Does anyone think The Beatles were overrated?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Does one need to hear every single track to form an opinion? No I don't think so. LJS9502_basic

Seeing a movie from start to finish is better than seeing a trailer, even though the trailer is full of clips that can definitely give you a feel for the movie.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] You need to listen to at least ONE album.EolGul2

Seeing a movie from start to finish is better than seeing a trailer, even though the trailer is full of clips that can definitely give you a feel for the movie.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Does one need to hear every single track to form an opinion? No I don't think so. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] You need to listen to at least ONE album.Ninja-Bear

Edit: It's Easter morning and I'm off to church.....and while the forums don't yet reflect the change since I'm at 0%.....I'm level 64 Easter Egg.:P

Yeah they are, I like there music though. Just liked other artists more.

Musically I suppose but it just can't be helped considering their overwhelming popularity. In terms of influence though not at all considering the decades upon decades of artists they have inspired and continue to do throughout the years.

I kind of grew up with them being rammed down my throat as "the greatest band" so I kind of became resentful of their music. But when I sat down and actually listened to their individual albums that weren't those pesky hits collections I developed an appreciation for them as I discovered the individual personality that each album had due to the good flow a properly put together album typically has.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"][QUOTE="ex-mortis"]

Undoubtedly overrated. I've never listened to an entire album.

LJS9502_basic

They were popular AS albums.

In addition, the White Album (another contender for their greatest ever album) was so utterly eclectic you cannot possibly take any song as a representation of the album as a whole.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"] Do you not see an inherent flaw in that statement?Danm_999

No.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't. Unless you are implying there was one hidden gem on a Beatles album that makes them earn the accolades. Remember....the singles are what generated the hype. I think it's fair to use them as an assessment of that hype.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] This reasoning breaks down when you look at the fact that two of their most influencial, critically acclaimed and commercially succesful albums; Sgt Pepper's and Rubber Soul, did not have singles at the time of their release. They were popular AS albums.Danm_999

I think that anyone can make the case that every band is overrated really, I find that a band is only good if they have fans that say they are good. I know of a lot of bands that try to make it big and they sound good but just does not have the fan base.

I think that anyone can make the case that every bad is overrated really, I find that a band is only good if they have fans that say they are good. I know of a lot of bands that try to make it big and they sound good but just does not have the fan base. ZombiefiedZomB

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yet the radio played songs off those albums....;)

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] But then we're allowing radio stations to define for us what constitutes the Beatles.Danm_999

I think it is hard not to be overrated when people bestow ideas like "The most important band ever" on a band.

[QUOTE="ZombiefiedZomB"]I think that anyone can make the case that every bad is overrated really, I find that a band is only good if they have fans that say they are good. I know of a lot of bands that try to make it big and they sound good but just does not have the fan base. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ZombiefiedZomB"]I think that anyone can make the case that every bad is overrated really, I find that a band is only good if they have fans that say they are good. I know of a lot of bands that try to make it big and they sound good but just does not have the fan base. Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No I was countering your point that singles weren't released off those albums. Single songs from both albums are available on the radio for one to listen to and form an opinion. And it's the recording company that selects the singles....not the radio. By the time those albums were released The Beatles had enough cache in the industry to have input into single song releases as well.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] They aren't singles then, are they? In the traditional definition of a musical single.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Uh...yeah if a song is released for listening by itself...it's single. It can't be an album now can it?LJS9502_basic

If radio stations decided to play Drive My Car and Day in the Life a lot, that does not make those songs singles.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Correct. But as I said, several Beatles albums never released any of their content singles. If radio stations decided to play parts of the album, that doesn't make it a single.Danm_999

If radio stations decided to play Drive My Car and Day in the Life a lot, that does not make those songs singles.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes. Once again, when released nothing off of Sgt Pepper's or Rubber Soul was designated by recording companies as a "single". They were not released seperately from the album, not until a decade after at least.

If radio stations decided to play Drive My Car and Day in the Life a lot, that does not make those songs singles.

LJS9502_basic

Remember....the singles are what generated the hype. I think it's fair to use them as an assessment of that hype.LJS9502_basic

Well then we're talking about popular/well known Beatles songs, rather than singles specifically. As you claimed a few pages earlier: My problem is with judging the Beatles specifically on their singles. If you want to listen to a wider canon of the most popular/influencial Beatles songs and then say they're rubbish that's a different matter.Danm_999

I don't see the disparity in listening to Beatles songs and judging them. They are part of their library and are symbolic of where The Beatles stood musically at the period of time.

Seems to be used more to discredit opposing opinions IMO than any actual point in regard to the music itself.

No...you yourself admitted those songs were released as singles. And they were. Perhaps not when they were new but that is not the issue here. LJS9502_basic

Well, yes it is the issue. Songs like Day in the Life and Sgt Pepper's were made into singles a decade later because of their immense popularity and influence. You before claimed that the hype came from the singles, but obviously it didn't originally. People got into these songs not because record companies released them seperately, but because they listened to the entire album.

The issue is can someone without albums get an overview of The Beatles without an album and the answer is yes.LJS9502_basic

I don't argue that. I would only argue that don't get a very good overview.

I don't see the disparity on listening to Beatles songs and judging them. They are part of their library and are symbolic of where The Beatles stood musically at the period of time.

Seems to be used more to discredit opposing opinions IMO than any actual point in regard to the music itself.

LJS9502_basic

Well, cherry picking is a dangerous game. Sometimes it doesn't work at all. I can't think how you can get an overview of the White album without listening to each track (even Revolution 9, awful as it is).

Well, yes it is the issue. Songs like Day in the Life and Sgt Pepper's were made into singles a decade later because of their immense popularity and influence. You before claimed that the hype came from the singles, but it was often with the Beatles that the hype was divorced from the singles.

No it's not the issue. The question is if someone has heard material off the albums. As the songs WERE made into singles.....and it doesn't matter what year since this thread is in 2010...then that point IS moot. He can in 2010 have heard material off those albums without listening to the entire album. I don't see why this is being debated here dude. We're not sitting here in 1969/70 and saying he's heard the music.

I don't argue that. I would only argue that don't get a very good overview.

Of course it is...it's a snapshot of the styIe music they created for each album.

Well, cherry picking is a dangerous game. Sometimes it doesn't work at all. I can't think how you can get an overview of the White album without listening to each track (even Revolution 9, awful as it is).

Danm_999

I've heard Revolution 9 on the radio. There were many songs from the white album that were released as singles...and many more used in pop culture. I think it's safe to say most people have an idea of The Beatles career trajectory.

overrated... kinda

i think there the most influential band and there really good.
so overall they are a great band with a massive fan base

No it's not the issue. The question is if someone has heard material off the albums. As the songs WERE made into singles.....and it doesn't matter what year since this thread is in 2010...then that point IS moot. He can in 2010 have heard material off those albums without listening to the entire album. I don't see why this is being debated here dude. We're not sitting here in 1969/70 and saying he's heard the music.LJS9502_basic

I'm responding to the claim you made that the singles drove the Beatles hype.

My point was simple; since many of their most popular, most critically acclaimed songs that made the Beatles were originally not singles, that cannot have been the reason the Beatles were originally hyped.

Hell, the concept of a single in the modern context in the Beatles case is largely irrelevant anyway. People in 2010 do not listen to Sgt Pepper's because it was made a single in 1978, they do so because it was hailed in the 60s.

Of course it is...it's a snapshot of the styIe music they created for each album.LJS9502_basic

Several albums are far too diffuse to do that in my opinion.

I've heard Revolution 9 on the radio. There were many songs from the white album that were released as singles...and many more used in pop culture. I think it's safe to say most people have an idea of The Beatles career trajectory.

LJS9502_basic

You heard Revolution 9 on the radio? Are you sure you don't mean Revolution 1? If so, I'm amazed they bothered wasting air time :P

I'm responding to the claim you made that the singles drove the Beatles hype.

My point was simple; since many of their most popular, most critically acclaimed songs that made the Beatles were originally not singles, that cannot have been the reason the Beatles were originally hyped.

Hell, the concept of a single in the modern context in the Beatles case is largely irrelevant anyway.

You are aware the hype started in 1964 and they certainly had singles...right? Thus what came after the hype is not in question.

Several albums are far too diffuse to do that in my opinion.

Your opinion notwithstanding...an individual has had exposure to each album. There isn't a huge difference per album.

You heard Revolution 9 on the radio? Are you sure you don't mean Revolution 1? If so, I'm amazed they bothered wasting air time :P

Danm_999

Different time period. I think it may be harder to appreciate what they did by today's standards.

You are aware the hype started in 1964 and they certainly had singles...right? Thus what came after the hype is not in question.LJS9502_basic

Of course the band had hype from earlier singles, but their hype grew on the back of complete albums too.

Many of the Beatles most popular songs were not released originally as singles; they only became so because they were so well liked. To say they reached their heights of fame and critical respect on the backs of singles alone is incorrect.

Your opinion notwithstanding...an individual has had exposure to each album. There isn't a huge difference per album.LJS9502_basic

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I suppose.

Of course the band had hype from earlier singles, but their hype grew on the back of complete albums too.

Many of the Beatles most popular songs were not released originally as singles; they only became so because they were so well liked. To say they reached their heights of fame and critical respect on the backs of singles alone is incorrect.

Danm_999

Conversely let's change their time frame. Would they have the same impact today as they did in the 60's?

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Of course the band had hype from earlier singles, but their hype grew on the back of complete albums too.

Many of the Beatles most popular songs were not released originally as singles; they only became so because they were so well liked. To say they reached their heights of fame and critical respect on the backs of singles alone is incorrect.

LJS9502_basic

Conversely let's change their time frame. Would they have the same impact today as they did in the 60's?

Yes.

Compared to the trash out there today?

Miley Cyrus or The Beatles...

HRMMMM!!!!

Not exactly. They were established by then. The hype is what got the band noticed.LJS9502_basic

They were established, yes, but these new albums increased their profile. It did not extend their popularity, it expanded it. Sgt Pepper's is widely considered the best album of all time, even today. This is not because the Beatles released several popular singles in their early albums in the 1960s, this is because the album itself was highly influencial and popular.

Let's switch up things a bit if you can do this. Pretend The British Invasion never happened and The Beatles were a band that released their music as was/is the norm. Nothing else but their singles. Do you still believe that the band would have the same larger than life impression or can you see that they would be like other bands and have their fans and hits but not necessarily be a band that is expected to be listed at the top of every music list?LJS9502_basic

I take this question to mean would the Beatles be the same if they weren't as successful as the Beatles? I doubt it.

Conversely let's change their time frame. Would they have the same impact today as they did in the 60's?

LJS9502_basic

No. Like Alexander the Great, their accomplishments are viewed as more immense because they were one of the first to do what they did.

Of course, given their impact on music, I don't think its possible to ask that question without a whole lot of variables.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Of course the band had hype from earlier singles, but their hype grew on the back of complete albums too.

Many of the Beatles most popular songs were not released originally as singles; they only became so because they were so well liked. To say they reached their heights of fame and critical respect on the backs of singles alone is incorrect.

Joshywaa

Conversely let's change their time frame. Would they have the same impact today as they did in the 60's?

Yes.

Compared to the trash out there today?

Miley Cyrus or The Beatles...

HRMMMM!!!!

My favourite band, and one of history's most influential (if not the most).

RearNakedChoke

omg, i thought that i was the only one

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Of course the band had hype from earlier singles, but their hype grew on the back of complete albums too.

Many of the Beatles most popular songs were not released originally as singles; they only became so because they were so well liked. To say they reached their heights of fame and critical respect on the backs of singles alone is incorrect.LJS9502_basic

Conversely let's change their time frame. Would they have the same impact today as they did in the 60's?

If all the Beatles had was their original pop singles, they would have been forgotten like every other Dave Clark Five type of band that was releasing similar singles at the time.

But the point is that the Beatles released a whole lot more than their original pop singles. "One" is a collection of all the Beatles singles that hit #1, likely the songs that most non-Beatles fans are familiar with, yet "One" contains zero songs from three of the Beatles' most acclaimed albums.

Your argument that we should ignore the depth of Beatles work and only concentrate on the singles makes no sense at all.

And if the Beatles were just coming around today, they certainly would not be releasing songs like "I Want To Hold Your Hand."

If all the Beatles had was their original pop singles, they would have been forgotten like every other Dave Clark Five type of band that was releasing similar singles at the time.

But the point is that the Beatles released a whole lot more than their original pop singles. "One" is a collection of all the Beatles singles that hit #1, likely the songs that most non-Beatles fans are familiar with, yet "One" contains zero songs from three of the Beatles' most acclaimed albums.

Your argument that we should ignore the depth of Beatles work and only concentrate on the singles makes no sense at all.

And if the Beatles were just coming around today, they certainly would not be releasing songs like "I Want To Hold Your Hand."

swamprat_basic

I probably would have discovered and liked The Beatles without knowing about their original hype. Their later material is amazing.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

If all the Beatles had was their original pop singles, they would have been forgotten like every other Dave Clark Five type of band that was releasing similar singles at the time.

But the point is that the Beatles released a whole lot more than their original pop singles. "One" is a collection of all the Beatles singles that hit #1, likely the songs that most non-Beatles fans are familiar with, yet "One" contains zero songs from three of the Beatles' most acclaimed albums.

Your argument that we should ignore the depth of Beatles work and only concentrate on the singles makes no sense at all.

And if the Beatles were just coming around today, they certainly would not be releasing songs like "I Want To Hold Your Hand."

LJS9502_basic

Is anybody here arguing that the Beatles' later music is "better" than Pink Floyd, The Who, or Led Zeppelin? Not that I see.

Is Ozzy the greatest heavy metal musician ever? Probably not. His music is actually fairly conventional by today's standards, but that's because he started in a period where heavy metal did not exist and had to participate in the creation of the genre.

Likewise, the Beatles started in a period of pop-rock and created the genres of psychadellic / concept rock. Of course they shouldn't be as advanced as modern bands, yet somehow much of their music does still stand up.

If all you've listened to are the singles from "One," you are missing out on their most revolutionary and compelling work.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

If all the Beatles had was their original pop singles, they would have been forgotten like every other Dave Clark Five type of band that was releasing similar singles at the time.

But the point is that the Beatles released a whole lot more than their original pop singles. "One" is a collection of all the Beatles singles that hit #1, likely the songs that most non-Beatles fans are familiar with, yet "One" contains zero songs from three of the Beatles' most acclaimed albums.

Your argument that we should ignore the depth of Beatles work and only concentrate on the singles makes no sense at all.

And if the Beatles were just coming around today, they certainly would not be releasing songs like "I Want To Hold Your Hand."

swamprat_basic

Is anybody here arguing that the Beatles' later music is "better" than Pink Floyd, The Who, or Led Zeppelin? Not that I see.

Is Ozzy the greatest heavy metal musician ever? Probably not. His music is actually fairly conventional by today's standards, but that's because he started in a period where heavy metal did not exist and had to participate in the creation of the genre.

Likewise, the Beatles started in a period of pop-rock and created the genres of psychadellic / concept rock. Of course they shouldn't be as advanced as modern bands, yet somehow much of their music does still stand up.

If all you've listened to are the singles from "One," you are missing out on their most revolutionary and compelling work.