Do you think that The Beatles were grossly over-rated.?

Question

Songs written by Lennon/McCartney when they first started had crap lyrics such as Please please me or Love me do.
At a similar age, the likes of Paul Weller was writing classics like Tube Station or Strange town.

jayfire: we only have another 10 to wait to see if Weller stands the test of time and Lennon had to die before he received his icon of coolness status, whereas Weller only looks dead!

Steve Naiv.. Wildwood versus a Frog Chorus? You do Something to Me against Instant Karma?

Answer 1

Yeah but put it in context pop pickers wanted crap lyrics in the early 60s, and Russ Bloody Conway playing piano was the competition. Where the Beatles lose out is to ABBA and the pop genre which cannot be performed on stage by 4 musicians without losing much of their content, Beatles were write rehearse perform, not track laying, and there is little harmony, perhaps it is the music which dates them rather than the lyrics, I would say time caught up with them but JP Sousa and Gilbert and Sullivan understood and wrote great harmony and good Bass parts 70 years before.

Answer 2

Hm.....I think you've got to see it in the spirit of those days.
What The Beatles did back then was so new, we hadn't heard anything like it before.
We were just about ready for something totally new, and the Beatles were there at the right time. (Gawd, how I remember the first time I saw a pic of them, OMG, they had LONG hair, and the suits they were wearing.....awesome! LOL)

I agree with you when you say the lyrics in the beginning weren't worth writing home about, they were little nothings.
Looking back on it, most of us very well realised that back then already, it's just : the simple texts and the catching music (however simple it was, again I agree with you), their act on stage.....it all was a perfect fit.

IMHO you can't separate the music, the lyrics, or the Band from each other, all of it together made The Beatles, and seen in that light I don't think they were overrrated at all.

If you listen to the music of the Beach Boys, gosh, their arrangments were SO much better than those of The Beatles,
and their close harmony singing was better too.....and yet : it wasn't new anymore, know what I mean?

I've been a Beatles-fan from the beginning, and I will be until I die.

Answer 3

Of course they are not over-rated. Paul Weller is an interesting example to use. When he released his 'Under the Influence' CD listing tracks from artists he felt had influenced his own music, he said that he had deliberately left out the Beatles because their influence on his music was 'obvious'.

The Beatles changed the face of popular music and influenced several generations of musicians. They might not be to your taste but they have sold a mind-boggling amount and their musical legacy is immense.

They developed from simple pop tunes like 'I wanna hold your hand' to all-time classics like 'A Day in the Life' and 'Something' within 6 or 7 years. Weller has been around for almost 25 years. In recent years, he has covered a number of Beatles songs and written one ('Start') that is considered by some as almost plagiarism.

Dicko: I thought your question said 'Beatles' and 'Lennon/McCartney'? I tend to agree that they went slightly self-indulgent in their solo careers.

Answer 4

Not overrated but the expectations we place on them now are too much, the four were a catalyst for changing music forever. There were other bands and singers with strong similarities before them and after them that were better musicians and writers but no one had the impact they did because they were well crafted and marketed perfectly as they had the simplicity of songs required and image, same as Elvis! At least in the initial stages, then both went on to reinvent themselves again and again by appropriating styles from different areas and amalgamating to make something the people of the time had never heard before. It was at the same time as TV was taking off and after the war with teenagers starting to exert themselves so excitement was high...you have to put everything in to context. Paul Weller is great but don't forget the Style Council, oh dear!

Answer 5

Yes, some of their lyrics lack articulation but they're still great songs. AND, those lyrics are a thousand times better than some of the crap people sing today. Music is more than the lyrics. Yes, lyrics are nice. But you have to look deeper than that at the melody, the beautiful harmonies John an Paul wrote in, and the musicianship the four of them had. There are REASONS their songs are considered classics. Paul Weller is great too, but you can't put down the Beatles just because you lack the mindset to like them.

Answer 6

Haha. I asked a question like this not long ago and got a massive reaction from beatles fans. I agree with you. Now i don't mind the beatles, and they did good for music, were instrumental and such. But people tend to give them too much credit. Obviously songs like the two you have mentioned, along with others like them (drive my car, ticket to ride, etc), are not great songs. They were the teenage pop music of the 60's. Lennon and McCartney get credit for writing so many no. 1's, but they were truthfully not that great songwriters while with the beatles, particularly in their earlier years. Beatles fan's struggle to realise that not every song they recorded was brilliant.

The example i gave was rolling stone magazines top 500 songs of all time which had about 10 beatles songs in the top 50. People tend to just choose beatles songs as great based on reputation. The number of poorly written songs recorded by the band far outweighs their genuinely good songs. They do deserve great band status for writing some absolute gems (let it be, yesterday, hey jude, here comes the sun, while my guitar gently weeps). Lennon and particularly McCartney went on to write better songs. I think think george harrison was probably writing consistantly better material than the other two while with the band and they were foolish not to record his stuff.

Anyway, a great band but overrated in some sense, particularly lennon + mcCartneys songwriting ability. Good luck with this though. lol

Answer 7

Well sort of, you have to remember that for that day in age, the Beatles, WERE actually very innovative.

Sure the lyrics were crap and fluff and the Beatles knew it, they were just trying to get famous with bubble gum music so they can get to the real stuff.
It took about ten years to evolve, but I think Abbey Road is the definitive Beatles sound and they should be judged soley on their later work.
Which I might add is pure genious.

Answer 8

yes i think the beatles were over-rated, but i dont think you can compare Lennon/McCartney and Paul Weller because paul weller was writing politcal songs, music genres are different plus the social state of the country was different

Answer 9

At the time they filled a gap in the pop music world,So in this era the answer must be no. But on reflection could you say the same thing about Crosby,Sinatra or any of the others of that era. If you listen closely to some of the tunes of today you will be able to recognise some of the Beatles rifts.How many " Entertainers"of today used the Beatles music to practise before taking the step of going professional I wonder?

Answer 10

Over rated yes, but they were still a good band and moved the genre of pop music on a bit further, Paul Weller et al were not known for there easy access mass appeal at the time, great though there work was, you have to see the Beatles as they were. Mass appeal pretty boys who could get out a catchy tune.