The Beatles - overrated?

[Dave]

Just found this on the BBC News website:

Help! I'm a Beatles hater

Interesting. We have a bit of a split in our household - I've generally liked quite a lot of what the Beatles produced (mostly what they did after they stopped being teenybop idols), Kay doesn't.

But reading the article, it's hard not to concede that the people who loathe them have a point: even though a lot of their music was groundbreaking, a lot of it was also faintly crap. Or more than faintly - Mother Nature's Son, for instance. (I'm really not a Macca fan - I particularly liked the "In what year did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs?" question.)

Am I alone in this rather heretical thinking?

[Savannah_Alan]

You know, that's exactly my thoughts on it David. They were certainly iconic, and broke some new ground. They did some great stuff, and some was faintly crap. That's about it.

[ruggie]

Not too surprising, since in later years they were stoned most of the time.

[dave dee]

I have been a fan of the Beatles since i first heard them in the sixties and still listen to their music most days, on Friday evening i attended an open air Beatles tribute band concert in a large square in Malta and for three hours of non stop Beatles hits was mesmorized by the size and age of the crowd, i would say that more than ninety percent were not even born when they came to fruition, they danced and sang as if it was some new act, Maybe to them i suppose it was. Half way through Back in the USSR a cloudburst occured followed by prolonged heavy rain and lightening, the crowd actually braved it and chanted for more as the group were eventually forced to leave the stage for their safety, Overrated ? i don't think so.

[Dave]

Sure - they're still very popular, and deservedly so. But I do think their importance tends to be exaggerated, not least by lazy journalists who think that "Sixties = Beatles" is a good enough summary for their readers - which is a disservice to all the other musical talent that was around at the time.

Just because I like a band or a musician, it doesn't mean that I have to be blind to their faults. I think Queen were generally great, but there are some of their albums that I rarely play because most of the tracks aren't very good (Jazz and Hot Space stand out). And while Marc Bolan's music has a lot going for it, I don't know whether to laugh or cringe at the lyrics most of the time.

[dave dee]

I do agree with you Dave, although the Beatles were the market leaders there were many other big bands around at the same time, what amazes me is that a lot of the then new age groups were from Liverpool, going on to be named collectively as the merseybeat. What a shame it was short lived, of course other massive groups like The Who, Stones and many others helped change the sixties pop world from black and white to full colour. I may be biased where the Beatles are concerned as they were my teen idols and remain the only group i can play all their albums without skipping a track, if asked i would also say that Queen and T.Rex were not overrated.

[Bookervex]

The Beatles and The Who are both overrated. Good, sure. Got some nice songs there. But theyre not the best thing ever, as so many people make them out to be. My choice: The Beatles. Talented, quirky, fun to listen to.

Some people earlier also mentioned Pink Floyd. Also overrated, but not actually relevant to the thread at hand. I should stop and revisit the "Most Overrated Artists" thread.

[avalon81]

Obviously they are, as well as many other bands everybody on this planet heard of. It's just a matter of time and, speaking of The Beatles themselves, we consider them as legends just because of their status of the very first music icons worldwide, and that's all about them