitors allow musicians to hear what they are playing. the whole not being able to hear themselves over screaming fans was more of a metaphor than meant to be taken literally. To take that literally is absurd. They toured as a pop band for years and wanted to experiment with sounds they weren’t sure would translate to  their current audience. simple as that. imagine having incredibly creative ideas but being tied down to pop songs. playing something experimental to a crowd of screaming teenagers would have ended their career pretty quickly.

    • buying amps wouldn’t do anything. stage monitors allow musicians to hear what they are playing. the whole not being able to hear themselves over screaming fans was more of a metaphor than meant to be taken literally. To take that literally is absurd. They toured as a pop band for years and wanted to experiment with sounds they weren’t sure would translate to  their current audience. simple as that. imagine having incredibly creative ideas but being tied down to pop songs. playing something experimental to a crowd of screaming teenagers would have ended their career pretty quickly.

  220. You're Wrong says:

    The reason they quit touring is because, every time they did a live show, fans would only want to hear their old work and the Beatles never were able to play their music. Also, they wanted to devote all their time to making new music, instead. You saying that, somehow, it’s the Beatles fault that T-Pain became an artist is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read in awhile. How are those two even closely related? Yes, they were about love and peace. That doesn’t make it impossible for animosity to become between people who became rich and popular very quickly. Also, the fifth member was not George Martin, it was Stu Sutcliffe. Which brings me to my next point, if the Beatles gave up concerts because it was becoming too violent, they had reason too. Stu Sutcliffe (the real fifth member) was trampled and kicked in the back of the head and given an aneurysm at one of their early shows. Did that ever happen to AC/DC, The Who, or The Clash? Besides, if you think about it, of course the Beatles wouldn’t want people getting violent, they preached peace. You saying that, without George Martin, they would be in a basement doing drugs, is also stupid. As you stated, they made an album without George Martin, (which was undoubtedly popular) so why couldn’t they continue without him? Maybe they weren’t the best at what they did, but when they all combined their talents, they formed the most popular band in history. The fact that you quote your reasoning from The Rolling Stone is funny to me. Why, you ask? Because the Rolling Stones also claim the Beatles to be the best band in history and Sgt. Pepper’s to be the best album.

  221. The real reason you are wrong is because your thought process is black and white. Music is about the sum total of everything. For that matter, music like art is in the eye of the beholder and no one has more hard core fans and no band influenced those      bands that came later more than the Beatles. George Martin was the  fifth Beatle and every recording is engineered and produced and perhaps arranged by someone, so what.Give the Beatles credit for knowing an awesome producer when they hear one. I don’t have time to argue with an idiot but Jimi Hendrix was out of tune half the time  and the fact that some other artist did a version of a Beatle song that you prefer is completely irrelevant. Yes Hendrix was still awesome, but he would tell anybody if he was alive that the Beatles were awesome and also his friends. You can bet that he was checkin out everything they did prior to his success too and that included some wild ass **** on Revolver. As a matter of fact, I can play a certain Hendrix song more precisely that Hendrix except IN TUNE and I am a trained classical player as well as electric. Am I better than Hendrix? That is true according to your stupid logic about Duane Allman rating higher in a magazine.You are basically a stupid idiot DUDE. Nice try. F off.

  222. Nooneyouknow says:

     Everyone. when you put “Of course they are overrated” You are so wrong. ALL Of this Like/Dislike is Full of Opinion and ONLY That. You can all not deny that they had hundreds of hits and people still love the music. and for all you haters, Get over it and deal with that.

  223. Noahcaldwell30 says:

    What the HELL?!?!?! The Beatles were the greatest band of all time! All they wanted to do was share their music to the rest of the world. You, matthew, portray The Beatles as if they are terrorists! Every one of their songs were about peace and love (except helter skelter). All bands today are just stubborn punk rappers and stupid teenage pop stars! I liked the days when The Beatles softly played on the radio, Jazz bands played at pubs and clubs, and there was no such thing as Trashy Rap Music!!!!!!! George Harrison wasn’t technically “The Fifth Beatle” because he didn’t play in the band, he was the MANAGER, the manager deals with the money and albums and financial issues of the band! So basically what i’m saying is that The Beatles were a clear, fresh, and awesome band.They have a lot if respect nowadays because they are a repectable band and they aren’t drug addicts like people these days! The Beatles are the best band there ever was and will ever be!

    • Guyabovemeisadumbass says:

      You are wrong about The Beatles not being drug addicts, half of their videos look like acid trip. They are pretty well know for doing drugs.

  224. Jimihendricks1996 says:

    “How can a band who stopped playing live shows in 1966 and started making just studio albums be ‘the greatest band ever?’” Because they revolutionized the way music was made in the studio. They were the first to use several recording techniques that are still used today over over 40 years later.

    The reason that people say they sound good is because they changed their style so much. Do you think anybody would even know who they are today if they stuck with singing “Love Me Do” or “She Loves You” their whole career? Listen to “Tomorrow Never Knows” off of Revolver. No other band was making music that sounded like that in 1966.

    And of course George Martin was a good producer. Basically every artist has to have a good producer to help put their album together. Today, they’re needed more than ever. I mean, do you think Kanye West could put together his own trash by himself?

    And saying that Beatles covers were better than the originals is a very weak argument. I mean sure, a cover can sound good and can be (in your opinion) better than the original, but the thing is only the Beatles could have written those songs. Do you think Wilson Pickett could have written Hey Jude? Do you think Elton John could have written Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? I think not.

    Its not the fact that you don’t like the Beatles that bothers me. It’s the fact that you don’t recognize that they DID in fact revolutionize music. You can have your own opinion if you want too. It just seems to me like you’re angry that Beatles are well known and highly regarded, and you resort to making stupid and easily disproved points.

    • Boston-champs says:

      I laughed my head off at the Kanye West comment. HE IS A PRODUCER!!! He has produced numerous albums off of very successful artists. He has helped produce most of Jay Z, Kid Cudi, John Legend, Common, and many other artists. He also produces all of his own music with the help of No I.D and Jay Z.
      If you think about someone was bound to revolutionize music because overtime people would test out new things and realize that they work well. Just because the Beatles tested out different stuff in the studio doesn’t make them the “best band of all time”. I remembered the time when I was high as hell and randomly went into a studio and played around with stuff. Shaking my head to all Beatles fans.

      • Jimihendricks1996 says:

        “If you think about someone was bound to revolutionize music because overtime people would test out new things and realize that they work well”. Ok fair enough. But there is no way to prove that statement is true about all or even any of what the Beatles did. And again, I’m not trying to say that the Beatles are the best band of all time, I’m just saying that they did revolutionize music, regardless of the fact that other people may have done it eventually. I honestly couldn’t care less if you don’t like them, but not admitting that they helped to modernize music is just being ignorant.
        Oh and I’m sure by producer you meant to say professional autotuner. Try messing around with recording technology from the 60s and technology from today, see if you can do that when you’re high as hell.

    • Kanye West DOES put together his own “trash” by himself. He’s a Grammy-winning producer.

  225. Your joking right? It was 1963 when they wrote it, and it got on the radio here in 1964.Listen to the other music that was being played on the radio at the time. It was and is  a great song.

  226. Boston-champs says:

    Sure he has used auto tune in the past but if you have ever even listen to Kanye’s older music Ex. The College Dropout, Late Registration and Graduation, you barely hear auto tune. He writes and creates all his own music as a professional producer and has produced some of the best rap albums of all time while i highly doubt the Beatles ever wrote or helped producing music.

    Of course you can almost prove that over time the type of music would eventually be revolutionized. Thats like saying over time phones or ipods won’t ever change. Everything changes after a while and that includes music. 

    • Wolverine says:

      ” i highly doubt the Beatles ever wrote or helped producing music.” Lennon/McCartney wrote over 200 songs and are considered the best songwriting partnership of all time. They were actually one of the first popular musicians to write their own stuff. Know what your talking about before making an argument.

    • Wolverine says:

      ” i highly doubt the Beatles ever wrote or helped producing music.” Lennon/McCartney wrote over 200 songs and are considered the best songwriting partnership of all time. They were actually one of the first popular musicians to write their own stuff. Know what your talking about before making an argument.

  227. all the beatles ever did was get american music of the 50′s and give it back to the world in a diluted, white bread, more easily digestible form for the masses. then they heard bob dylan and got all lyrically serious. then they heard the innovations roger McGuinn did with the guitar and incorporated that into their sound. then, they heard frank zappa’s freak out! and decided to do a ‘concept’ album. while recording it they listened to the album pet sounds by brian wilson and the beach boys for inspiration.

  228. Did you know that:the beach boys, NOT the beatles, were the first pop/rock act signed to capitol.the beach boys, not the beatles, were the first rock act EVER to gain FULL CONTROL in the studio.brian wilson quit touring to work in the studio long BEFORE the beatles quit touring to work in the studio.the
    beach boys started their own record label Brother records over a year
    before the beatles started thiier own record label apple records.drug
    references…the beach boys beat the beatles to the punch on that one
    too…when brian wilson changed the lyrics of sloop john b to ‘this is
    the worst TRIP i’ve ever been on.’

  229. “Nothing is more annoying than somebody trying to convince me The Beatles revolutionized music and, without them, we would not have (insert band here).”

    Actually, reading this ignorant, totally opinionated article is far more annoying than someone saying that The Beatles revolutionized music… because they did.

    You clearly know nothing about music, and know of no artists other those in the limelight, as demonstrated through your stupid references throughout the article.

    For example, that George Martin is to the The Beatles what Rick Ruben is to Metallica… Right…  I’m sure the vast majority of Metallica fans regard Death Magnetic as Metallica’s greatest album.

    Also, any lists from that joke of a magazine, the Rolling Stone, are completely meaningless. Case in point – according to Rolling Stone, there have only been 11 guitarists ever that were/are better than Kurt Cobain.

    Just because you like a cover better than the original doesn’t mean that it is, in any way better than the original. And that goes for anything.

    For example, you obviously prefer having a what most people would consider a stupid facial hairstyle as opposed to anything that looks half-decent, but I’m sure in your narcissistic eyes, you are the epitome of attractiveness.

    “…Without him, The Beatles would still be in a basement doing
    drugs and trying to make albums.”

    I’m not sure if this is meant to be some sort of childish insult, but in the end you come off as quite hypocritical, as you compare The Beatles to Jimi Hendrix, and it’s not like he ever did any drugs or anything, right? Seriously, is this meant to be an “article” or some sort of irrational hate speech about The Beatles?

  230. The Beatles are one of the greatest bands ever to play, the earned their fame. They spent so much time practicing and started from the very bottom and was able to get to the top. They are very funny and talented, and with this day and age you cant find many people who are good because they normally use electronics. You need to know whats good, they all had a very good range in vocal, they wrote great music that lots of people love, and they did it with hard work and confidence. They are a great band, they are still loved to this day, and will always be a legend in music history.

    • i KNOW what’s good and what isn’t. i WAS previously a beatles fan from ’74  -’83. i know all about them. then, i did some research and discovered who the true innovators were. beatlemania was created. it was all hype. a bunch of young americans bought into it. then, rolling stone magazine keep the brain washing going a few years later.

    • i KNOW what’s good and what isn’t. i WAS previously a beatles fan from ’74  -’83. i know all about them. then, i did some research and discovered who the true innovators were. beatlemania was created. it was all hype. a bunch of young americans bought into it. then, rolling stone magazine keep the brain washing going a few years later.

  231. Tatteredsatindoll says:

    And please, let’s not forget the success Mr. Hendrix enjoyed from covering “Day Tripper”. But I’m sure for the sake of your opinion ridden narrow minded “article”, his was better, right?

  232. Tatteredsatindoll says:

    And please, let’s not forget the success Mr. Hendrix enjoyed from covering “Day Tripper”. But I’m sure for the sake of your opinion ridden narrow minded “article”, his was better, right?

  233. Tatteredsatindoll says:

    Absolutely. He was so much a fan he owned almost more of their rights than the families and 2 remaining members.

  234. Tatteredsatindoll says:

    Absolutely. He was so much a fan he owned almost more of their rights than the families and 2 remaining members.

  235. Fishbone7373 says:

    is anyone on here that could tell me the thickness of the mattress in the dorms and the height of the box spring, I am building a loft

  236. The Beatles are good, but I agree that they are not the best. The only thing I would say they really revolutionized is the mass commercialization of the music industry. Other than George Harrison, the other Beatles were not outrageously great musicians… there are MUCH better instrumentalists and singers. Look at how The Beatles got famous… off of mostly 13 and younger little girls creaming themselves in Shea Stadium while obnoxiously screaming their head off… I personally like music with balls and I definitely am more of a Rolling Stones fan.
    I’d also like to state that it’s pretty sickening reading some of the rude posters here. If you think The Beatles are overrated you have a right to think that, same goes for the people who think they are great. It’s an opinion and that’s it. Don’t be an intellectual midget and start name calling like your in the 3rd grade.

  237. The Beatles are good, but I agree that they are not the best. The only thing I would say they really revolutionized is the mass commercialization of the music industry. Other than George Harrison, the other Beatles were not outrageously great musicians… there are MUCH better instrumentalists and singers. Look at how The Beatles got famous… off of mostly 13 and younger little girls creaming themselves in Shea Stadium while obnoxiously screaming their head off… I personally like music with balls and I definitely am more of a Rolling Stones fan.
    I’d also like to state that it’s pretty sickening reading some of the rude posters here. If you think The Beatles are overrated you have a right to think that, same goes for the people who think they are great. It’s an opinion and that’s it. Don’t be an intellectual midget and start name calling like your in the 3rd grade.

  238. Salshaker64 says:

    Not to boost or make myself seem like I know what I’m talking about but I do. just because the only thing going on in my life is 60′s music and culture… I dress the part, have alot of records and only cut my hair because if I didnt I would loose my job… but thats besides the point. What I wanted to say is that beatles arent the best there was… yes they’re good but just like jimmie hendrix, the doors and all other american bands at the time where nothing but commercial gimmicks. I wouldnt compare them to todays music, except for the marketing, they did have decent music but there where 1000s of way better bands all over the world, specially in Latin america and Scandinavian countries. They did not represent the UKs music scene at all. The UK is without doubt much better than america music wise because they actually did something with the blues except let it die like the u.s did. And the beatles had nothing to do with the blues, they where more of a sell out rockabilly gimmick in the beginning and later struck gold with their haircuts. Anyways long story short theyre good, but not that good. Neither are the beach boys, jimmy hendrix, the doors, led zeppelin and most bands people still listen to today becasue they actually got that commercial and sold out to that degree. I mean theyre better than the stuff from nowadays but same basic concept

  239. Pcrosthwait says:

    haha.  You wanna get lots of comments…. you post an anti-Beatles thing.  Look, horses for courses.  But please.  Just listen to the stuff first.  But the most important thing is to put yourself into the context.  Sure Elvis Presley sounds like shit now.  But so did everyone in 1955.  The Beatles sounded fantastic.  And they come along at the right time, w double tracking, and everything synched.  And I don’t care what anyone says, you can’t get a male singer to sound better than John Lennon or Paul McCartney, either or.  And we get to hear them for 200 songs.  Us Beatle fans will never listen to those that haven’t put in the time to listen to the tracks.  Not just the hits, like “Get Back,” or “Hey Jude,” or “She Loves You”  That doesnt make Beatles Fans.  The Songs Are “Tomorrow Never Knows,”  “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away,” “I’m Looking Through You,” “Your Mother Should Know” “Sexy Sadie” “Abbey Road Medley” “I Call Your Name” “If I Fell” “Happiness Is A Warm Gun” “Mother Natures Son” “I Don’t Want To Spoil The Party” “That Means A Lot” “She’s Leaving Home” “Helter Skelter” and “In My Life.”  Anyone who says “Hey Jude” is his favorite Beatle song has to be named Jude, Julian, or hasn’t heard much Beatle music. 

    • I just want to point out some male singers in this decade(60′s)  that sound better than Paul McCartney or John Lennon. Mick Jagger, Jim Morrison, Roger Daltrey and Robert Plant, just to name a few. I would say Freddie Mercury , the greatest singer, fortman, and showman in rock history but Queen wasn’t formed during this time period.

  240. As a Kinks Fan, I agree with you hands down.

  241. You’re wrong.

  242. Oh yes, the Beatles is overrated! Big time!

  243. The Beatles are undoubtedly one of the greatest bands to walk the earth. More than forty years later, we still play their music at parties, and we will for a long time after. 

  244. jf you dont like the beatles then thats your thing .. but dont talk crap please ..  look at all them hits they had .. i mean they were about 50 years ago..    and their music is still listened to by [ oh i dont know nearly everyone ]  what ever you say the beatles were a one off..  there will never be a band like them again ..  start talking sense ..  if your into other bands thats ok ..  but please dont try and say the beatles were overrated .. you sound stupid ..  put it this way to  have the top 5 hits in the charts at the same time  1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5 ..  is unheard of and will not happen again..   the beatles were great and thats all that can be said about them ..  

  245. i agree with you on that james

  246. I agree with you Stephens. The Beatles are overrated in the sense that they are thought to be absurdly perfect. While albums like Revolver and Rubber Soul are indisputably revolutionary, Albums like Sgt.Peppers and the first few albums are way overrated. However even though Jimi Hendrix was much more musically/sonically perfectionist than the beatles, the beatles revolutionised rock and roll music in a new way like Elvis Presley by making their music more socially concerned. And i would prefer jimi hendrix’s music over beatles anyday cause jimi’s musical improvisations wre more emotional sounding than the beatles. However Jimi Hendrix is more important than the beatles cause there were lot of similar bands like beach boys before the beatles, but no Jimi Hendrix before Hendrix. And remember Jimi Hendrix was the soul of The Experience(songwriter, lyricist, singer, even as a bassist) – He had more talent than any one individual Beatle. But still Jimi idolised the Beatles, So their influence cant be disputed.

  247. All I can say is that I am 27, I enjoy modern / popular music. I didn’t grow up with the Beatles and my parents never listened or talked about them, however time and time again I would hear a song by them and enjoyed every one of them so I eventually started looking into them and they are now one of my top 3 favorite bands (maybe number  1 or 2). I have absolutely no reason to love the Beatles besides the fact that they make amazing music.

    • You clearly have terrible taste in music. I’ve listened to Beatles stuff two to three times each and every track. I never want to hear their crap garbage again. EVER. You lie anyways, you rarely listen to them you just talk about it. 

      • oh my god, just leave and stop trolling people’s comments! if you have nothing nice to say about the best band ever, don’t say it at all, us fans don’t want your opinions, becasue we have made our own, and so what if we don’t agree with you, we are all humans, with our own thoughts and feelings, go somewhere else wherre your opinions “are cared about” becasue they aren’t here.
        and how do you know if hes lying? DO you know him enough to say it?

      • oh my god, just leave and stop trolling people’s comments! if you have nothing nice to say about the best band ever, don’t say it at all, us fans don’t want your opinions, becasue we have made our own, and so what if we don’t agree with you, we are all humans, with our own thoughts and feelings, go somewhere else wherre your opinions “are cared about” becasue they aren’t here.
        and how do you know if hes lying? DO you know him enough to say it?

  248. “Overrated” and “bad” are two completely different things. Just because they are talked about a lot doesn’t mean they suck. Even if you don’t like them, that doesn’t mean they are even remotely bad. 

    • They are bad. Their “sound” sucks. I would be quite a bit that Beatle’s supporters listen to a LOT more stuff every day on the ipod/walkman/car radio/home . In fact, if you could find the play rates of beatles music on itunes you would find it sucks. Its crap. Its replay value is low. Its whiney, stupid, simplistic and the musical talent is bad. 

  249. Crimsonknight700 says:

    I agree with you 100%, The beatles are decent, but I think people idolize them way too much. a real rock band can play shows, and not worry about the crowds. Don’t even get me started on Ringo, if he wasn’t in the bealtes, he would have no credit at all.

  250. My favorite beatles material is their 62-65 BBC live stuff.  Great stuff with a wide swath of influences and styles from Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly (other “overrated” acts I presume?).  Listen to their 63 live sweden performances from Anthology 1 if you want to hear a tight band playing with a ton of energy.  In fact, any well recorded material from 1962-63 shows just how good these guys were.  (even the poorly recorded Hamburg stuff gives insight)
    I suggest you go here, my poor matthew and just see how hard this “live” band worked:
    http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/

    This band is far removed fom your silly “drugs in the basement” analogy.

    George Martin?  Hilarious.  Can you provide one piece of music this guy has ever written?  If anybody sapped the energy from the early records it was this guy (according to you the mastermind of the band).  The aformentioned BBC stuff – though crudely recorded “live” into a mono tape deck sounds better (more edge) than George’s produced studio stuff.  So he added strings to some of their more boring records – whoopee.  You still don’t think people really love/rock-out/drop-out to Sgt Pepper do you?  I haven’t listened to that album in a decade. (or more)
    There is a reason why musicians keep putting the Beatles in their top 10 lists.  It’s not just their 62-65 stuff, or their 66-70 stuff – it’s their entire body of work and talent.  Not to mention a great rock and roll story – these guys came from nothing – playing in cellars and strip clubs with unlikely prospects, to even make a living to become wildly successful.

    You Matthew are a clueless dolt, who posted a rather ignorant article of something you know very little about.  Congratulations.

  251. CookieYum3000@aol.com says:

    Im 13, and if you think The Beatles are “bad” or “overrated” , its not that hard.. keep it to yourself!!! I sure think you should try it someday! They were PHENOMINAL singer! I mean, sure better than todays crap. They had SOO many songs, I cant even count.. wrll somewhere near 200+! and the hits.. there isnt ONE bad song.. except Revolution 9… i my opinion because its creepy. I mean, did you NOT see the crowds back then. They have movies (i have all), clothes (i have 7), cups, posters, shoes, dang PLENTY of memorbilla! But the whole point of this was they were like unforgetable and none of your  words will EVER change anything. so, i dont really care what you say, they sing exceptional and god word cant describe them.. so… dont say that about them again.

    • They sucked, are totally overrated and you’ve been brainwashed. Your moron opinion means nothing to true musicians. 

  252. They sucked, you are the fool that bought into a made up story. Its like believing zeus throws lightning bolts. Some tool told you, another tool, that this tool band is the best ever. And you believe it. Musically they were no talent robots. 

  253.  McDonald’s is popular, and its crap made from crap. The beatles, same thing, just because moron lemmings like you like them, doesnt mean they dont suck. They do. Please note their garbage music and its style have been relegated to the dust bin of history. Good bye and good night, Beatles trash. Its so bad, its not even copied.

    • what the hell would you know about music ??…… what a knob you must be….. get a life .    stop going on web sites writeing nasty useless crap to get a bit of  attention off people … because you probably dont have freinds….   .ps so what mosic do you actually like???  since to you the beatles are so bad …what you listen to must be something else ?… 

    • what a knob you are ….  stop makeing nasty comments to everyone about things you dont have a clue about ..just to get some attention ..  because your a saddo and dont have a life or any freinds … prick

      • Tim Killeen says:

        Jimbo I have seen your youtube video. there is no way you have friends. Listen to the song “Yer Blues” maybe it will inspire you.

        P.S. have you been laid.. i dont think so

  254. I never hear it. Maybe parties for fat sexless losers and burn outs from the past play it. I NEVER HEAR their GARBAGE at parties. Liar. 

    • what a nasty piece of crap you sound like… i bet you.ve never even been to a party … you just do not have a clue what your talking about .. mickrussom.. more like mick the dick

  255.  I’ve listened to each and every beatles track 3 or more times. If I could press a button and erase all and every known copy of that garbage, I WOULD PRESS IT. Its crap.

  256. Well what a wanker you must be to think you can tell people their opinion is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you obviously don’t know that. Let me guess, you’re American? You’re either American or an idiot, or both…

    The Beatles were one of the most influential bands of their time, but not the only influential band, which is obvious.

  257. well, i saw Paul and Ringo live, so what if the Beatles didn’t go on tour together, they created music that wouldn’t even be able to have been played in shows. And now Paul and Ringo are back touring playing some beatles stuff. and they are amazing just like they always were.

  258. well, i saw Paul and Ringo live, so what if the Beatles didn’t go on tour together, they created music that wouldn’t even be able to have been played in shows. And now Paul and Ringo are back touring playing some beatles stuff. and they are amazing just like they always were.

  259. I’m 14 and absolutey crazy for them, and i really despise people who talk crap about them, and I can’t help but to fight for them.
    and they are just to much for words. <3

  260. I’m 14 and absolutey crazy for them, and i really despise people who talk crap about them, and I can’t help but to fight for them.
    and they are just to much for words. <3

  261. you are crazyyyyyy sure those men are great but do they still have it now like Paul? go see him in concert, and trust me, you’ll change your mind, he sounds exactly the same on the records. and not to mention i saw him in 2010 and so he was 68, and jeez, that man played fr 4 hours straight, no starting band, no intermission, would those people be able to do it and sound the same? nope… and btw i love Mick Jagger but still….and Freddie Mercury <3

  262. you are crazyyyyyy sure those men are great but do they still have it now like Paul? go see him in concert, and trust me, you’ll change your mind, he sounds exactly the same on the records. and not to mention i saw him in 2010 and so he was 68, and jeez, that man played fr 4 hours straight, no starting band, no intermission, would those people be able to do it and sound the same? nope… and btw i love Mick Jagger but still….and Freddie Mercury <3

  263.  you are right. people just because the beatles sold 1 billion record doesnt mean that they are GODS OF MUSIC? they sucks

  264. Unclesandwitch says:

    Pretty funny and totally uniformed. A total troll article. It’s the equivalent of someone bashing Shakespeare or Mozart. I feel sorry for you if you don’t get it, but mostly likely you are trying to get a rise out of people. What’s next? Did the Godfather suck as a film too?

    • Don’t compare The Beatards to Mozart and Shakespeare. The Beatles are not that great. Like the Godfather, its good but not as great as they say. Easily Seven Samurais from Akira Kurosawa could beat the Godfather. The same is with the Beatles, there were better bands around Europe, but only the music in english sells. 

  265. you look at the bands that were going at the time of beatle mania andthen tell me they arent over rated .

  266. Unclesandwitch says:

    Check out Strawberry Fields Forever , A Day In The Life or I Am The Walrus. Those songs are incredibly creative. The psychedelic production is second to none. It still amazes me that those songs were created at any time – especially the 60s. Their earlier stuff was cute, nice pop music, but the later material was amazing. They changed modern pop music. People are still influenced by them to this date. Where there better musicians? Sure, but they we great songwriters and a very tight band. The music is timeless and still very well produced by todays standards. Abby Road and The White Album sound great. 

    Some people get it and some don’t. The Beatles were brilliant and ahead of their time.

  267. Mr.Henrybemis00 says:

    Has no one mentioned Bob Dylan? By far the greatest popular “Artist” to come out of the sixties and still going strong to this day. 

    The Beatles were not artists by any means in my opinion. Sometimes I feel we get lost in the true meaning of what art really is.. Although pop rock is some kind of art, Nothing to scream about. Pop never fails to deliver the same message over and over again. Kinda gets boring. Plus their lyrics were simply weak, And unless you’re English you may find it hard at times to understand some songs.. 

    And when It comes to the rock side of the equation, Give me The Velvet Underground instead, Now they were a band ahead of their time. They produced more material out of their few albums than the Beatles did their whole career… It was all about timing for the fab plain and simple. You could even make the same case for Dylan, But If only the Beatles could write half the songs Dylan (one man, for the most part) wrote.

    I’m not really hating on the fab, They made some good songs. Just making my case that they were a good band, Not the greatest ever.. 

    If anyone is interested in an A-Z guide from 1963-1977 of Psychedelic, Folk, Acid rock bands etc. I urge you to check out an excellent book by Vernon Joynson titled Fuzz, Acid & Flowers Revisited.

  268. Inter_zanneti_4 says:

    they are overrated period.

  269. It’s all just a matter of opinion. Your opinion (and mine as well) doesn’t make a difference because The Beatles will always be a huge part of music history. In my opinion, they are the best band ever. Millions of people like them for their music, not the hype. Do you like your favorite musician because of the hype? (I don’t think so)
     Sure, not all of their songs were great. But they were human too, yunno? I don’t think you could make everyone happy with something that you wrote. Peace, love, and respect.

  270. THANK YOU!!!  They have got to be the most overrated and misunderstood band in history.  Their popularity was a result of the age in which they lived, and of circumstance.  They’re decent at best.  The Allman Brothers had the most creative music in the history of Rock n’ Roll, period.  No one will ever be able to compete with their unique fusion of musical elements.  The beatles ripped off existing styles and never deviated from their base formula.  

    • Are you proud to officially be the dumbest person to walk the Earth. Haha the Beatles will live forever and the Allman brothers will be forgotten, oh wait no one knows who they are right now

    • You’re right. She’s leaving home, Hey Jude, Tomorrow Never Knows, Yesterday all use the same formula.

  271. Where is your head at??? For the most part Lennon was the one who sung about love and peace,especially post beatle.
    Part of the reason they stoped touring was because all of their fans,(especially the girls),weren’t listening to their music thet were yelling about them (esp.Paul) because of their good looks.
    George Martin was BRILLIANT.
    Brian May said that he would never been anywhere near the great guitar player he is if it wasn’t for George Harrison,May considered Harrison a hero.
    Lennon was the only performer,that through his music was willing to show the world what a vunerable human being he was.Please listen to Double Fantasy.Through everyone of the songs he wrote you knew where he was in his life.Even in his songs as a member of The Beatles (Help,Norweignwood,etc) his life was an open book.I don’t know of any musician (including McCartney) who didn’t mind showing his vunerable side.
    Jimi Hendrix,no doubt the greatest guitarist EVER.But song writing,please leave that to the
    the two greatest song writing geniuses EVER==Lennon and McCartney.
    I am soooo glad that you represent about 0.1% of fans that think your way. 

  272. Chickenlover678 says:

    Gosh I can’t find one single “Beatles are lame” argument that isn’t contradictory in its own claims or inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory…you need to lay off the blogging and just stick to jerking off to your own voice…

  273. The media paid too much attention on Beatles music, all theirs lp’s are great but overatted except  one:  Abbey Road

    Most overatted album:   The “fabulous” white album with shit songs as:  Bungalow bill, honey pie, piggies, rocky racoon, don’t pass me by, why don’t we do it in the road, ………..  monkey, and many others

    Thanks to Goerge’s while my guitar gently weeps

  274. fool

  275. Their music has been around for nearly 50 years.  People still buy the songs.  People of all ages recognize a Beatle song when they hear it.  McCartney still pulls in 30-40000 people while on tour.  How many groups can make that claim.  I guess those people are all idiots.

  276. Dorothy Mantooth says:

    You’re an idiot.

    •  from yahoo answers UK ”
      Well, first and foremost, I think the Beach Boys
      were more about the MUSIC than the fame, hype, etc (while The Beatles
      reveled in it). Initially the Beatles made music to become famous. The
      Beach Boys made music because they loved it and because those talents
      and gifts were ingrained in their DNA. I think they would’ve been just
      fine making music for the world to hear and staying in the shadows
      publicly. I don’t think The Beatles would have ever pursued music
      without the promise of becoming rich & famous. Check out the Beach
      Boys on Bandstand in ’64 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KK3RmG87… (they’d already been mainstays on the charts for 2 years) vs The Beatles in ’64 at JFK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYciRQDkY…
      (arriving in a foreign country for the first time where up until
      recently their attempts at winning over the American public with their
      music had been panned). The Beach Boys are shy, humble, and awkward in
      front of the camera (they would always play to the audience rather than
      the media) yet they have one of the strongest and most powerful records
      of the 60s to back them up and “prove” themselves by. The Beatles are
      cocky, haughty, and sarcastic and their music isn’t even (they would
      always cater to the cameras throughout their careers).

      While The Beach Boys music changed, evolved, and progressed they never
      “sold out” if you will or jumped onto the various fads and bandwagons
      the mid to late 60s brought (very much unlike The Beatles did) in order
      to sell records or be “hip”. And while their clothing may have changed,
      who they were on the inside and the image they portrayed never did. They
      were eternally honest with the public about who they were and with the
      music they made. This can be said about very few artists who came to
      fame in the first half of the decade and stayed relevant in the latter
      half. Unfortunately it cost them record sells with the fickle public,
      who like today more often than not buy records based to publicity,
      promotion, and image rather than musical integrity and talent.

      It is of note to list the number of American artists who’s careers and
      music suffered in favor of the often inferior music of The Beatles at
      the time due to complete and total media saturation and “propaganda”
      overload of the “fab four”. ie. the girl groups, Motown, the soul acts,
      the pop acts, etc. The Beach Boys (who’s strength was based purely on
      the music, as their label Capitol Records had become the American home
      of the Mop Tops, and was now putting their entire promotional efforts
      behind them) were the only act who saw the Beatles head on and raised
      them.

      As far as the music goes, listening to it (as long as all the
      preconceptions and other garbage goes out the window first) says it all.
      I don’t think there are many things that are black or white for me
      anymore but the Beach Boys being the superior musical force is one. On
      any given song any one of the Beach Boys could be singing lead (they had
      hit songs with all five members, respectively, singing lead). As a
      group their harmonies were unequaled. The arrangements and music Brian
      Wilson created with the human voice were unheard of, and no group could
      ever sound better singing acapella. IMO Beach Boys 1, Beatles zip.
      Songwriting wise they were the first entirely self written rock band
      (and self produced act in rock, period). While much of their early
      subject matter has been criticised as being not serious enough (despite
      The Beatles’ releasing Yellow Submarine long after both bands were over
      their “fluffy” phase and SIX years after the Beach Boys released their
      last surf record, 4 years after their last “car record”) the songs were
      true stories about true pastimes teenagers were living. The vocals,
      arrangements, and compositions that went with these songs were of
      superior quality, and I’d like to see any young songwriter today write a
      song as good as say The Warmth of the Sun, I Get Around, or Surfer
      Girl. Obviously the subject matter of both bands’ songs progressed from
      their initial hits, but for me no one could hit the emotional depths and
      tortured souls of Brian’s turmoil (I Just Wasn’t Made For These Times,
      ‘Til I Die, Sail On Sailor), Dennis’ passion (Forever, Cuddle Up, Be
      With Me), Carl’s spirituality (Feel Flows, Long Promised Road, The
      Trader) or the groups overall ability to still express joy in a way only
      they could. Beach Boys 2, Beatles 0. Composing: Brian Wilson wasn’t
      labeled a genius (back when it meant something) and “Rock’s Mozart” for
      nothing. Beach Boys 3, Beatles 0.

      History will show it was the Beatles who followed and were influenced by
      The Beach Boy’s (Brian’s) lead, and that musically the Beach Boys were
      the better artists.

      Source(s):

      I don’t include Mike whenever mentioning the Beach Boys, lol; )”

      • You could seriously use to get a life outside of this three-year-old discussion.

        Also, the Beach Boys wanted to get famous. Unlike the other, lasting bands of the sixties, though, their relevance (though perhaps unfairly) diminished. And then one went crazy, and another went chasing the Beatles to India.

  277. If anyone was “the fifth Beatle” as you call it, it would be Pete Best or Stuart Sutcliffe. George Martin WAS an amazing part of the Beatles, he did an amazing job with them. But it wasn’t names after him because mainly, well, he wasn’t an actual PART of the band itself, as much as the function of the band. The Beatles revolutionized music and music production. They changed how you could mix music, play with it, and make it sound different than ever before. It wasn’t just that they were so incredibly famous that that automatically revolutionized music, because it wasn’t. It was that they showed other bands that you COULD write your own songs, that you didn’t have to record in a studio, or that you could produce songs on your own. The Beatles AREN’t overrated by any means. Just because you stop playing concerts doesn’t make you a bad band. They DIDN’t stop doing concerts because the crowds were out of control, they stopped because they felt that that was what was best for their band, and themselves. I would stop too, if concerts were stressing me out and taking its toll on my health and such. People have their own opinion of The Beatles, of the Backstreet boys, and of jimi Hendrix. Thats fine. But I would learn your facts first before bashing other bands. 

    And also, people WILL tell you about The Beatles and how much they love them if you start bashing them and your facts are wrong. Anyone would do that if you were saying completely untrue things about their favorite band. We all have different opinions, so whatever. It isn’t really a big deal if you hate the Beatles, but others do…

  278. Have you ever even seen a video of an old Beatles concert? It was insane. Girls screaming all around them made it impossible to play. Then, afterwards, the whole Jesus is bigger than the Beatles scandal rushed out, and they weren’t even sure if they’d be allowed to play. On one of their last shows, a firecracker got thrown onto their stage, and The Beatles thought it was a bomb. They never toured afterwards. I truly doubt that ever happened to AC/DC or The Who.

  279. you must be the stupidest person ever to live, please die.

  280. I don’t particularly love the beatles, but this is stupid

    “How can a band who stopped playing live shows in 1966 and started making just studio albums be ‘the greatest band ever’?”

    Ummm, because studio albums are what stand the test of time? Why would anyone care about the beatles live show decades later?

  281. altermanncam says:

    Finally, someone who has enough common sense and bravery to post something as bold and true as this on the Internet.

  282. Bungalow Bill says:

    If you are citing Rolling Stone, then remember to mention that in their top 500 albums of all time, the Beatles had 4 in the top 10. Moron.

  283. Rocky Racoon says:

    Ha… you’re just being ignorant or you have no knowledge on The Beatles. Everything you stated in this article shows that you have no musical knowledge… And the sad thing is you go to central michigan… dumbass.

  284. I don’t like the beatles either, but you seem to know NOTHING about music, seeing as how you praise AC/DC (the least skilled rock band of all time).

    I mostly don’t like the beatles because they are a pop group and they have very limited technical skill

  285. The beatles suck and are the most overated band in the history of carbon life on earth.  Possibly the Universe.  Help, The beatles suck on facebook, or especially suckmybeatles.com will explain further to you sheep masses with no ear for real music.

  286. this is just how it works, next up was Micheal Jackson, Tupac and im pretty sure when bieber boy dies despite the millions who hate him, he will be some kind of music revolutionary. 

  287. Doctor Robert says:

    What this moron doesn’t get is that they had to stop touring because the audience was so loud they couldn’t here themselves play… The Beatles invented the concept album, any professional musician would attest to their significance. Yet these no talent little wiggers think they know better. Fuck all of you.

  288. Whoyadeadwho says:

    All you people getting mad are just pissed because the truth hurts, the Beatle SUCK and were, and continue to be, extremely OVERRATED

  289. Ukuleleism says:

    The Beatles have like one or two amazing songs. But everything else? Everything else sucks. The Beatles wouldn’t have existed without Jazz. The Beatles weren’t revolutionary…JAZZ was revolutionary. Take the difference between the mainstream music of the 1800′s and the mainstream music of the early 1900′s. There’s a HUGE difference. JAZZ was revolutionary.

  290.  this is soo stupid the beatles are the best band there ever was or is going to be!!!!!!!!!!

  291. Yup, they made like 2 good songs, the rest are boring trash. Less Beatles, MORE FLOYD

  292. Sbaker515 says:

    Sorry buddy, but your way off. While theres no doubting tour musical knowledge and taste (you named some great bands), your completely underestimating their unbelivable abilty to make great songs. Your points about SOME of the cover versions of Beatles’ songs are better, and the fact that they were no the best technical musicians at their particular insteuments (jowever by no means were they bad, and all except for Ringo were profficient on two or more instruments) are true. However, its ridiculous to call them overrated as a band because they were not as talented techincally as the greatest guitar player ever, Jimmy Hendrix. Also, the fact that there are so many amazing covets of Beatles songs doesnt prove that they sid not make good aongs themaelves, it just shows how timeless and amazing their lyrixa and melodies aee that hey can be cocered by groips from different genres and time perioss amd still be incredible. Also, while Georfe Martin was undoubtesly an innovation and top class producer. be can not tale cesdit for the 14 studio albums, and 2 or 3 albums worth of singles that theae guya made in 7 years. You also. clwarly sont respect the quality of the album he sidnt produce, Let It Be. The fact that the Beatlea considered this a throwaway album further enfprces their place next to mozart, rodgers and hammerstein, job dylan, ect. as the greatest songwriters ever. I can rwspext anyonea. personal taste in music, but theres no doubting their peerless quality as song wroters, and the unparralled affect on pop culture. media. and society. Callig them the most ocerrated band ever is retarded. You named about 2 or. 3 acts in your ramt alone that fit that titlea better. Btw Rick rubin did not have a hamd in jayz growth and overral sound. he produced one song for him in 2003- 8 years or so from when he fiest came out

  293. I think they are overrated, but you’re pretty bad at explaining why. George Martin can not turn thin air into a great song. He could take something that Lennon and McCartney wrote and turn THAT into a great song. Huge difference. Also, since when does a band not playing live mean they are not great? I missed that meeting. 

  294. aww you need some relief, check this see who was on top of the pop charts , check out the screaming fans and the amount of output for the amps back them, they got tired of just pop music and experimented with different sounds song writing , i loved jimi h but he was too stoned to even know if he had made any money from a show  ask band mates. allman bros are ok for an album Yawn,so hey jude sang by another sounds better, try the movie the woman made forgot name everyone sings beatle songs well better, sorry dont listen to the beatles they got a few million other fans

  295. Everyone here is missing the whole point of what this guy is trying to say. Just because they have sold a shit ton of albums doesn’t mean they weren’t overrated. Look at the current most popular bands and artists. Nickleback, seether, Bieber and so on are all crap that happens to be popular and sell tons of albums, like the Beatles. This guy isn’t arguing that they weren’t famous. He is simply stated that they are overrated. So many bands in that era had so much more talent than the Beatles. Hendrix,every member of Sabbath, the who, the Stones, etc.

    • Few are missing his point – they’re just pointing out that his point is crap. The Beatles weren’t/aren’t considered good because they were famous; they were famous because they were good. The same goes for every other band you mention, all of whom were the Beatles’ peers. They respected each other and were inspired by one another.

      Of the artists you mention, I’m not sure who “had so much more talent than the Beatles.” Every one of them has pointed to the Beatles as the most important, driving force in music during the sixties. And they never seemed to hold back on praising the Beatles’ talent.

  296. Elvis Presley was the most important, influential act in popular music in the latter half of the 20th century.  The Beatles were great, but they were over-rated.  

  297. Jazzshredder says:

    I stopped reading after you said the Backstreet boys were “revolutionary”. 

  298. You don’t have to be the best at one thing to be amazing. The beatles were good at a lot of different things. Their style changed so much throughout their years. They didn’t have the best guitarist in the world or the best drummer, but they didn’t need those. 

    And i’m going to take issue with people who say “They only have one or two good/famous songs”. No. They have one or two good songs that you know. They’ve had an incredible track record when it comes to hits. Try listening to their albums a few times and you’ll find some pretty good stuff. Even Let It Be, their least popular album, has some great songs on it (I Me Mine, I’ve Got a Feeling, Dig a Pony)They influenced many and were influenced by many. And the fact that a lot of people still actually still listen and discover the beatles is a credit to how good they actually were. Their music has proven to be, so far, timeless. They definitely started as a boy band playing rock/pop music, but they evolved beyond that. Will people be listening to the backstreet boys years from now and say they were the beatles of their time? We’ll have to see, but I imagine even then people will still be listening to the beatles. Just like people still listen to the who and jimi hendrix. Great artists are timeless.

  299. I know a young man who was studying graphic design in college. He told me that he liked Atari better than the modern video games. Humans are weird that way.

  300. Deadnailsfan says:

    ah being young and ignorant.

  301. i’ve never read so much stupid comments as on this site… How the hell can the beatles be over rated?/?   they didn’t just have 1 or 2 hits they had 21!!!
    They had number 1,2,3,4,5 in the charts at the same time…whiles up against bands like the beach boys, the rolling stones,the animals, the who,…plus dylan,hendrixs,elvis and many more……,   overrated means when you’ve done nothing and get loads of praise for it….  bit like todays music…. the beatles wrote there own songs, and done there own music…..   not been into the beatles is one thing…. saying there overrated just sounds bitter and stupid 

  302. alexabacho says:

    I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. i’m quoting you in a paper i’m writing for one of my college courses on why the beatles are NOT the most revolutionary or influencial band of all time.

  303. Imm Bright says:

    My friend…music isn’t only about technical skills. Jimi Hendrix could create a galaxy with one hand, but Beatles is about what they did for their time. Any doubts? Just check, every famous band that I suppose you’d worship like gods, what do they have to say about the beatles. The answer is always the same. They were and still gonna be the most influential band of all time. And remember. Life isn’t about “being the best” at something. It’s about expressing yourself.

    Sometimes only one meaningful note, is better than 1000 notes in only one second.

  304. You obviously have NO IDEA of what you wrote, my friend. Period.

  305. skilletblonde says:

    Finally!  Someone had the courage to state the obvious.  I’m a bit perplexed why we are so open to  the British definition of our art form.  Rock-N-Roll is an American phenomenon- not British. Why are we so inclined to accept the so called Beatles as great, yet turn our backs on  the African Americans who created this art form?  Chuck Berry’s or Little Richard’s  genius  have never received the accolades the Beatles have.  

    If we are honest here, we know why this occurred.

    •  EXACTLY. i agree totally. thank you.

    • First of all, Rock n’ Roll started in the fifties and died in the fifties. When the British invasion happened, it was a bastardized version plainly called rock music.
      Secondly, using racism as your reasoning is absolutely absurd. Chuck Berry is one of the greatest musicians of all time and is usually regarded as so. It’s the same for Little Richard, but to a lesser extent due to the fact that he wasn’t as talented as Chuck Berry.
      Lastly, just because the Beatles are British doesn’t mean they can’t be good at something American. The Beatles made incredible music and usually deserve all the praise they receive. Chuck Berry was great too, but he certainly was not as good as The Beatles.

  306. The Beatles is overrated? Absolutely NOT!  My kids were born between 1991 to 1999 (some 20 to 30 years after they disbanded) and
    all of them and their friends love the Beatles. Certainly, I can’t
    tell them what to like or not musically, they have their own ears. It’s a truth nobody can deny. The
    question, how can a very distant past still kicking very hard and alive
    soundly if not for whatever their worth? Whenever we have a big family
    gathering, the Beatles becomes our (grand parents, parents, kids) common
    denominator! We compete one another in our knowledge about the
    Beatles’s songs and sing their songs until we’re out of breath. When
    the gathering is over, we bring home happy feeling and the widest
    grin. The gathering becomes a treasured memory while looking forward for
    a reason to have another one in the near future. Lastly, mind you…
    we’re in Indonesia, South East Asia, very far away from the cradle of Western
    Civilization. The Beatles was once banned in my country by our first (stupid) president. Thus, overrated? I’d like the idea that perhaps the
    Beatles is even bigger than what you meant by “overrated.” See… it’s not about the ability to play guitar with the mouth, it’s about whether they have all the chemistry to produce quality works and communicating their works with the widest audience and how the audience accept the works. My friends, the Beatles simply have those in their pockets in a very positive way. Long Live the Beatles!

  307. No one is saying they are overrated because they are popular. People just believe that they get more credit for musical influences or being’creators’ of a certain music style when they really weren’t. They, just like Elvis, got alot of their music influences from black gospel, soul, r&b, and rock n roll singers (Little Richard was rock & roll even before the name was created) but reaped all the rewards and credit.

  308. It’s crazy how they say that The Beatles changed everything musically. Maybe for white America they did, but if the Beatles never made an album, I would still have SEVERAL African American singers from Ragtime to Jazz to gospel to blues to R&B to Funk to Rock & Roll pioneers like Lil Richard, Muddy Waters, and Chuck Berry to draw inspiration from. See for most modern rock bands, they draw a link to the Beatles. Most black artists didn’t need the Beatles to get their influence. For example, Michael Jackson had James Brown, James Brown had Little Richard (pre Bealtes), etc. Whitney Houston had Aretha and Aretha Had Mahalia (pre Beatles). Even Jimi Hendrix had both Lil Richard and Chuck Berry. I have no problem with people who lived during that era saying that they think the Beatles are the best. Most people, regardless of generation, think that the music of their youth is the best. That’s normal. I’m pretty sure the older generation of the 60′s were not feeling the Beatles all that much either and preferred jazz or Big Swing or Doo Wop or some other pre existing sound over the Beatles. However, it angers me when people question my taste in music because I don’t think that this rock band from Britain is the greatest musical entity in the world and I honestly don’t feel that the music artists I listen to on the regular were seriously directly influenced by them at all. This is not racism this just the truth. I just hate when some people ignore the fact that there are literally BILLIONS of people who do not care for the Beatles and come from cultures or have musical tastes that were not even directly influenced by them (PS selling 1 Billion records does NOT mean that you have a Billion fans, it just means that you have millions of fans that bought all the MANY records the Beatles put out which is still a great accomplishment). There is no need to insult my intelligence or taste because I don’t care for the music you like or agree with your viewpoints on who invented what. I’m not saying that no black artists or non white artists use the Beatles as inspiration for some of their music, but just stating the fact that there were many rock & roll pioneers before the Beatles that an artist could be completely isolated from Beatles music but still create similar sounding or modern music today without having any direct influence by them whatsoever. Heck, even the Beatles got their sound with the help of these pioneers.

  309. The beatles dont suck they just arent the best band ever they are overrated

  310. the beatles WERE pop. i WAS a beatle fan from ’74 – ’83.

    • Tim Killeen says:

      The Beatles were pop in the beginning. from “Please Please Me” to “Beatles for Sale”. Then in 1965 they came out with “Rubber Soul” and from that point on they became the greatest ROCK band of all time. How many pop songs are on the “White album” or “Abbey Road”…zero. The Beatles are the best pop band AND the best rock n roll band.

  311. the beatles are popular because they didn’t write very many personal songs. they mostly wrote generic, commercial, so-called universal songs about…love. wow! really radical; really inventive.

  312. all the beatles ever did was get american music of the 50′s and give it
    back to the world in a diluted, white bread, more easily digestible form
    for the masses. then they heard bob dylan and got all lyrically
    serious. then they heard the innovations roger McGuinn did with the
    guitar and incorporated that into their sound. then, they heard frank
    zappa’s freak out! and decided to do a ‘concept’ album. while recording
    it they listened to the album pet sounds by brian wilson and the beach
    boys for inspiration.

    • “Tomorrow Never Knows,” “A Day in the Life,” “Revolution,” “Across the Universe.” (etc) were just rehashes of 1950s American music?

      The Beatles certainly heard Bob Dylan and got more lyrical, much like Dylan heard the Beatles and then plugged in, and got more melodic. And McGuinn created the Byrds’ sound by writing folk-rock songs around how he imagined the Beatles might create folk-rock songs (he has actually stated this). And while recording Pepper the Beatles surely listened to Pet Sounds, as well as many other recordings, much like Brian Wilson listened to Rubber Soul while recording Pet Sounds. And Pepper is what drove Wilson crazy. Sad story, for sure, but keep in mind that while Wilson was writing Pet Sounds as a response to Rubber Soul, the Beatles were releasing Revolver. Pepper just sealed the nail on that tragic coffin.

      But I love the Beach Boys, and Dylan, and the Beatles, and Zappa. What pains me here is to see that you apparently don’t understand that rock music is about synthesis. These guys all learned from and built on each other. As for the Beatles, when asked during the sixties where rock was going, people like Hendrix and Dylan said, look to the Beatles. I get that they’re not “cool” in your mind because they were popular (though the Stones and the Who and Dylan and Hendrix and the Beach Boys, etc., were also popular) but that doesn’t change that they were perhaps the most integral factor in the most important moment in rock history.

  313. First off, really? Comparing The Beatles’ influence to The Backstreet Boys’ influence. REALLY?
    The Beatles may not have influenced every band or group in music, but they did influence A LOT of people. I wouldn’t say that they are overrated either, because their music is actually very good.
    And, they most certainly do not suck. It depends on personal taste. They were all very talented musicians. Listen to some of Paul’s bass lines for example. And the SONGWRITING was exemplary. The Beatles produced a substantial amount of music in their years together, covering virtually every genre, and then more as they started solo careers. They have some really beautiful lyricism- “Across the Universe” anyone?
    In the pop world, yes, some seem to be not as meaningful; it’s just part of the genre. But other songs like Harrison’s “Long, Long, Long” express such emotion about Harrison’s undying devotion to God.
    But it all comes down to the fact that The Beatles wrote good music that millions enjoy.

  314. Every band has their detractors. The only difference is this guy has a job in the media and a forum to propound his views. I’m a musician and can tell you that The Beatles , as well as George Martin and Geoff Emerick pioneered both specific musical technical and recording styles. A lot of recording studio tricks that were innovative and ground breaking are commonplace now. The lyrical constructions and music were imitated and built upon by subsequent singers and musicians. The bottom line, in spite of what the author of this article claims, is that the Beatles were an excellent and innovative band and until somebody better comes along, are the best band so far. The proof is that their albums are still selling very strong adding to their already billion albums. Paul McCartney still packs the largest venues to capacity and the age groups are from young to old.
    …and Mr. Matthews, to answer your comment: “For some reason, people still buy into the hype of Beatlemania”. The reason sir, is that it is good music and we enjoy it. Isn’t that the purpose of music in the fist place?

  315. The Beatles suck. It was pop rock for 16 year old girls. Whenever a guy tells me he likes The Beatles I call him a sissy. This is the only comment that matters. My opinion is the best and only opinion.

    • And my opinion is 100% accurate in case I didn’t get the point across.

      • Any male who likes the Beatles must be a homosexual.

        • Tim Killeen says:

          Wow “Jerk” you sound very insecure. I bet you have a really small penis. Hey listen to “Helter Skelter” and “While my Guitar Gently Weeps”, nothing sissy about those songs.

          P.S. The Beatles have banged more girls and have taken more drugs then you could possibly imagine

    • i hate the beatles. they are the most over rated act in music history.

      a bunch of kids got brain washed by the hype in ’64. a few years later

      rolling stone magazine came along and basically said nothing of

      substance transpired in rock music (IN ROCK MUSIC) prior to dylan, the

      stones and the beatles…and the brain washing continued; that

      generation now controls the media and continues the brain washing.

      fans of the beatles in MANY CASES don’t even want to know the truth.

      they make excuses for their beloved mop tops that they would not dare

      or even dream of making for other artists. they give the group

      concessions they do not give other artists? why? because the beatles

      were the most popular artists of their youth. yet in their youth they

      fell to the same type of promotional campaigns that youth of today

      fall for and they/beatles fans from the original invasion some

      how/some way feel superior to the teeny bopper acts that followed

      later. they can not see it is the same thing: teeny bopper pop for

      teens. then, the beatles continued their raping of american music

      (previously they had raped the originators of rock and roll music and

      made limp wristed pop ditties out of them) then they got all lyrically

      serious when they heard dylan and got all musically

      serious/experimental by following the path of frank zappa’s freak out.

      they also incorporated roger McGuinn’s innovations on the rik along

      the way. they listened to pet sounds while recording sgt. pepper.

      lennon ripped off the communist manifesto and chuck berry. harrison

      ripped off eastern religious texts. i will give them rubber soul and

      revolver. even i like the songs and i love her and the original phil

      spector-production of the long and winding road which paul McC hates.

      people who grew up in the 60′s say i have no validity since i was just

      a little kid in the 60′s. i say they have no validity since they were

      kids subject to the media hype. paul McC is talented; he can sing and

      write melodious tunes…BUT lennon was a scam artist. he was nasally

      when he sang. he’s all about the peace and the love until you disagree

      with him and then it’s all verbal bile, profanity, sarcasm. ringo

      could not sing and according to george martin could not do a drum roll

      when he first encountered ringo. he was in the right place at the

      right time. george can not sing either. he gets much praise for simply

      being their guitarist; yet more innovative players are to be found

      elsewhere. lennon even wanted george to play more like clapton. yeah,

      i hate them.

  316. The Beatles aren’t the best band ever.

    • Most influential yes, the greatest ever they are not.
      They are not as relevant to the new generation because we do not live in those days. Their music is hardly as timeless as many consider.
      The wheel was one of the most important inventions ever, but using this logic to undermine the importance of the computer is very wrong.

  317. Iron Maiden beat out the Beatles, Pink Floyd and Queen for the best British album of the past 60 years. That tells it all right there. Even Iron Maiden are superior to the Beatles. Here’s a link to prove it, now all you little pissy Beatles fans can piss off and go cry in a corner. These are the facts. FACE IT!

    http://www.antimusic.com/news/12/May/28Iron_Maidens_Beast_Tops_the_Beatles,_Queen_and_Floyd.shtml

    • Tim Killeen says:

      Hahahahahaa comparing iron Maiden to The Beatles is like comparing a Toyota Yaris to a Bentley. That web site is about as reputable as writing on a bathroom stall.

  318. Wow I’m late to this discussion. Anyway, I recently listened to their Rubber Soul and A Hard Day’s Night albums all the way (couldn’t really be bothered to go through Sgt Pepper’s after that) and have to agree with the author. I myself was quite surprised by the revelation that I didn’t like the Beatles – I almost wished that I’d like it, since a lot of my favourite artists cite them as big influences (I like classic rock, soul and 90s pop).

    I’m not denying that they weren’t revolutionary back in their day (I wasn’t there so I wouldn’t know), but I listened to those two albums just for the music’s sake and didn’t get the hype. When I listen to a song, it has to move me in a certain way – be catchy enough to remain in the head and keep me coming back (addictive, like pop music is meant to be) or evoke a mood or emotion within me. It just didn’t happen. I particularly couldn’t stand the singing, it just sounded unskilled, almost amateur.

    Although they must have done something right back in the day to have this much adulation and success to this day, I find it ridiculous when some people suggest that I have to like the Beatles to justify my liking for bands influenced by them. Different tastes for different folks, people.

  319. This is your opinion, other like the Beatles others don’t Thats okay, Not everyone will love the Beatles. I for one do…and disagree with you. There was more to why they stopped performing btw.

  320. IFollowNoTrends says:

    FINALLY!!! God, I get so sick of the Beatle fanboys. They are like immature little snot nosed children. I never could understand how they could be classified as this revolutionary rock band when the majority of their music was of the Monkees variety – bubblegum pop. It’s very sickening how other bands get overlooked (The Doors, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, etc) all the time because of these 4. It wouldn’t be so bad if their fans weren’t such nutcases. I will, say, that George’s All Things Must Pass is pretty damn good – he should’ve had more creative input in the Beatles, then maybe like 20% of this hype would be deserved.

  321. First of all- Duane Allman is listed as NUMBER 9 on Rolling Stone’s 100 Greatest Guitarists (Eric Clapton is 2nd, for good reason) and George Harrison is NUMBER 11 (Chet Atkins is #21). Another thing- You can NOT compare The Beatles to anybody (including Jimi Hendrix). The Beatles were not a ‘rock’ band or a ‘pop’ or ‘psychedelic’ band. The Beatles did more between 1962 and 1969 than anyone has done since, or EVER will, and that is a fucking fact. People can like other music, that’s opinion and it’s fine. But The Beatles were without a shadow of a doubt the most innovative and inspirational musical act in history. Just to name a few of the things The Beatles invented – the music video, guitar feedback, backwards vocals and guitar, using the sitar in popular music, hundreds of ways of playing and singing, hundreds of classical components mixed with rock, and the list could go on for hours. I don’t understand how people can be so blind and stubborn and not at least ACKNOWLEDGE the facts that are right in front of them.

  322. Talent is not about how much note you can fit into 10 seconds. While there are countless contemporary composers capable of music vastly
    more sophisticated in form and technique, few if any are capable of
    displaying feeling and fantasy so direct, spontaneous, and original. The Beatles were a single unit. It would not have worked without either of them, there is no point to single out individuals. I mean, don’t see other groups lead by George Martin making number one hits all over the world….

  323. “I think Collective Soul is way better a band than the Beatles”

    …said nobody, EVER.

    Hands down the dumbest thing I have ever read.

  324. so selling records means musical talent . lol the only talent there is the record label lol . you sit there and for one second say that the beatles had more musical talent than eric clapton or jimi hendrix or duane allman you are dillusional

  325. Luigi Camperchioli says:

    You completely lack of music knowledge, I can tell you have made this post just to show how much you don’t like the Beatles; and that’s fine, you don’t have to like them. Next time just say “The Beatles suck” and stop there, because the reasons you mentioned why the Beatles are overrated are, sorry to say, stupid and it shows that you know very little about this band, or even about music history all together.
    And the fifth Beatle? Oh you meant to say Stuart Sutcliffe, but then again, you probably don’t even know who he was.

    Peace.

  326. Actually if you wanted to say there was a fifth Beatle, that would be Brian Epstein, he’s the one who brought them out of the clubs and made them into the band they became- George Martin was a great influence in the studio, but once the Beatles got past their pop phase, they pretty much decided how their music would sound, George M was more of a figurehead. Their music is timeless and was groundbreaking for that time period. if you saw any of the footage of what Beatlemania was like, you would understand why they stopped touring.The Who, The Clash and AC/DC NEVER had the type of crowds that The Beatles had, the closest comparison to Beatlemania might be early Rolling Stones . Oh and by the way, the producer’s name that you mention in the article who produced Metallica, BB, Jay Z, etc.. was Rick Rubin (not Ruben-that’s a sandwich). If you wish to be a credible journalist one day, you might want to check things that you post. Also, music taste is subjective- it’s up to the individual person to determine who they believe is underrated. Interesting argument though, nice start for a junior piece.

  327. would you care to elaborate on what you think is “great music”? I haven’t heard too much in the past 15 years personally, but like I said in an earlier comment, musical taste is subjective. I hated The Beatles until I was in my early 20s, I learned to appreciate their music and their contributions to rock through educating myself about their legacy as a band.

  328. StopSnitchinStopLyin says:

    lololololololol a bunch of homos still arguing years later about a crappy band that is 50% dead and are no longer relevant in music. Paul and Ringo make elevator music now……that makes you overrated

  329. Tim Killeen says:

    Dave Mathews Band, Ben Harper, Pearl Jam, Franz Ferdinand, and Oasis all cover Beatles songs. Even lil Wayne raps over “Help!”. The Beatles were the first band to release music videos. They were also the first band to use the feedback technique on a rock. Im sorry you were saying The Beatles are no longer relevant?… that makes you dumb as shit

  330. Tom Daubert says:

    It’s interesting how reactionary people get when you DARE question the Beatles’ integrity! Frankly, I totally agree with the writer. I love Led Zeppelin, but if someone argued that Led Zeppelin was overrated, I wouldn’t get hostile and defensive, like some of these posts. I would politely listen and accept the argument for what it is. People, get a grip!

  331. Oh, yes. The Beatles sucked. Sucked, as in Backstreet Boys-sucked. Yes – they were THAT bad.

    Okay, okay – so I can see how millions of little girls in the sixties could have found them attractive, etc., as we all know how emotional young girls are. And I understand that the mop-top boys from Liverpool probably seemed kind of “edgy” to those flocks of estrogen-flooded teen girls. Throw in the “fame factor”, and… well… you know where I’m going.

    But if you’re male, and you’re heavily into (or ever WERE heavily into) the Beatles, you should consider offing yourself. Or, simply accept the fact that you’re hopelessly, and entirely, homosexual. And, yes – there IS something wrong with it. Sorry – REALITY rules MY world. If you’re not into reality, fine – then you may FUCK RIGHT OFF. You likely should well off YOURSELF, as well.

    Anyhow, I used to know a guy; he’s probably about age 50 now. He’s into The Beatles. I mean he’s REALLY into The Beatles. Into them like there’s NOTHING else out there – and never WAS – besides The Beatles, musically-speaking. NOTHING. JUST The Beatles. This guy makes Rabid Apple Fanboys look tame, by comparison, with his mop-top obsession for the “Fab Four”. But, sadly, he has not yet offed himself, even after countless requests from acquaintances and ex-friends. What a blinkered arsehole he is.

    So, if you’re male, and have a hard-on for The Beatles, please be polite. Don’t be like him. Off yourself. It’s the RIGHT thing to do for humanity.

    Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



Advertise with Us! | Contact Us | About Us | Join CM-Life's Staff