Are The Beatles Overated?
Received an e-mail from Michael5000 last week in which he referred to John Lennon as, "The most overrated member of history's most overrated rock band."
Now, I'm not even sure if I should be part of this debate. Rationally discussing whether the Beatles are great is tantamount to discussing whether my mom's meatloaf is good. Of course it is and OF COURSE THEY ARE! Besides being a life-long fan, my bias-filled resume includes having hosted a Beatles Birthday Party when I was 13 and attending 3 consecutive Beatlesfests (Where I purchased such neccessities as a Beatles' wig, Beatles' spoons, and a Beatles' icon that played Yesterday when I pushed a button on Ringo's butt).
Impartial or not, I cannot ignore this call to come to their defense. The two arguments I often hear against the Beatles' greatness are that (A) Their early songs are cheesey and (B) The White Album is too long. The White Album was what it was, a messy experimental album that has great songs and probably could have been shortened. But it was also so them to be messy after the crisp perfection that was Sergeant Peppers. In those two albums, they showed both sides of the creative process, the perfectly put together product and the brainstorm. Both are valuable and inspirational.
About the early songs, it is easy to now look back and say you think Please Please Me or I Want To Hold Your Hand are stupid and trite. But, that overlooks that these songs did catapult them to ridiculous levels of fame and popularity (5 songs in the top ten in 1964). The story of the Beatles was their combining of popularity and artistic genious. That no band has reached that and never will certainly means they are great. And John Lennon being overrated? @#!$ Michael 5000 you're an $#@# and can go *&%$ my !@#.
Labels: Movies
posted by chuckdaddy2000 at 12:37 pm
10 Comments:
OK, I'll bite on this... I do think that in total the Beatles are a bit overated, although one cannot deny their significance or influence on the later road of 'rawk'. I don't think it's elitism that many folks in the past few years would be more apt to namecheck the Beach Boys than the Beatles, I think mostly because what Brian Wilson started was something that other musicians could emulate and riff off of, as the Beatles had a more rigid "sound".
As far as influential, I don't know why the Velvet Underground is left off the list - certainly they did more as a group to influence rockers of the past 20 years than the Beatles have, at least the indie rawk set.
Individually, I think the Beatles leave a lot to be desired. I mean, George Harrison had the only solo career that anyone admires (unless you admire sheer money-making ability, that would go to Mr. McCartney). Not one of them came close to where Bowie, or heck, even Lou Reed, took their career as a solo artist.
So while I don't think that the Beatles are the sine qua non band of all time, I can't deny their place as rock gods. Had they never existed though, I don't think the musical landscape would sound much different today with the exception of some really bad cover bands - and perhaps Guided By Voices would have sounded a bit different (ok, and a few others), but it's not like we'd be listening to big band on the top 40...
Well, I forgot my password, but this is Petrovich. I have a hard time believing that the Velvets had more influence even on indie rockers. If one really considers the Velvet's career, they had one (the first) interesting, experimental album that has probably influenced every musician since. Their second album, and probably my foavorite, is certainly influential, but most people find it difficult. Their third album is half good, half shit and let's face it: it isn't interesting although it's great. And "Loaded"? Please... three great songs, one decent and the rest forgotten forever.
Lou Reed's solo career?!?! He has recorded one great album that is more or less his impersonation of David Bowie and much like Mr. Pop, his solo career would hardly be recognizable without Bowie. Name one good album Reed has had since. And don't say "New York" because that album, while okay, is more overrated than anything the Beatles ever did. Lou Reed only exists because of his past work with his first band and his yearly greatest hits package.
Compare the aforementioned career to the Beatles. The Beatles may not have been perfect and their solo careers went nowhere, or at least no place good. Also, marketing certainly had alot to do with their popularity. But please, the Beatles have influenced everyone who has written pop songs but still want to be taken seriously. Indie rockers certainly fall under that description.
Please excuse spelling errors; it's 6:30 a.m.
Hmmm, I never knew that quantity of output correlated to influence, as I'm reading into your first point. Or perhaps I'm making this up to build up my contention that the Beatles were overrated in that their influence to subsequent musicians isn't as large as some musical historians might have you believe.
A quick perusal of "lineage" indicates to me that the Velvets, although much lesser known to the general public, had at least as much influence on later bands. If we’re talking strictly Top 40, then I would have to rescind my comments, but looking at the 70’s landscape, I would think that the New York Dolls and the ‘punk’ movement had much more of an input from the song ‘Sister Ray’ than anything the Beatles ever released. Move into the 80’s and there’s the famous quote from Pete Buck about how much he hated the Beatles – of course he was probably thinking more of the Byrds than the Velvets as his starting point. Then go into the 90’s and there’s just no denying the influence of folks like the Velvets on all of the indie rock bands.
In closing, let’s check out what allmusic.com lists in their “followers” section on each band:
The Beatles:
Followers
• Phil Keaggy
• Air Supply
• Jon Anderson
• Peter CaseThe
• Dave Clark Five
• Ashley Cleveland
• Crowded House
• Electric Light Orchestra
• Tim Finn
• Hawkwind
• Elton John
• Judas Priest
• The Lightning Seeds
• Jeff Lynne
• Barry Manilow
• Jimmy Page
• Tom Petty
• The Tubes
• Blue Ash
• The Knickerbockers
Now, the Velvets:
Followers
• Henry Rollins
• The Sex Pistols
• The Weather Prophets
• Plastic People of the Universe
• Thinking Fellers Union Local #282
• Mark Sandman
• Siouxsie and the Banshees
• Kim Thayil
• Whipping Boy
• Vanessa Daou
• Shepherd Kings
• The Mooney Suzuki
• My Morning Jacket
• TramBlack
• Rebel Motorcycle Club
• Young People
OK, I think first this list is somewhat random and loaded with some fairly obscure acts, and pound for pound the Beatles have more “known” names among them, but if you want to argue that the Beatles had more influence because they’ve had influence on ELO and Barry Manilow, then I guess you’ve won this argument. But I’ll take the link from the Velvets to the Sex Pistols to Siouxsie to all the “alterna” bands today to say that though they only had maybe 3 solid albums in total, the Velvets still had a hell of a lot of influence (as did other bands a la the Byrds, Chuck Berry, Stones, MC5, Stooges, Dylan) – and that it wasn’t some overwhelming dominance of the 4 mop tops as some folks would have you believe. The Beatles were a well known pop phenomenon of their time and a convenient focal point to refer to, but the long shadow painted by some is highly over exaggerated.
Petrovich here again. Well, I see your points and insofar as direct influence on alterna/punk bands go, the Velvets are definately the more "direct" influence. Sister Ray certainly influenced them and every heavy metal band as well. However, I would argue that the Beatles shadow looks over all rock bands who take their music seriously. I agree that they are often used as a convenient focal point, but I also think they earned it. And fuck Pete Buck. I'll place twenty bucks on any bet that says he is a lying asshole. Anyway, I like both bands alot, but I think Lou Reed is one of the most overrated musicians of all time despite the Velvets. Oh, and don't knock ELO. I also see Judas Priest on that list. Breakin' the Law!!!!
Wow, i'm in over my head on this conversation. Michael's comment is so inflammatory, he couldn't have meant it... really? too much booze in his system i suspect.
My 2 cents are not going to be back by detailed arguments, just my feelings. I feel like the Beattles are akin to wallpaper. I have never felt compelled to own one of their records, but wouldn't feel the need to projectile vomit if someone put them on at a gathering. I would urge the host to get with the times.
I don't think anyone can discount their impact on mainstream music (they did heavily influence local indie darlings Helio Sequence, too), but I will leave that to the true music snobs.
I can remember the first time I heard the Velvets and I've loved them ever since. If I heared someone put them on at a party, I think, these people have taste in music. The Velvets transcend the decades.
I am not a fan of Lou Reed's solo career, but can anything be worse than George's "I got my mind set on you"?
Not exactly scientific.
Not that I'd know, because I'm still a young spry 30+, but I think this argument would go nowhere if we were alive at that time. The Beatle's utter ubiquity is hard for us to fathom, but I think that everyone alive at that time was insanely influenced by the Beatles. Maybe when asked, people come up with a band here and there, but they don't even need to say the Beatles, because they were influenced by them whether they liked it or now.
For example, Pet Sounds was made after Brian Wilson heard Sergeant Pepper's and realized what an album could be. I think it's easy to say music would have just developed as is, but I don't think we can just assume that. And the band who dominated music for 8 key years certainly has done more for present day rock than the art-rock Velvet Underground.
The Beatles can kiss my ass
Personally, I think Lennon's solo material is much better
Shit, late to my own fucking party....
Post a Comment
<< Home