[whiskyboozer]

Discuss......................

[Trollslayer]

I heard some music in an advert last year and it took me a while to ralise who this new band was - yes, it was a Beatles track!
In a Bon Jovi calssical instrument session I knew there was something - they used the score from Elanor Rigby.

[risetoaddiction]

Not 'overhyped' at all. True innovators and their music speaks for itself. No hype involved here. They did what they did at a time nobody else had even thought of attempting to do. Changed the music business and influenced countless artists to this day .

[karkus30]

You either get it or you don't. Took me long enough

[Harj]

Originally Posted by whiskyboozer

Discuss......................

Yes absolutely overhyped, I mean all overhyped bands play their own instruments, write their own songs, make innovative albums, and still sell millions of albums every year.

You should actually give a reason why they you think they are overhyped rather than just asking us to discuss it.

[JohnG]

Whether you like The Beatles or not, there's no denying that without them, a lot of rock as we know it today (both sides of the Atlantic) would not exist. They inspired a whole new genre of guitar driven bands. Just look at what else was in the charts at the time when they started!

[deadtotheworld]

When they came out - they were all hype... people latching on to clothes, haircuts, the endless amounts of screaming girls and so on. The stuff people caught wind of was little to do with their music at first. They were the Spice Girls of their generation - a band of blokes with completely different personalities. The Shadows were doing similar stuff before them. I met a guy about 15 years ago that showed me this spanish musician and played me some stuff and showed me the date it had been written and published - and it was before The Beatles and loads of the Beatles stuff had stolen melodies, chord progressions, harmonies from this guys stuff. Once could be a coincidence but hearing so much - it was pure plagarism so I believe that they werent as original as people think.
You cant deny that they released alot of terrible stuff aswell as the good stuff - that it is alot of hype that keeps them selling... I mean it was not so long ago that a bit of hype from Noel and Liam Gallagher helped kick start a new trend in liking the Beatles - every kid in School went and bought Beatles albums and liked them because Liam told them to.

So yeah even orginal or classic bands can be seriously overhyped - but its all down to the ears of the listener to decide if it was worth the hype or not.
Times change and musicians and songwriters get better - it might have been original at the time but I just dont like it.
Appreciate it - Yes. Like it - No. Better musicians, vocalists & songwriters since - Yes. Overhyped - Definately.

[JohnG]

It would be interesting to know how many people who post in this thread were actually born when they first hit the scene

[KoThreads]

I'm 50 and don't like Elvis, Bill Hayley, or anything before the mid 60's. First record i ever got was Sabre Dance by Love Sculpture. I only posess the Past masters vol 1 cd and despite being lent all the beatles cd's time and time again there's very little i like. but i would be the first to admit that almost everything i listen to probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them. I think, like them or not, they were the most important thing that happened to shape musics future.

[jtfab75]

imagine if the Beatles had never got a recording contract,Cliff Richard would be the biggest star in British chart history and Elvis would be still in his jump suit.
after the Beatles came along ,the stones,the who ,animals,zepplin,black sabbath etc followed.
even if your not a Beatle fan,imagine going to see Cliff at wembley stadium singing 'Bachelor boy' or elvis squeezing into his jump suit in vegas sweating like a pig.

[karkus30]

It's this 'hype' description I don't understand. How on Earth can a band be hyped when they no longer exist ? Albums are being bought that represent a band that ceased playing almost 40 years ago. The music and style cannot possibly represent todays younger audience and those that remember them already have their music.

When they first started they produced pop music and were promoted in a similar way to bands of today, although in a sense it was probably easier to promote four good looking guys with lyrics that spoke to young girls. No different to any modern band in that respect. The thing that singled them out was evolution and an incredible ability to write catchy tunes and great lyrics. They evolved constantly and even when they split up they still managed to produce music that had enough about it to continue being played.

We are not talking Mozart or Beethoven here, this is just folk music. They have been a huge influence on musicians throughout the last 40 years, from Nirvana to Oasis. Their songs are now so much ingrained in many peoples heads that a simple opening chord such as that from 'A Hard Days Night' is so reconiseable that you can instantly begin singing the words and tune. Others have managed this, but not many, if any, have managed it so many times.

So, hyped? I cant say they are. Popular? definitely.

Deservedly? Well with a back catalogue of hit albums and singles that would make most bands envious, a constant evolution despite having a ready audience that liked their earlier output, many, many covers (dig a guitar out around a campfire and I would be very suprised if half way through the night you don't get at least a few people demanding you play a Beatles number). Sited by so many artists as a major influence ......remember that both Nirvana and Oasis readily admitted to that, two of the biggest bands of the 90s and 00s managed to get to that position by simply using the same general style as the Beatles and were happy to mention them.

I never considered myself a fan until a few years ago when I finally admitted they were an amazing musical band.

[deadtotheworld]

JohnG - I think it would be a great idea to find out peoples age with their opinion. I am 29 and am not a fan. But I know alot of older people who were around when the Beatles kicked off - that cant stand the sight of The Beatles. Maybe people who were born after or became of an age to appreciate music after the Beatles had ended, may like them more... I dunno but I am interested to see.
I always find that you can really upset people with threads or discussions like this as people become very protective of their favourite stuff or stuff from their generation.
It is funny that I love Metallica, yet I cant stand Black Sabbath who were an influence for them, I cant stand the Beatles who influenced Sabbath/Ozzy... so it does go a lot further down the line, like No Beatles = No Metallica.
But also overhyped is not all that much of a negative thing. Some of my favourite bands have been overhyped in the past and I have been disappointed with certain releases - but its usually a media thing.
People get things like the word overhyped mixed up with words like 'crap' were it turns in to a personal opinion. A different thread could have been called: 'I think the Beatles suck! - Discuss'

[deadtotheworld]

I can totally understand the phrase 'hype' in this situation as there are always countdowns of best or classic albums in magazines and tv shows, same with films and it just seems that people 'inherit' the thought of stuff being a classic as they dont want to appear different from an older 'classics' list. Everybody must know people who could guess a classic albums list without ever hearing most of the albums! Im sick of seeing critics or reviewers who are about 20 telling me that this is great or dont listen to this because its not cool anymore or going in depth on what times were like when the Beatles came about even though their parents were barely born at that time. Gullible people lap this **** up and can argue that stuff is classic without hearing it. I hope that makes sense haha I mean Dark side of the moon always ends up on classic lists because of some type of hype, as its probably the best known album title by Floyd - but it isnt even Floyds best album!

[Harj]

Originally Posted by deadtotheworld

I mean Dark side of the moon always ends up on classic lists because of some type of hype, as its probably the best known album title by Floyd - but it isnt even Floyds best album!

1) The Wall (i know, I know, but I've been lisening to it again recently)
2)DSOTM
3) Meddle
4) Animals
5) Wish You Were Here

[unique]

i'm a fan of the beatles, but i think trying to be impartial i couldn't say they were overhyped, and certainly not the most over hyped band of all time. they progessed from simple pop music to something that changed the face of music forever and probably inspired and influenced in some way, even indirectly, almost every western music artist since, from elvis to miles davis

i also think when you look at the classic albums lists, that most of the albums there are generally deserving. an album doesn't necesarily have to be considered a bands best album to be thought of more highly generally. wish you were here is my favourite floyd album perhaps, but it's a close shave to wish you were here. i think the wall is a great album too, but it's a long and slightly patchy affair. ok computer, revolver, pet sounds, what's going on, songs in the key of life, harvest, blue, hot buttered soul, exile on main street, those are real classic albums that have went on to influence so much music that came afterwards. if you don't appreciate those albums, you probably haven't given them the due care and attention they deserve

[Bill Hicks]

Originally Posted by Harj

1) The Wall (i know, I know, but I've been lisening to it again recently)
2)DSOTM
3) Meddle
4) Animals
5) Wish You Were Here

Yeah I find listening the Dark Side of the Moon too many times can make you want to jump of a very large building!

Animals is by far their best album.

As for the Beatles being overrated, well how can you say that when they created tracks like these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhNQYrTaJVU
YouTube - Beatles - Rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riOnVUJAo3k

[Harj]

Originally Posted by Bill Hicks

Yeah I find listening the Dark Side of the Moon too many times can make you want to jump of a very large building!

Animals is by far their best album.

I think The Wall is a more personal album than DSOTM , but ask me again next month and my list will change!

[Bill Hicks]

Originally Posted by Harj

I think The Wall is a more personal album than DSOTM , but ask me again next month and my list will change!

Just avoid the film! Unless you have a years supply of anti-depressives!

[karkus30]

Age 48 and a beatles fan only in the last 5 years. Despite growing up kistening to them......when I'm 64, Yellow Submarine and Maxwells silver hammer made me run for cover...........then I heard the music that did not appear in the charts

It's funny but my Dad was a fan of the Beatles, while really being a total classical music listener (he could tell you who was conducting which Symphony Orchestra). He hated my music (as all Dads should of course) and one day I heard Helter Skelter on the radio and realising it was the Beatles (but sounding more like the music I listened to) I decided to record it and play it back for him.

I tortured him with that track for months, he hated it, before finally revealing it was his all time favourite band.

That's the thing with The Beatles, they just were not one sound, or one type of music.

Unique......great album choices there and couldn't agee more with your comments.

[Harj]

Originally Posted by Bill Hicks

Just avoid the film! Unless you have a years supply of anti-depressives!

I've not seen it for many years, and I do recall being quite depressed after, suppose I need to watch it now with a few beers.

[JUS]

Only Beatles album I've been grabbed by is Sgt. Peppers. tried the White Album and various others...it's all just a bit too pop for me.

I'm in the Stones camp myself...much more raw and exciting.

P.S. Got my SACD copy of dsotm out last night...wow

[KoThreads]

Originally Posted by unique

revolver, pet sounds, songs in the key of life, harvest, exile on main street

That and Holland and Breakaway by Gallagher and Lyle sums up practically what the bloke in the next room when i was at college used to listen to..........endlessly. I have hated them all since except Holland, that got on my nerves yet i bought it 25 years later and is still the only Beach Boys album i've ever liked.

He used to hate me as he had a little mono cassette recorder vs my stereo blasting out Floyd, Caravan, Camel, Little Feat. Have to say my best Floyd album is Animals.

Between 75 and 78 at college and uni i can't remember anyone playing Beatles albums though.

[nwgarratt]

Been listening to The Beatles for over 15 years and I am not 35 yet. I would rather listen to Pink Floyd though (listening to them for 20 years now).

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by Scarlet rose

I do love the Beatles but there are more talented artists. Tes they were revolutionary in their time but there have been far more influential bands.

Robert Johnson for one, still you don't hear too much of his music these days.

I was watching Abba last night and there are comparisons with The Beatles. Great pop music with an edge (i'm not talking about Bono either ).

[whiskyboozer]

1960s Brian Epstein

2000s Simon Cowell

Nowhere Man - washingtonpost.com

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by whiskyboozer

1960s Brian Epstein

2000s Simon Cowell

Nowhere Man - washingtonpost.com

? I'm trying to see what connection you are making other than they are both involved in the music business, at which point you may as well add in everyone from Phil Spectre to Peter Grant and Bryan Morrison.

[ABTForce4]

I think I would (for most part) agree with this statement. However, Please Please Me and Second Album are very good. I think it was their later stuff that didn't really appeal to me. Maybe I just don't get it!

[andrew markwort]

In answer to the question, I think it depends from what angle you address it:

(1) In terms of cultural history, they were the symbols of a significant shift in societal mores. These changes would have occurred if the Beatles hadn't been there, but the fact was that it was the Beatles who have come to represent much about sixties western culture. And whether you like it or not, Beatles music is intertwined with much of that era in popular memory. From this angle, they're not overhyped.

(2) I think argument (1) has made otherwise rational critics over-estimate what popular music would have been like without the Beatles. The Stones, The Who, The Kinks, all of early Motown plus Stax, etc, would have got along quite nicely without the Beatles. Of course the Beatles influenced them, simply because they were there, but had the Beatles not existed, these artists would have continued to develop, only in slightly different ways. And bear in mind that the psychedelic era and bubblegum pop which came next developed independently (yes, I know the Beatles did some psychedelic songs, but they didn't invent the genre, nor particularly develop it). So I think in terms of 'pop music would not have progressed without the Beatles' the argument is over-hyped.

(3) I think it's also possible to get more than a little irrational over the quality of the Beatles songs. Yes, they did some fantastic work, but for every Something or I Want to Hold Your Hand, there's a Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey, etc. Let's face facts - get away from the good stuff and the rest of it is frankly pants. And for every great Beatles song, there's something by The Who, Stones or Kinks to match it. Indeed, if you play the best of the Kinks or the Who and then play the best of the Beatles, am I the only one to think the Beatles sound just a little bit twee? So in this sense also, they're over-hyped. The idea that the Beatles stand at the top of the mountain and everyone else is on the foothills is just plain wrong.

(4) And place the Beatles in perspective of later groups, and once past the hype, they deserve a place at the top table, but there's plenty more that deserve to be there. So yes, they're over-hyped in that way as well.

(5) The Beatles would have been NOTHING without George Martin. Forget all that guff about their amazing genius at using an inverted 7th chord in the bridge of Strawberry Fields (or whatever). Without someone instilling some real musical knowhow and discipline into McCartney's twee ditties or Lennon's 'I'm a millionaire but I'm going to lecture you on your irrational monetary wants' ramblings, you'd have been left with a pretentious and unfocused version of Gerry and the Pacemakers.

However, why after all that do I think that overall they're not over-hyped? Because there's something about the totality of what they were that puts them in a special place. Although individual aspects of their greatness are questionable, put together they did something that really was special.

Towards the end of his life, I got to know an oldish neighbour of mine pretty well. Not very interesting, except that he was an ex member of Apple Corps: he'd handled copyright issues for the Beatles, knew all of them well and indeed his address book was a who's who of pop music [going into his house at Christmas time was amazing - there were cards from just about every famous 60s and 70s act that wasn't dead or in rehab]. I once had a similar conversation about this matter with him, and his answer to why the Beatles can't be over-hyped was simple - 'because they were the Beatles; you could wipe out the Stones, Dylan, Floyd and things wouldn't change except in a niche area; but knock out the Beatles and too many holes are created'.

Maybe when all pop music as we understand it has been forgotten, we can look objectively at the issue, but until then, it's impossible to over-rate their status.

Oh and for the record, I love all the singles and the later albums (barring Let it Be, which should have taken its own advice). I hate the films.

[whiskyboozer]

One of my physics teachers at school maintained that Beatlemania was caused by sunspot activity

[ba' heid]

I'm not sure about overhyped but they are the most discussed and written about over the years. I think the fact this thread exists shows that people still have an interest ( even if it's only to dismiss ).

The George Martin argument does not hold much water if you consider what he was producing prior to The Beatles.

As an arranger and producer he worked on a fair amount of classical recordings but a large part of his work was comedy recordings and novelty songs.

Bernard Cribbins - Diggin' a Hole etc.

All made to a very high standard but not exactly ground breaking either. It's fair to say that the Beatles would not have realised their full potential without George Martin but also that George Martin would never have made the leaps of imagination that created Revolver or Sgt Pepper with any other artist.

It's also fair to point out that other artists at the time were the equal of the Beatles. Andrew mentions some of my other faves of the era - The Who, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones - and is right that these artists would have gone on to make music just fine without the fabs existing but I think the Beatles raised the bar with every album and that others reached ( and at times surpassed ) the standard set.

But by far the most influential thing the guys did was to crack the US market they caught the zeigeist of that era and sounded fresh to most ears.

When I was a youngster buying Beatles singles ( along with The Hollies, Bernard Cribbins and Pinky & Perky ) my older cousins and older brother used to tell me the Rolling Stones were cooler/better. I almost fell for this as I approached my teens and The Beatles split. Over the years I've listened to a lot of music but I always touch base with the Beatles now and again. I don't find myself digging out my Rolling Stones much at all. If I want blues I listen to BB King, Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Howlin Wolf etc.

If I fancy some British 60s pop/rock its the Beatles, Kinks, Who, Hollies, Move
Small Faces.

Overhyped? - yes

Over estimated in terms of importance? - no