Do the Beatles get too much credit..

The Dark Elf wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: To me, the Beatles were more of a pop hit group than a rock band.  Sort of a skilled boy-band of the 60's; I think they are incredibly overrated, particularly in the singing department.  They had a few innovative tendencies, but to me they will always be second-tier in comparison to the Animals or the Beach Boys.  I will grant that their music has aged quite well from the Abbey Road/Srgt Pepper era (especially compared to Frank Zappa's early work), but all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs.  I've never understood the appeal of albums like "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," both of which I find incredibly annoying.  Most of their music sounds dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness.  On the flipside, albums like "Let It Be" are overproduced schlock.  I can't stand the Beatles, or anything they represent.  Even the Bee-Gees and the Monkees are more enjoyable than Lennon and Co. from my standpoint, since they were at least explicitly commercial and didn't try to mask themselves behind cutesy garbage facades like Srgt Pepper.       So, I take it you don't like the Beatles?   Your subjective negativity aside, I believe you've missed the boat on this one. When you mention "they had a few innovative tendencies",  I must refer you to the first page of this thread where Floydman documented a long and detailed list of innovations that is incomparable. I might add that Help and Hard Day's Night (and in 1969, Let it Be) were influential in the making of later rock movies and rockumentaries, and the advent of the music video format was profoundly effected by The Beatles' experimental work (starting in 1966 with a promotional piece for "Rain" and brought into further focus with "Strawberry Fields Forever") .   When you say "all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs", are you aware that doctoral theses have been written on the subtle intricacies of "She's Leaving Home" and "A Day in the Life", or that "Eleanor Rigby", composed in Dorian mode with double string quartet,  Is heavily influenced by both Vivaldi and Bernard Hermann? In addition, the influences of composer Karlheinz Stockhausen (whose likeness appears in the back row of the famous photo on the Sgt. Peppers album) is evident in several more avante-garde offerings from the Beatles (Stockhausen was also a notable influence of Zappa, The Who and Pink Floyd).   As far as the Beach Boys, they admitted their innovative Pet Shop Sounds was influenced by Rubber Soul, the Bee-Gees were ardent Beatle admirers and copiers, and The Monkees were literally invented to mimic the Beatles (with Neil Diamond shadow-composing mock Beatles tunes for The Monkees' use).   As far as their music sounding "dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness",  Beatles music has been played or excerpted by Hendrix, Bowie, Cocker, Sinatra, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Clapton, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cure, Oasis (the Gallaghers being immense fans), the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Ozzie Osbourne, The Ben Folds Five, Franz Ferdinand, Fiona Apple, and countless others; in fact, the song "Yesterday" is the most covered rock song in history.   So, is it the Beatles lacking timelessness, or are you simply out of time? I am opting for the latter. By the way, have you heard the Beatles' remastered albums? The entire catalogue sold 3x platinum in the U.S. -- more than 40 years after the albums were first released. I think the Beatles will outlast both of us.

Overrated, yes. Even their best albums seem to get elated more than they should.

Barking Weasel wrote: ^The only pioneering aspects of the Beatles were manifested in how they marketed themselves (movies, tv, action figures, etc.) and in the innovation of certain recording techniques that they used.  The influence of the classical composers you listed seems negligible, in that the Beatles did not set out to replicate those musical elements in their songs.  They have more in common with Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry (who were more obvious direct musical influences) than with Vivaldi.  Listening to their songs gives me a distinct impression that they were focused less on the music, and more on vocal harmony and pop singing.  In this way, they are incredibly innovative if you are talking about Britney Spears.

Barking Weasel wrote: To me, the Beatles were more of a pop hit group than a rock band.  Sort of a skilled boy-band of the 60's; I think they are incredibly overrated, particularly in the singing department.  They had a few innovative tendencies, but to me they will always be second-tier in comparison to the Animals or the Beach Boys.  I will grant that their music has aged quite well from the Abbey Road/Srgt Pepper era (especially compared to Frank Zappa's early work), but all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs.  I've never understood the appeal of albums like "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," both of which I find incredibly annoying.  Most of their music sounds dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness.  On the flipside, albums like "Let It Be" are overproduced schlock.  I can't stand the Beatles, or anything they represent.  Even the Bee-Gees and the Monkees are more enjoyable than Lennon and Co. from my standpoint, since they were at least explicitly commercial and didn't try to mask themselves behind cutesy garbage facades like Srgt Pepper.

Edited by The Dark Elf - February 21 2011 at 17:14

To me, the Beatles were more of a pop hit group than a rock band.  Sort of a skilled boy-band of the 60's; I think they are incredibly overrated, particularly in the singing department.  They had a few innovative tendencies, but to me they will always be second-tier in comparison to the Animals or the Beach Boys.  I will grant that their music has aged quite well from the Abbey Road/Srgt Pepper era (especially compared to Frank Zappa's early work), but all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs.  I've never understood the appeal of albums like "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," both of which I find incredibly annoying.  Most of their music sounds dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness.  On the flipside, albums like "Let It Be" are overproduced schlock.  I can't stand the Beatles, or anything they represent.  Even the Bee-Gees and the Monkees are more enjoyable than Lennon and Co. from my standpoint, since they were at least explicitly commercial and didn't try to mask themselves behind cutesy garbage facades like Srgt Pepper.    

You know what pisses me off, these people saying the Beatles are untouchables, and you can`t even lift a finger to say anything about them, this is lame.

They were amazing, but they are not the greatest band ever. As for the kids that can`t appreciate the Beatles, poor kids. But hey, they have so many great things going on right?  

Edited by overmatik - January 31 2011 at 16:32

King Crimson Debut - 1969
Pink Floyd Debut  - 1967
Beatles Revolver - 1966
Beach Boys Pet Sounds - 1966

Are you saying that they are not the musical giants they are. That they were only a little part of the musical revolution. To the first state I say, no. To the second one, I say yes. They were following the mouvement that they partly created along with the Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, etc.

^I know. Bruford probably didn't utter the words in a context where he was determined to show that the beatles are the center of the pop-rock universe and the creators of everything. The words also seem intentionally exaggerated (it's a little much to state that all these things were in fact impossible before the beatles) The beatles deserve a lot of recognition for their influence - but don't overdo it. 

Floydman wrote: First are you telling me the 13th Floor Elevators were not influenced by the Beatles? Are you dismissing the fact they covered “The Word”?

No.

Paravion wrote: They were (of course) inspired by many things (drugs, music, litterature, psychology, philosophy, society etc. etc.), and the beatles probably fit in there somewhere - but I find it very likely that it wasn't the beatles who introduced 13th floor elevators to psychedelic music and ideology.

I backgrounded that piece of information because I don't judge it particularly important. It's self-evident that the beatles were immensely influential and widely covered, but I think it's safe to say that they didn't teach the elevators how to play psychedelic music. Secondly, you use extremely suggestive and defensive rhetorics, where you present an abundance of facts and use them as 'hostages' to jump directly to generalizations that suggest you are indisputably right  and that I must be some sort of beatles hater - that's ridiculous.  

Psychedelic music wasn't created in some particular recording studio at some particular time by some particular group of individuals. It was a movement in many disguises using a great diversity of artistic expressions - more or less interrelated. You can argue that revolver and perhaps rubber soul has psychedelic traits and thus the beatles pre-dates the elevators in making psychedelic music. But this mechanic approach only reveals a rather insignificant detail and leaves many aspects unconsidered.  If you consider the the nature of revolver vs. the psychedelic sounds of.. there is clear difference in terms of how psychedelic the albums are. The psychedelic sounds of is a full-blow psychedelic album both in terms of sounds and 'ideology'  - the notes on the back-cover explicitly describes their psychedelic approach to music and life in general.  So, in terms of 'psychedelity', revolver doesn't stand a chance against the psychedelic sounds of..  - regardless of the fact that it was recorded some six months earlier.