The Beatles are overrated - Page 2

Agathon · February 9, 2004, 21:20

But Ming, you like the Blue Oyster Cult, so you have zero cred on this issue,

yavoon · February 9, 2004, 21:22

the beatles are only overrated if u consider the inevitability of the #1 band of all time being overrated.

but they most certainly are #1

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 21:23

Quote:

I'm sure Nirvana'ites do flock to pre-Nirvana stuff, but if Nirvana and the Beatles are analogous, that means the Beatles are over rated.

EVERY musically band in analogous in that sense. Is every band overrated then?

Quote:

As for 5 top singles, what was their competition at the time? Did they repeat that success later in the decade when up against good bands?

They blew away the competition. Later in the decade they in no way released the same number of songs as they did earlier, but every album they released went straight to #1.

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 21:25

Quote:

But they can't hold a candle to Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd.

Or the Moody Blues (what album was that with Nights in White Satin?), I'd have to look at my CD's.

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 21:34

Quote:

EVERY musically band in analogous in that sense. Is every band overrated then?

Nirvana undoubtedly does have a fan base for their early stuff, just not a big base. Do the Beatles have a base for their early stuff worthy of the greatest band of all time? I don't see any "Quarrymen" fan club of note out there...

Quote:

They blew away the competition. Later in the decade they in no way released the same number of songs as they did earlier, but every album they released went straight to #1.

Obviously they blew the competition away if they had 5 #'1's, but what was their competition? And yes, the reason they never duplicated that success is because they did have competition later in the 60's.

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 21:36

Days of Future Passed - great album

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 21:37

Or was it Days of Future Past? Ugh...

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 21:41

Quote:

Do the Beatles have a base for their early stuff worthy of the greatest band of all time? I don't see any "Quarrymen" fan club of note out there...

How many Beatles fans do you know? Obviously not many. I mean, did you see the movie 'Backbeat'? Why do you think they made it if people didn't care about the early Beatles?

Quote:

And yes, the reason they never duplicated that success is because they did have competition later in the 60's.

Bull... once again manipulating the facts to fit your conclusion. EVERY ALBUM they put out went to #1. They didn't release anywhere near the number of singles they did in the early 60s.

Quote:

Obviously they blew the competition away if they had 5 #'1's, but what was their competition?

Elvis and Motown (Temptations, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Diana Ross and the Supremes, and Gladys Knight, etc) mostly. Rock music was basically Elvis at the time they came in, and then they kicked the doors down, started a totally new sound that people just loved, and that killed all competition.

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 21:55

Quote:

How many Beatles fans do you know? Obviously not many. I mean, did you see the movie 'Backbeat'? Why do you think they made it if people didn't care about the early Beatles?

I know plenty, but I don't know of any Quarrymen fans. They made it because 1) they didn't have much competition at the time and were more a novelty than great musicians, and 2) lots of teen age girls fawned or fainted over them.

The manager of Frank Sinatra admitted paying girls to swoon at his performances...

Quote:

Bull... once again manipulating the facts to fit your conclusion.

Quote:

EVERY ALBUM they put out went to #1. They didn't release anywhere near the number of singles they did in the early 60s.

Changing the facts to fit your conclusion? You went from 5 #1 singles to #1 albums.

Quote:

Elvis and Motown (Temptations, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Diana Ross and the Supremes, and Gladys Knight, etc) mostly. Rock music was basically Elvis at the time they came in, and then they kicked the doors down, started a totally new sound that people just loved, and that killed all competition.

They didn't replace Elvis with his fans and Elvis did all sorts of music. But did Elvis have a good new album out to compete with the Beatles? You're right, it was a "new" sound, a new genre. What happened later in the 60's? The Beatles had more competition and no more successes like they had in the early 60's even though their albums got better. The reason the Beatles are over rated is because when they were up against decent competition in the same genre they lost their superiority...

yavoon · February 9, 2004, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

I know plenty, but I don't know of any Quarrymen fans. They made it because 1) they didn't have much competition at the time and were more a novelty than great musicians, and 2) lots of teen age girls fawned or fainted over them.

The manager of Frank Sinatra admitted paying girls to swoon at his performances...

Changing the facts to fit your conclusion? You went from 5 #1 singles to #1 albums.

They didn't replace Elvis with his fans and Elvis did all sorts of music. But did Elvis have a good new album out to compete with the Beatles? You're right, it was a "new" sound, a new genre. What happened later in the 60's? The Beatles had more competition and no more successes like they had in the early 60's even though their albums got better. The reason the Beatles are over rated is because when they were up against decent competition in the same genre they lost their superiority...

I dont have the fervor u two have. but to say the beatles lost their superiority is a lil pushing it. they completely stopped touring and released #1 albums. their pop culture popularity easily dwarfed any other band even if they no longer made enuff music to keep a song atop constantly.

monolith94 · February 9, 2004, 22:13

Hell, I like the moody blues, led zeppelin, the who and pink floyd too! In fact, I even love them. But, there's one fact that they all have to face up to. One small, little fact that shall always keep them from the number one spot.

THEY WEREN'T THE BEATLES

Undoubtedly my favorite band of all time.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 22:17

Quote:

They made it because 1) they didn't have much competition at the time and were more a novelty than great musicians, and 2) lots of teen age girls fawned or fainted over them.

Do you know anything about music? They blew all competition out of the water. There were plenty of sounds out there, the Beatles came and everyone had to reorganize and come up with the new stuff the Beatles were doing.

Quote:

You went from 5 #1 singles to #1 albums.

Indicates one of the BIGGEST changes the Beatles brought in. They created the first 'albums'. Before albums were just one hit single and a bunch of filler. Albums became much more important because of the Beatles.

Quote:

What happened later in the 60's? The Beatles had more competition and no more successes like they had in the early 60's even though their albums got better.

Let's take 1965 onwards, shall we?

#1 singles:

Eight Days a Week (1965)
Ticket to Ride (1965)
Help (1965)
Yesterday (1965)
Day Tripper (1965)
We Can Work It Out (1966)
Paperback Writer (1966)
Yellow Submarine (1966)
Elenor Rigby (1966)
Penny Lane (1967) [PS, Strawberry Fields was the B-side (or rather 1a)]
All You Need Is Love (1967)
Hello, Goodbye (1967)
Lady Madonna (1968)
Hey Jude (1968)
Get Back (1969)
The ballad of John and Yoko (1969)
Something (1969)
Come Together (1969)
Let It Be (1970)
The long and winding road (1970)

And that was with the Beatles churning out LESS albums and singles in the later years. They had 4 #1's in 1969, when the competition was at its height.

They never lost superiority. When they broke up, they just had a #1 album and were by far the biggest money maker and 'best band in the world'.

Album releases:

1965 - Beatles VI
1965 - HELP! (Original Soundtrack Album)
1965 - Rubber Soul
1966 - "Yesterday" ...and Today
1966 - Revolver
1967 - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
1967 - Magical Mystery Tour
1968 - The Beatles (White Album)
1969 - Yellow Submarine (Original Soundtrack Album)
1969 - Abbey Road
1970 - Let it Be (Original Soundtrack Album)

(PS, there were less American albums, IIRC, because the earlier albums, before Sgt. Pepper, were different in the US and England).

Soul Survivor · February 9, 2004, 22:32

I can see how someone can argue they aren't the best band of all time.... but it is impossible to argue they aren't top 5. So many brilliant songs, genius albums - and each member of the group contributed to them. They set a standard for pop and rock music that no one has been able to match, much less surpass. A lot of bands had more technically skilled musicians, hendrix, allman, clapton, bonham, moon all come to mind... But none of them were able to write songs as well and as consistently as the Beatles. For every great album or great song that any other band produced, the Beatles have one which is at least as good, if not better. (with the possible exception of the Stones)

reds4ever · February 9, 2004, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
I love it. The Americans want to call the 40th anniversary of the year they finally found out about the Beatles, the 40th anniversary of the Beatles.

Perhaps they had something else to commemorate 3 or 4 years ago?

Superbowl 25 or something....

it IS very concieted though non the less.....

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 22:37

Only if what Aggie was saying is true. NO ONE is saying this the 40th Anniversary of their founding. It's the 40th Anniversary of the British Invasion.

yavoon · February 9, 2004, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever

Perhaps they had something else to commemorate 3 or 4 years ago?

Superbowl 25 or something....

it IS very concieted though non the less.....

thats completely absurd. its obviously the 40th anniversary of the beatles coming to america.

are wedding anniversaries conceited too? really now.

reds4ever · February 9, 2004, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

thats completely absurd. its obviously the 40th anniversary of the beatles coming to america.

are wedding anniversaries conceited too? really now.

just havin' fun

BTW did you hear the ACTUAL recording at Shea (I think) Stadium against the one that got broadcast?? The Beatles were shockingly bad

yavoon · February 9, 2004, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever

just havin' fun

BTW did you here the ACTUAL recording at Shea (I think) Stadium against the one that got broadcast?? The Beatles were shockingly bad

no. I dont think anyone heard them anyway tho

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 22:46

Quote:

BTW did you here the ACTUAL recording at Shea (I think) Stadium against the one that got broadcast?? The Beatles were shockingly bad

Part of that is because they couldn't hear themselves talking to each other because the screaming was so loud. So they never heard when each other's instruments began, etc.

reds4ever · February 9, 2004, 22:49

Some old duffer who worked at Shea has underearthed the sound tapes, they played it on TV the other night...a lot of screaming and not much else

JohnT · February 9, 2004, 23:17

... as of 8-26-2000, in terms of singles the Beatles were the 2nd biggest act of modern times with 4,703 "points*", with Elvis #1 with 8,067 and Elton John #3 with 4,473. It is quite possible that EJ has beaten them since then, but note that the Beatles scored all their points (except for about 100) in the 7 year period ending in 1970.

52 top-40 hits (3rd to Elvis (114) and Elton (59)), #2 number of top-10 singles (34 top-tens, with Elvis #1 with 38), the most #1 singles of all time (with 20), and #3 in "Weeks Holding the #1 position" (59 weeks, behind Elvis at 80 weeks and Mariah Carey** at 60 weeks). They held 4 of the top-20 singles of the 1960's (Elton John didn't even have a top-25 single of any decade until 1990's with the Candle in the Wind remake, which was the #4 song of the '90s**).

Beatle's #1's: date song debuted in the top-40, # of weeks at the top of the charts:

I Want to Hold: 1-25-64, 7
She Loves You: 2-1-64, 2
Can't Buy Me Love: 3-28-64, 5
Love Me Do: 5-2-64, 1
A Hard Days Night: 7-18-64, 2
I Feel Fine: 12-5-64, 3
Eight Days a Week: 2-27-65, 2
Ticket to Ride: 5-1-65, 1
Help!: 8-14-65, 3
Yesterday: 10-2-65, 4
We Can Work it Out: 12-18-65, 3
Paperback Writer: 6-11-66, 2 (By the way, we can safely assume we're out of the "pop" stage and now into the "experimental" stage... and with 8 #1's to go).
Penny Lane: 3-4-67, 1
All You Need Is Love: 7-29-67, 1
Hello, Goodbye: 12-9-67, 3
Hey Jude: 9-14-68, 9
Get Back: 5-10-69, 5
Come Together: 10-18-69, 1
Let It Be: 3-21-70, 2
The Long and Winding Road: 5-23-70, 2

A number of these songs were simultaneously released with other Beatles songs - it is apparent that if they had a smarter distribution schedule, then quality songs like Something (released the same day as Come Together), Strawberry Fields Forever (released one week after Penny Lane), Day Tripper (released one week after We Can Work it Out) and a few others could've been #1 as well, had they been the only Beatles song in popular release at that time.

*based upon a formula that's too complicated to type up.
** In 1992, Billboard radically changed their song rating formula, which lead to a situation where fewer songs were #1 for a longer period of time. For example, if you combine the two systems you have the following foolishness:

The Top 10 songs of All Time (the actual list as of 8-26-2000)

1. One Sweet Day, Mariah Carey and Boyz II Men 1995
2. Macarena, Los Del Rio 1996
3. I'll Make Love to You, Boyz II Men 1994
4. Candle In the Wind, Elton John 1997
5. I Will Always Love You, Whitney Houston, 1992
6. End of the Road, Boyz II Men, 1992
7. The Boy is Mine, Brandy and Monica, 1998
8. Smooth, Santana Feat, Rob Thomas, 1999
9. Un-Break My Heart, Toni Braxton, 1996
10. Don't Be Cruel, Elvis Presley, 1956

JohnT · February 9, 2004, 23:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

if they really weren't over rated, why don't Americans flock to their music before they were the Beatles?

What? That's like saying why didn't Americans flock to Nirvana before they got big! Every band has its build up... unless they were a made up boy band.

I'd think having the 5 top singles on the US charts within a year after they were introduced to the US shows their lack of overrated-ness.

The Beatles held the top-5 singles during the first week of April, 1964. FYI.

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 23:23

Quote:

Do you know anything about music? They blew all competition out of the water. There were plenty of sounds out there, the Beatles came and everyone had to reorganize and come up with the new stuff the Beatles were doing.

Geez Imran, did I say they didn't blow the competition away? No, I said they didn't have the competition they would have later.

Quote:

Indicates one of the BIGGEST changes the Beatles brought in. They created the first 'albums'. Before albums were just one hit single and a bunch of filler. Albums became much more important because of the Beatles.

You may not like the songs on albums before the Beatles, but they didn't invent albums.

Quote:

They had 4 #1's in 1969, when the competition was at its height.

link?

monkspider · February 9, 2004, 23:25

The Beatles are underrated, now Metallica, there is a band that's grossly overrated.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2004, 23:31

Quote:

it is apparent that if they had a smarter distribution schedule, then quality songs like Something (released the same day as Come Together), Strawberry Fields Forever (released one week after Penny Lane), Day Tripper (released one week after We Can Work it Out) and a few others could've been #1 as well, had they been the only Beatles song in popular release at that time.

In Britain, I believe it was done different. Something was released at a different time (and went to #1), Strawberry Fields was Penny Lane's B side.

Quote:

Geez Imran, did I say they didn't blow the competition away? No, I said they didn't have the competition they would have later.

And what is this based on? Because you don't remember any of the acts from 1962-1965 except for the Beatles?

Quote:

You may not like the songs on albums before the Beatles, but they didn't invent albums.

They invented the idea that every song on an album is good and not just one hit with filler. If you disagree, name an album that did so before hand. I mean, they only got #1s from what they released. There are a bevy of songs that if they had time to release would have gone to #1 (Nowhere Man in particular).

Berzerker · February 9, 2004, 23:39

Where are you guys getting this info? I went to BB and couldn't find a breakdown of #1's and how long they held that position.

Quote:

The Beatles held the top-5 singles during the first week of April, 1964. FYI.

How can that be? Doesn't 1 song hold the top spot for a minimum of 1 week to be possibly replaced by another song?
I suspect what happened was that the Beatles songs went to number 1 upon release and while that is something to be applauded, releasing 2-3 albums a year and doing so when other good bands aren't releasing music that week or month can result in lots of #1's. I believe Fats Domino had 3 # 1's in 1953 or 54 and Elvis had a bunch of # 1's.

JohnT · February 9, 2004, 23:39

Well, the three songs I mentioned are B-sides.

JohnT · February 9, 2004, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where are you guys getting this info? I went to BB and couldn't find a breakdown of #1's and how long they held that position.

The Billboard Book of Top-40 Hits, 7th Edition, by Joel Whitburn.

JohnT · February 9, 2004, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
How can that be? Doesn't 1 song hold the top spot for a minimum of 1 week to be possibly replaced by another song?

No, what I meant is that they held positions 1-5 on the same chart.

Docfeelgood · February 9, 2004, 23:46

Quote:

The Beatles are overrated Support Apolyton

There I said it. someone had to.

That's all I've been hearing on the news lately. 40th anniversary this and that. Who cares.

Sure they were a good band and did have some impact on rock and roll. But they were only 1 of many bands which helped shaped the future of rock and roll in the 60's. I'd take the Stones any day.

WELL, we now all know who was not there

Ya had to have been there.

BTW

I was