The Beatles are overrated, enough said

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.

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.

“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

Talent at what? Playing guitar? Obviously.

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

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.

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.

I completely agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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*

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

the who rules!

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.

BURN

ha ha i was just thinking the exact same thing!

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..

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