Congratulations, you are no longer part of 'most people' in this context, with that great thread addition.
I don't think that's entirely true. The release of the Beatles: Rock Band -- and, to a lesser extent, the remastered Beatles catalog -- probably turned a lot of younger people on to the band's music.
Indeed, and even though they probably don't understand the message entirely right now, a lot of them will probably get it over the years.
I love the beatles but they aren't by far my favorite band at all. I like them and think their music is untouchable simply because if not for them, A LOT of the bands that are here today that I truly truly love would not be around.
It's because they're Scouse I stick by the people that say they were the first of their kind. Also, you can argue any bands popularity. For example, I think that Nirvana are incredibly over-rated.
Revolutionising and thereby changing the whole of pop music at the time, thus influencing every musician in western culture and beyond afterwards should be enough to be called a legend. I'd go as far as saying your lacking as a pop musician if you've never heard the Beatles. But wasn't there a discussion about this, started by you, before on this forum? I think so.
They have a handful of great songs, but so do a lot of other bands in any era, so I don't see what the hype is all about. Granted, if it weren't for them, many of the bands I do love might not exist, so I do respect them. Just over-hyped, in my opinion.
I grew up listening to The Beatles. I like them; are they over-hyped, oh hell yes. Honestly I think most "legendary" bands are that way. The music may be good but they aren't the greatest thing ever. And I HATED the Across the Universe soundtrack. Good when put with the movie. But it was advertised as a Beatles musical, which it isn't. To me it was as if Pink Floyd's The Wall had been all covers. It fundamentally changes the movie. Yellow Submarine was a Beatles musical. Albeit animated, it had actual Beatles music.
Probably. I think it was a single post in another thread, and I mentioned a few different classic bands in general. It was also a while ago. So I'm going to pretend the tone of your post was lost in internet translation and hope you weren't being condescending with that last sentence or two. As for being unoriginal in criticising them, *shrugs*. Point of the thread was to promote discussion, and I figured this a topic where enough people would have strong opinions.
I was being as condescending as you were being ignorant. "The Beatles are an entirely unremarkable band musically, lyrically, and thematically." ... that just blows my mind. This isn't about The Beatles, discussion or anything else but attentionwhoring. Congratulations. Mitch Clem owns this thread.
I wrote the original post in the style of an essay hypothesis, because I figured it would be the most likely to promote discussion. I could have quite as easily phrased it as a question ("do you think the Beatles are overrated?") but I chose a structure I thought would be more likely to get discussion going. Which it has. Please see my follow up posts to show I'm not merely going "omgz the beatles suck yo!!!1one!". I'm waiting for the likely "go back and listen to your sc3n3" music response. For the record, I respect the Beatles' influence but they don't appeal to me musically. I've given my reasoning before. Also, please don't call me ignorant. I probably listen to a wider variety of music than I'm sure you'd argue. So to sum it up, yes, I'm clearly an attention whore, aren't I?
Mitch Clem is an attention-seeking dumbass who, rather than make interesting social commentaries, uses the same tired arguments that countless people before him have used, in order to prove a point that makes no sense at all. At least in the context of the strip in this thread. Seriously, I'm sick of people getting pissy because I don't admit that the Beatles are the greatest band ever. Do I respect them? For revolutionizing music, yes. But if they hadn't done it, someone else would have. I think that's the bottom line in why so many people don't get the hype over them, is that, at that point, there were HUNDREDS of bands doing what they did. It's just that they got recognition first. Luck. Of. The. Draw.
I think we need to get of Daniel's back. People on this forum get upset every time there's actually a healthy debate going on, which is really disappointing, because there's no harm in it. As long as we don't have people coming in and going "*insert band here* is shit!" and giving people shit over their tastes, I don't see why we can't have a healthy discussion.
Also keep in mind, though, that Paul McCartney has written so many albums, you cannot deny the man is a genius. Average of an album a year since the 60's? And they're great. Usually a lot of luck is involved with getting famous, but keep in mind how they took that initial fame, molded it, and created some truly revolutionary art.
And anyone who denies it is usually lying. This. Very true. I'm not saying they didn't work at it, or that they didn't have good songs, or a good business sense, I'm just saying that if they hadn't made it so big, it would've been someone else. Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, or the Rolling Stones, or someone would have been "that band".
Thank you Iain and Harlz. My entire goal with this thread was to promote discussion, something I find is unfortunately lacking on these boards a lot of the time. If discussion is the goal, usually the idea is to use a structure likely to draw the most looks and promote the most thought. Hence why I chose an exhadurated version of my opinion. On other forums there seem to be a lot of proper musical discussion type threads, whereas here (no offense against the LPA and the staff, I love this place) it more seems to be (useful) "x band is releasing x album soon" news threads. I'm just sick of people calling me ignorant for not liking the Beatles, even when I put together what I believe was a fairly well thought out argument, rather than just saying "they're shit yo!". As Iain said, there were other bands around at the same time doing the same thing. The Beach Boys for instance, it's just that as fate has it, the Beatles blew up.
Not a fan of the Beatles. I find too much of their stuff to just be nonsense and lacking any serious emotion. I do also agree that debate often seems to be taken badly on this forum, not sure why. Everyone seems very protective of each other's opinions.