Marvin Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1360435306' post='1970473'] I would have thought that Mozart has been listened to by as many people as the Beatles. [/quote] Tut, tut, you're guessing, never pays to guess. Although I do hear that Mozart is massively influential in both the reggae and the roots/americana scenes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
risingson Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1360430431' post='1970341'] They changed Pop music [b]but certainly didn't change Jazz, Electronic or Classical music.[/b] [/quote] I'll leave the first and last of the genres you chose to mention as I could list a number of examples to the contrary, but are you honestly going to try and claim that 'Tomorrow Never Knows' had no influence on electronic music? Have you ever even heard 'Tomorrow Never Knows' before? Once again I think there are more than a few people on here trying to claim knowledge over subjects of which they have none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) All very subjective, so let's have some cold hard facts: * 80% of people who think that the Beatles are over-rated have listened to 10% or less of their output * 10% of people who think the Beatles are under-rated are 20% more likely to own the entire Beatles' catalogue * 90% of people who own all the Beatles recorded output admit to (rarely / never) listening to 'Octopus's Garden' except for the first time that they heard it. * 4% of people who listen frequently to 'Octopus's Garden' have at some time been sectioned under the 1987 Mental Health Act [size=3][i](Source: BMI / ASCAP 2007) [/i][/size] [color=#FFFFFF][size=3][i].[/i][/size][/color] Edited February 9, 2013 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360435412' post='1970476'] Oooooh... you cut me to the quick! [/quote] I'm serious Steve. Although i do realise that The Fab Four were massively influential to pop music and for Woolworths shifting all those Top Twenty guitars in the 60s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1360435564' post='1970486'] Tut, tut, you're guessing, never pays to guess. Although I do hear that Mozart is massively influential in both the reggae and the roots/americana scenes [/quote] Are you just guessing that? Edited February 9, 2013 by BetaFunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1360435885' post='1970495'] Are you just guessing that? [/quote] Yes. And I like to write posts that I feel need this fella Not so much this chap but I'll put him in anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1360435564' post='1970486'] Tut, tut, you're guessing, never pays to guess. Although I do hear that Mozart is massively influential in both the reggae and the roots/americana scenes [/quote] I don't think it's that much of a guess to think that as many people have listened to Mozart as The Beatles. Music by Mozart is around us all the time.........and his music has been around a lot longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1360436018' post='1970501'] Yes. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360422170' post='1970120'] The most over-rated band in history Very influential etc but I have never actually listened to 90% of their stuff. Not hostile, just never went there. [/quote] I completely agree! Some of their stuff was great but much of it was anything but. However even the cr*p has somehow been elevated to greatness because…. well, it was by the Beatles! The Beatles were more a cultural phenomenon rather than a musical one – they were in the right place at the right time and happened to come to symbolise the 60s and the emerging pop / counter cultures, the massive post war economic growth, the teenage years of the baby boomers, etc. If it wasn’t them it would have been someone else and their case was helped by them happening to have a world class personality in John Lennon, who somehow personified a period of great social change and growth…. Edited February 9, 2013 by peteb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I choose to use the term overrated simply because, great as they were, they weren't the b all and end all of everything which is sometimes the way they are portrayed. I don't disagree for a second with any points raised about their influence. What I may say, if pushed, is that The Beatles weren't as influential as the [i]success[/i] of the Beatles was x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowender Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360436308' post='1970510'] I completely agree! Some of their stuff was great but much of it was anything but. However even the cr*p has somehow been elevated to greatness because…. well, it was by the Beatles! The Beatles were more a cultural phenomenon rather than a musical one – they were in the right place at the right time and happened to come to symbolise the 60s and the emerging pop / counter cultures, the massive post war economic growth, the teenage years of the baby boomers, etc. If it wasn’t them it would have been someone else and their case was helped by them happening to have a world class personality in John Lennon, who somehow personified a period of great social change and growth…. [/quote] I think history has proved that statement incorrect. But, whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360436414' post='1970516'] What I may say, if pushed, is that The Beatles weren't as influential as the [i]success[/i] of the Beatles was x [/quote] Characteristically subtle. I like it. For myself, I think that Rory Storm and The Hurricanes were by far the better band. I well remember dripping off the walls of the Cavern back in 1961, a half pint of Double-Diamond in my hand. Rory was headlining and the Beatles were support. Total trainwreck, harmonies like a ship's hooter. The audience was mostly factory-hands and dockers and in their rage they launched their snap-tins at the less than fab four. Blizzard of cheese sandwiches, bananas and kit-kat bars. That was the night they fired Pete Best and it was rumoured that the arty, pretty boy Peter Sutcliffe was next for the chop. As the word went round, all the women started to scream and urinate on the seats, which is how the whole Beatlemania thing started. John came up to me afterwards to ask what I thought of their performance. "Duthd yer thunk wai wor fab an geer, Lar?" he said, eyeing me menacingly. John was the group's 'hard man' in those days, before McCartney learnt Hap-Ki-Do off Burt Ward (later to star as Robin The Boy Wonder in the Batman TV series of 1966). Great times, great memories. One day I'll tell you all the story about how I got a hand-job from Brian Epstein but that was much later. [color=#FFFFFF].[/color] Edited February 9, 2013 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
risingson Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 The problem with threads like this is I tend to get increasingly pissed (wrongly so I might add!) when it is suggested that the band weren't musically significant or influential. It's just that you can't really argue with historical fact and actual proof here, it far outweighs the suppositions. What I actually think it boils down to for most people in this case is a feeling of annoyance over how much the Beatles are lauded and a probable dislike of their music. Both those things I can understand very well. But misinformation gets tossed around and it's tough to try and step over it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360437055' post='1970523'] I think history has proved that statement incorrect. But, whatever [/quote] Indulge me, how exactly has that statement been proven incorrect?? It is an interesting debate because the Beatles were such an important cultural phenomenon.... Edited February 9, 2013 by peteb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='risingson' timestamp='1360437438' post='1970536'] The problem with threads like this is I tend to get increasingly pissed (wrongly so I might add!) when it is suggested that the band weren't musically significant or influential. It's just that you can't really argue with historical fact and actual proof here, it far outweighs the suppositions. What I actually think it boils down to for most people in this case is a feeling of annoyance over how much the Beatles are lauded and a probable dislike of their music. Both those things I can understand very well. But misinformation gets tossed around and it's tough to try and step over it all. [/quote] It is an oddity that people cannot detach disliking something from how it has influenced many others and appreciate that fact. Throwing in terms like 'crap','overrated etc misses the point that this band were massively influential and more so than any other band. I'm not a big Beatles fan, but the artists I listen to are on record as being big fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) The Beatles were not the first, but almost so, to write their own material; lyrics, melodies, arrangements, and become very popular. Before, music was composed by a composer, lyrics provided by a song writer, and musicians played what others had written, generally. The Beatles changed that. There were many other influences, but this was indeed a major change in the whole music cosmos, not simply 'pop' music. Whether one likes what they did or not, this was a huge change for all of us. There are other examples, but none so immensely widespread. Just my tuppence-worth. Edited February 9, 2013 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1360438320' post='1970557'] It is an oddity that people cannot detach disliking something from how it has influenced many others and appreciate that fact. Throwing in terms like 'crap','overrated etc misses the point that this band were massively influential and more so than any other band. I'm not a big Beatles fan, but the artists I listen to are on record as being big fans. [/quote] I personally think that you can argue that the Beatles were musically overated, indeed I would do so quite strongly! However, you can never underestimate their cultural and social significance.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360437898' post='1970547'] Indulge me, how exactly has that statement been proven incorrect?? It is an interesting debate because the Beatles were such an important cultural phenomenon.... [/quote] They may have been a cultural phenomenon, but probably more part of a cultural phenomenon. But that aside, why do so many other artists cite them as an influence if they weren't a musical phenomenon? Why not the Stones, Who or the Kinks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360436308' post='1970510'] I completely agree! Some of their stuff was great but much of it was anything but. However even the cr*p has somehow been elevated to greatness because…. well, it was by the Beatles! The Beatles were more a cultural phenomenon rather than a musical one – they were in the right place at the right time and [b]happened[/b] to come to symbolise the 60s and the emerging pop / counter cultures, the massive post war economic growth, the teenage years of the baby boomers, etc. If it wasn’t them it would have been someone else and their case was helped by them [b]happening[/b] to have a world class personality in John Lennon, who somehow personified a period of great social change and growth…. [/quote]And I guess they just [i]'happened'[/i] to write all those great songs. [quote] [b]they were in the right place at the right time[/b] and happened to come to symbolise the 60s and the emerging pop / counter cultures, [/quote] What about The Dave Clarke 5, The Kinks, The Searchers, Gerry and the Pacemakers, Freddy and the Dreamers, Manfred Mann etc? They were all around at the same time.They never quite reached the same dizzy heights as The Beatles... don't suppose it had something to do with the quality of their songs(?) My guess is that those that claim that The Fabs were over-rated and not that influential were firmly in The Stones camp. You had to like one or the other... apparently, it was illegal to like both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowender Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360437898' post='1970547'] Indulge me, how exactly has that statement been proven incorrect?? It is an interesting debate because the Beatles were such an important cultural phenomenon.... [/quote] Well you say they were more of a cultural phenomenom, which is true, but 20 years olds today have no connection to that yet they're still influenced by the Beatles. You say if it wasn't them, it would have been someone else, well...there were plenty of groups cashing in on the novelty of being British -- where are they today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360438649' post='1970564'] And I guess they just [i]'happened'[/i] to write all those great songs. What about The Dave Clarke 5, The Kinks, The Searchers, Gerry and the Pacemakers, Freddy and the Dreamers, Manfred Mann etc? They were all around at the same time.They never quite reached the same dizzy heights as The Beatles... don't suppose it had something to do with the quality of their songs(?) My guess is that those that claim that The Fabs were over-rated and not that influential were firmly in The Stones camp. You had to like one or the other... apparently, it was illegal to like both. [/quote] I'm a little too young to remember first hand but the Fab 4 were the ones to emerge from that pack and take the prize! Not a big Stones fan either, but I guess that if I was of that age I would have sided with Keef & co! I would never deny the Beatles influence, just that much of their actual music was not as good as many made it out to be.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
risingson Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360438554' post='1970561'] However, you can never underestimate their cultural and social significance.... [/quote] And musical significance. Sorry, opinions I can deal with, false claims I'm going to and will continue to dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 [quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360438738' post='1970566'] Well you say they were more of a cultural phenomenom, which is true, but 20 years olds today have no connection to that yet they're still influenced by the Beatles. You say if it wasn't them, it would have been someone else, well...there were plenty of groups cashing in on the novelty of being British -- where are they today? [/quote] They were not just a cultural phenomenon, they were [b]the[/b] biggest cultural phenomenon ever in popular entertainment and their influence is still being felt today. I would argue that a similar thing is there with Led Zep, who are still influencing many bands today. I can't deny the influence that the Beatles had, just that much of their actual music wasn't actually that great if you strip away their cultural significance.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) [quote name='risingson' timestamp='1360435720' post='1970490'] I'll leave the first and last of the genres you chose to mention as I could list a number of examples to the contrary, but are you honestly going to try and claim that 'Tomorrow Never Knows' had no influence on electronic music? Have you ever even heard 'Tomorrow Never Knows' before? Once again I think there are more than a few people on here trying to claim knowledge over subjects of which they have none. [/quote] Yes and yes. I heard all of Revolver the week it was released so yes i am familiar with the song. I think the Beatles were a massive influence on a lot of people and groups but fail to see that Tomorrow Never Knows had much influence on electronic music. Surely it's the other way around. Edited February 9, 2013 by BetaFunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 How can anyone sensibly claim that anyone or anything as globally popular as The Beatles are over-rated? Over-rated against what? Their own personal dislike? To claim that something is over-rated because of a personal dislike is clearly nonsense. Dislike The Beatles, Microsoft, Tesco [enter own hobby-horse here] by all means, but don't make yourself look stupid by saying they are over rated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.