English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-09 04:42:21 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music Music

just browsin - OMG!! There's actually an open-minded person on this site, someone who looks past The (overrated) Beatles' popularity to see what they really were: an untalented group of individuals who wrote catchy songs, not unlike that which is found on contemporary Top 40 playlists?

2006-09-09 04:48:06 · update #1

Dunrobin - If I'm not mistaken, MC Hammer is the best-selling rapper of all-time. Or at least he was. Does that make him better than, say, Nas musically and lyrically?

2006-09-09 05:07:38 · update #2

7 answers

For you to even ask such a question - and risk making a real fool of yourself, as you've done, suggests you've not actually heard much of their music. To begin your music education, may I suggest you listen to Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Abbey Road and the White Album, which were just voted 4 of the ten greatest albums of all time by British music fans - 36 years after the band broke up. Or is the rest of the world wrong and you alone are right?

EDIT: Personally, I prefer MC Hammer to the potty-mouthed mysogynists who dominate rap today. Anyhow, you are right that there is a distinction between quality and popularity. There is also a difference between opinion, which you and I and everyone else has, and real appreciation, which fewer people have. Our opinions are equally valid (assuming you've also heard their post-1965 output, which I wonder about), but when respected composers like Leonard Bernstein praise their music, when renowned poets like Allen Ginsberg praise their lyrics, and when people like the symphony conductor and university music dept. head I used to know listen exclusively to classical but make an exception for the Beatles, I think it's harder for people like you or I to go beyond saying we like or dislike them, and venture into saying 'they're untalented' or 'their music and lyrics are too simple'.

Last year an excellent British TV series presented by Howard Goodall looked at great modern composers, and he analysed some of their songs and explained why these were ground-breaking and went far beyond the structures of any other pop/rock tunes of the day. Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life, Eleanor Rigby, Strawberry Fields Forever - you don't have to like these songs, but they bear no resemblance to KidsBop and it would be foolish to pretend they do. Lyrics like Eleanor Rigby's are by any standard incredibly thoughtful, especially for a 24-year old as McCartney was.

Nothing can convince you to like them if they're not to your taste. Nobody is universally popular, so go ahead and dislike their music if you wish. But you simply can't say either their music or lyrics are throwaway bubblegum pop. MC Hammer may have sold millions of records, but in 50 years he'll be forgotten. I guarantee you Lennon and McCartney won't be.

2006-09-09 05:04:14 · answer #1 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 3 3

All of you who wrote the Beatles are over rated just have no appreciation of where good music came from. Times have changed and other things are considered good music. I'm sure your immaturity and age have a big part of the silly question.(Although I must state that there are some smart yonger people I know that love the beatles..so I don't want to put those people down!) I wasn't born in the Beatles era but I did grow up to my Mom and Dad listening to it, I like the Beatles because they have great Music that brings back great memories from my childhood. If they ever talked about drugs, sex or anything like that you'd never hear it said like the way you hear the songs now, filled with meaningless crap talking about sex ALL the time drugs degrading women.. now that's crappy music! Now Brittney Spears is an example of an singer with no talent with catchy songs as well as Jessica Simpson..Both are nasally and whiny!! THE BEATLES HAVE TIMELESS HITS!! Everyone is entitled to their opinion of music but hey buddy ..yours I must say just sucks very mucho!!!

2006-09-09 05:13:31 · answer #2 · answered by Jennifer W 3 · 2 1

You must be talking about early beatles stuff. If you are a musician you should be able to tell that in their later work the beatles played more than your average triad chords.

2006-09-09 06:39:44 · answer #3 · answered by Vinyleyes 5 · 4 0

I would say they are pretty similar. You know, you are going to make a lot of people angry by asking that question, and I am going to make a lot of people angry by answering, but the Beatles were highly over-rated. The individual musicians were talented, but the whole Beatlemania was a fluke.

2006-09-09 04:46:09 · answer #4 · answered by just browsin 6 · 2 3

Hey I agree with you totally the beatles are like the most over-rated band ever i never heard one of their songs that i thought was particularly any good John Lennon was good though.

2006-09-09 04:56:38 · answer #5 · answered by MetallicaRule 3 · 3 4

Silly and immature question. Is it not past your bedtime?

2006-09-09 08:31:25 · answer #6 · answered by july5_uk 3 · 1 0

I give up. Why?

2006-09-09 04:50:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers