Do the Beatles get too much credit..

Valdez wrote: Every bit of credit The Beatles have ever gotten is well deserved.  Theres a reason the whole planet went mad over them. They certainly had the magic.

I really disagree because I have seen/heard very dubious claims about The Beatles, and I just don't trust the accuracy of people when it comes to what all people would give credit for (people make mistakes, don't know the full history). Not only have I heard that the Beatles invented raga rock, but that it invented raga. I also have heard The Beatles credited with inventing what is known as musique concrete even though they did not, but popularised it by taking that into their own music. Somewhere in this thread I think I listed some claims made by people that seem very suss to me. That the Beatles invented heavy metal music, a claim I have seen multiple times, well I don't know how true that is.

It would be incredible to me if not even one person ever gave undue credit to The Beatles (I framed this particularly in terms of innovation and origination, and not all the the planet goes mad for experimentation, innovation and origination). Actually, depending on what one means by the whole planet went mad for them, well if that means everyone loved them, that would not be true. My dad loathed The Beatles, but then I guess you could say he went mad about them in his own way by getting mad at them.

That and Lord Mountbatten are the two things I would remember him talking about the most that he absolutely hated (my dad was a British officer in India during partition). Later he was in corrections and setting up rehabilitation units, and he blamed The Beatles, I think, overmuch for drug abuse. I think he may have given The Beatles too much credit for leading people to drug abuse.

One thing we call all agree at least, The Beatles did invent rock and roll. ;) Okay maybe not. Hair metal? Perhaps. I came from the perspective that if one can find/ has heard even one claim from one person crediting The Beatles with something that there is insufficient evidence for, or is just plain wrong, then The Beatles have been given too much credit including on the claim that the Beatles are worthy of all credit that has been given to them. As said, I also think the Beatles does not get enough credit by some. Good, magic, that's subjective, but it makes sense to look to specific claims about The Beatles that are stated as fact, such as The Beatles invented such-and-such.

Edited by Logan - November 26 2024 at 10:23

Although I answered Yes, I do agree with that, and had the question been, "Do the Beatles get too little credit?", I also would have answered yes. The band gets too much credit from some (including some who have claimed that The Beatles deserve all the credit they can get), and not enough credit from others. It seems likely that on average it (the band) does fall more on the side of too little credit these days. The influence and effect that The Beatles had on music is incredible, especially considering its fairly short run. Hearing "A Day In The Life" alone has been very influential, including to Robert Fripp. And without The Beatles, there would have been no The Rutles.





Funnily enough, I listen to The Rutles and sing their songs more than The Beatles.

Starshiper wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: Starshiper wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo! Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead. Yeah but Yoko still went shopping! Too bad she couldn't buy a better singing style Well, one could argue that shopping is a perfectly legitimate pastime, especially when one is negotiating the vagaries of fame and creativity. Even avant-garde artists need to pick up essentials—be it a new pair of shoes or perhaps some paint with which to create their next opus. As for the dig about her singing style, well, let's just say art is in the eye of the beholder. What one person interprets as an unpolished vocal delivery another may find profoundly touching. For instance, The Shaggs' "Philosophy of the World" was praised by Kurt Cobain; "Trout Mask Replica" is a well-regarded record by many; Damo Suzuki's free-flowing vocals embellished some of the 1970s’ most open-minded rock music, et cetera. Ono's innovative musical style has been both celebrated and panned, but it certainly pushes the envelope. Maybe instead of hoping she had "bought" a different sound, we should celebrate the fact that she's game to buck a world that usually clings to its comfort zones. Rather than criticise Yoko Ono for her shopping sprees or vocal deliverance, let's applaud her singular contributions to art and culture. After all, if we were to be bound by conventional notions of talent and conduct, from where would progress arise? So, the next time you hear of someone engaging in a bit of shopping therapy—or some experimentation with the voice—just know they may well be standing at the threshold of greatness.

Starshiper wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo! Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.

siLLy puPPy wrote: I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo!

Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.

The Fab Four, with their unparalleled knack for melody and innovation, have not only shaped the landscape of popular music but have also influenced culture at large. To argue they receive “too much” credit is rather like claiming Shakespeare was just a chap who wrote a few plays; it simply doesn't hold water.

The Beatles' contributions span from pioneering studio techniques to introducing new genres, including shaping psychedelic rock with "Tomorrow Never Knows" and sowing seeds of progressive music in "Sgt Pepper" and "Magical Mistery Tour," as well as forerunnering the 70s art rock with "Abbey Road," all while crafting timeless tunes that still resonate even today and will resonate for good.

Logan wrote: ^ Nice post. By the way, when I made this topic those years ago, I was thinking back many years prior to some classes I had in Philosophy dealing with ontology and epistemology and wanting to angle at it from that perspective (the nature of being, the nature of knowing, what is true, what can be known, issues of justified true belief) as well as thinking it might be a bit of fun. I originally had prepared a much longer opening post to start it out and then just went with something of less substance). Turned out to me to be a very entertaining discussion with many interesting perspectives approaching this from different angles and side-discussions.

Fascinating!

Obviously starting with Revolver and continuing till the end of the Beatles time together...I always got the impression that they were allowed to be creative. The Beatles and George Martin together seemed to have a lot of relaxed freedom.

Having the opportunity to experiment and try new things without a record executive sticking their 2 cents worth in. Or generally having contrived pointless ideas which are not from a creative standpoint...but more about making crap up. Thoughtless actually.

The Beatles became a band for the industry to exploit and were probably not as overrated as they were overplayed...or perhaps a combination of the two: Radio, television and selling their albums in America was quite a monopoly.

Their songwriting was unusual in the late 60s. It differed from other people in life except for those who outright copied the Beatles or were influenced by them. In one particular case you had a band that sounded a bit like Beatles but were interesting and worthwhile and that band was BADFINGER!!
Regarding the earlier Beatles songwriting style ...it seemed to filter throughout the 1970s with bands like The Raspberries and Cheap Trick...where bands like Heart and 10CC contained that element of Beatle-esq writing.

The impact they had was ridiculously insane! The sound and style of the late 1960s Beatles was yet another extended influence on bands. Many bands were trying to emulate it.

The first time I heard "Strawberry Fields Forever" was when it was first released as a single in America. Hearing then...was unusual! It was very different for those times and it was exciting and greatly enjoyable to play the 45rpm as you'd be thinking while placing the tonearm down: Here's something completely different and in a world of its own"

Years later it didn't feel that way because the radio played it everyday . Then it was smothering. Whatever? That's subjective to degrees...but by the 1980s radio made me sick of Beatles music. I have always owned their entire discography but for years I couldn't force myself to listen to them and often changed the station. Radio took away the enjoyment for me 😆

I Am the Walrus pretty much sums up the influence the Beatles have had on me. Without hearing that one song, my musical output (strange as it is) may never had happened.

Triceratopsoil wrote: ... They were one of the groups that showed other people "hey, you know, it's alright to play whatever music we want" and from that stemmed nearly all later music, popular and less so, even if the bands in question aren't influenced in the slightest by the music of the Beatles.  It was the concept of creativity for the masses that makes them so important