I figured this forum needs some more heated discussion. The Beatles are an entirely unremarkable band musically, lyrically, and thematically. Their excessive hype is perpetuated by the mainstream music media, completely out of proportion to any discernable musical merit. While not a bad band, their merits as a band (lyrically, technically and so on) are often confused with their "untouchable" status as an icon. Discuss.
The Beatles were the first band of their kind, which is why they're so iconic. Were it not for that, they would have faded into obscurity, like most bands since then have done.
That's a fair enough call, I'm not arguing that they're a bad band. They're not to my taste, but I can respect them. I'm just sick of magazines like Rolling Stone shoving it down my throat that they're the best band evarar, no questions. There are far better bands out there in terms of songwriting and lyrics, but I won't dispute that they're an icon.
I personally think the Pumpkins top the Beatles any day of the week, in terms of musical and lyrical prowess. But yeah, it's mainly people confusing being iconic with being a spectacular band. Although I prefer the Beatles over the Rolling Stones, and I can't get enough of Rubber Soul. Sgt. Pepper's can kiss my ass. Wannabe hipsters listen to that album.
Rubber Soul and Magical Mystery Tour will be favorites of mine forever. I also love Abbey Road. Do I think the Beatles are a little overrated, though? Yeah.
I like to compare the Beatles to literature. The education system, at least in America, limits itself almost completely to classical books. After years of being tortured with the crap to the point where I no longer can even stand to pick up a book, I questioned why it is done that way. Most of the responses I got from teachers were to the point of, " These writers and these novels includes styles, themes, and elements that were new to the world of literature. Sure there our hundreds of better books out there, but these books all rely on elements first explored in these books, so out of respect as well as historical significance, we study these works rather then their copies. Basically, I enjoy the Beatles music. I like the melodies they created. I like the lyrics they put together. I just absolutely can't stand when they play it... I think they severely lack singing talent... and that's my opinion and I am sticking to it. There are a few songs here and there that contradict to what I am saying, and I enjoy those, but for the most part, I would prefer to listen to someone else cover a Beatles song rather then listen to the original recording. I thought Across the Universe was phenomenal. It pulled songs out of the Beatles catalog and made me not only enjoy them, but actually listen to on a regular basis. If you check my iTunes, the Beatles albums probably have 2 or 3 plays each, but the Across the Universe soundtrack has tons. I respect them for what they did to the music industry. I am glad they were such a success and I am glad people enjoy them. I just personally can not get into listening to their music. I think its sounds old, dry, and dull. The songs can be played with such more energy in covers. I wish they had that energy when they recorded. But seriously... this whole Beatles craze just needs to go. All the sudden everyone is like, OMG i love the beatles they are soooooo cool I want to by purses with the beatles, shirts with the beatles, mugs with the beatles, monopoly with beatles.... just wow beatles.... they should even get their own table in barnes and noble with about $500 dollars worth of worthless merchandise on it. Its as though everyone woke up one day and realized they liked the beatles. Get real with yourself people, half of you don't even listen to the band... you just do it because for some reason that makes you a cool hipster teen that loves peace and happiness... and yet you don't live out your life that way at all.... It's like a global pedestal for contradiction. UGH And honestly, no offense, my girlfriend LOVVEEESSS the Beatles too...
It's the new generation of hipsters. Wanting desperately to be cool, so much so that they love what they once hated, to fit in. I will admit that I always will admire John Lennon's guitar playing, because he had a really raw approach to his playing. Less about finesse, more about emotion. Lacking in finesse is fine if you can make it up with emotion. Lacking in emotion can't be made up for with finesse.
Yah I have to give you that point. One of my favorite bands is Manchester Orchestra. Not exactly the most talented singer, but its so emotional. I love how his voice cracks. It sounds so real. Another one would be Radio Heads Pablo Honey. Very raw singing there. And that would be why Hendrix did so well. Not always the cleanest and flaw proof solos, but lots of emotion. I agree Lennon did well with that in the guitar, but I really just feel no energy or emotion in their singing.
I feel absolutely nothing for the beetles. They are so far out of my taste I don't even take notice of them. This thread didn't really cause the arguments you wanted, did it?
The reason I fell in love with the Beatles was over their message of love and peace and not because of thinking their music is brilliantly creative and artistic(edit: I guess what I really mean is I don't find their music to be pushing too many boundaries like some of the other talented artists of that time, take T. Rex for example). I find it very simple in a genius way. But I recommend you listen to interviews with the Beatles, especially John, Paul and George for amazing life and spiritual wisdom. Ringo can be learned from, too, he's just usually sillier most of the time, but he's inspired me a lot over the years as well.
I like some of The Beatles' music but I don't see what the hype is myself. I guess I'm just ignorant because I didn't live in the 60s and thus can't really imagine what it was like when they first emerged.
Well, from my subjective point of view, I think The Beatles have great lyrics. They're not objectively or unquestionably the best, though, on further reflection. Musically, I guess they did a lot of experimenting with different instruments every now and again and, so, there are weird textures and sh*t everywhere ... Bnd, just, yeah -- in the end, they were very well-received during their time and, for some reason, everybody, everywhere, at any time, has got to know that.
Yeah, i guess so. But, what does the hype even matter anymore though? Everyone knows The Beatles. AND Can anyone here against The Beatles tell me this great band, that's amazing musically/lyrically while being accessible?