3 Power chord whiney nonsense. Maybe you had to be there then.
YES!!!!!!!!! I thought I was the only person in the world who thought this!
It's a fight I've been picking for many years.
My original post was a bit hyperbolic. I do kind of get the appeal, that Gen X angst, with the benefit of understanding some of the history. But it just doesn't do anything for me.
I've never really liked RHCP much. But growing up near to where they're from in LA, admittedly 15 years younger, I get their appeal, and maybe that's because of a context I don't have with Nirvana. I also realized recently that there are a handful of RHCP songs that I really like, but they're spread over the course of like 10 years and I think there's a lot of filler in there.
People on here, most of whom weren’t even alive, dissing The Beatles just to look and sound cool. Absolute fools beyond words......how can you call the band by whom all others are judged overrated. You have absolutely no idea in your wildest dreams how they changed the face of popular music around the world, it was a musical revolution the likes of which the world has never seen. Sure, nowadays some of it must seem a bit cheesy and pop musicy and of course naturally somewhat dated, that goes without saying......but “at the time” it most certainly wasn’t and that’s why you’re simply not getting it.....it’s simply beyond your comprehension. You had to be there to even begin to understand and if you weren’t then pipe down and stop trying to kid yourself and others that you have any real knowledge re the matter which leads you to make the outrageous comment that they were overrated. You may not like them and that’s fine by me, but to say they were overrated is quite frankly an insult to those of us who lived through those times, who knew what took place and witnessed the phenomenon that was The Beatles. They will leave a legacy and catalogue of work that will be listened to and revered for centuries to come, whether you like it or not.
The Beatles were pioneering and have a lot of material that still sounds great, but I really do believe their style was improved upon by some of what came after (which is usually an inevitable consequence of innovation). For instance, even in their own heyday I reckon they were bettered by The Byrds (who owed a huge debt to them nevertheless) and then later by XTC (among others). Not knocking their incredible achievements, but I think I enjoy the groundwork they did more than the music a lot of the time. Plus, they weren't (even in the 60s) the be-all and end-all of pop innovation at all - they were reacting to those around them as much as the reverse. If they'd never existed, popular music would still have evolved into many of the forms they pioneered (and who knows what besides?)
The Beatles were pioneering and have a lot of material that still sounds great, but I really do believe their style was improved upon by some of what came after (which is usually an inevitable consequence of innovation). For instance, even in their own heyday I reckon they were bettered by The Byrds (who owed a huge debt to them nevertheless) and then later by XTC (among others). Not knocking their incredible achievements, but I think I enjoy the groundwork they did more than the music a lot of the time. Plus, they weren't (even in the 60s) the be-all and end-all of pop innovation at all - they were reacting to those around them as much as the reverse. If they'd never existed, popular music would still have evolved into many of the forms they pioneered (and who knows what besides?)
Oh yes I agree, there has been some better stuff done by any number of bands since their heyday Leuth but that’s not the issue.....stuff that The Beatles could never achieve but it was them who led millions of kids around the world to pick up a guitar and join the musical revolution that was taking place before our very eyes....love it or loath it it’s unquestionably what happened and a new chapter was written and new doors were thrown open as a result of the pioneering phenomenon that was The Beatles.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
Also I think I made this point before but overrated is simply not an appropriate word to use to describe something that is entirely subjective.
If you like a band you like them. If you don't like them you don't. Maybe you can call a footballer overrated because his price is much higher than other footballers who have better statistics. It simply doesn't work with bands. Overrated is simply a poncey and high-horse way of saying 'I dislike a band most other people like.'
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
Errrrm no......their song writing made sure of that.....at the time no one else came close to the volume they produced time and time again and in such quick time fire too. It really was amazing.
People on here, most of whom weren’t even alive, dissing The Beatles just to look and sound cool. Absolute fools beyond words......how can you call the band by whom all others are judged overrated. You have absolutely no idea in your wildest dreams how they changed the face of popular music around the world, it was a musical revolution the likes of which the world has never seen. Sure, nowadays some of it must seem a bit cheesy and pop musicy and of course naturally somewhat dated, that goes without saying......but “at the time” it most certainly wasn’t and that’s why you’re simply not getting it.....it’s simply beyond your comprehension. You had to be there to even begin to understand and if you weren’t then pipe down and stop trying to kid yourself and others that you have any real knowledge re the matter which leads you to make the outrageous comment that they were overrated. You may not like them and that’s fine by me, but to say they were overrated is quite frankly an insult to those of us who lived through those times, who knew what took place and witnessed the phenomenon that was The Beatles. They will leave a legacy and catalogue of work that will be listened to and revered for centuries to come, whether you like it or not.
This is an odd argument. 'Sure it sounds rubbish now, but at the time there was no-one to compare them to so we thought they were great.' Pretty sure that's a great summary of how a band can be overrated
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
Errrrm no......their song writing made sure of that.....at the time no one else came close to the volume they produced time and time again and in such quick time fire too. It really was amazing.
Just to confirm, you do realise that this is just your opinion, and it is OK for people to disagree with you?
Btw I'm not one of the people you are raging against, but Leuth made some great points regarding that they were very much the right hand in the right moment.
People on here, most of whom weren’t even alive, dissing The Beatles just to look and sound cool. Absolute fools beyond words......how can you call the band by whom all others are judged overrated. You have absolutely no idea in your wildest dreams how they changed the face of popular music around the world, it was a musical revolution the likes of which the world has never seen. Sure, nowadays some of it must seem a bit cheesy and pop musicy and of course naturally somewhat dated, that goes without saying......but “at the time” it most certainly wasn’t and that’s why you’re simply not getting it.....it’s simply beyond your comprehension. You had to be there to even begin to understand and if you weren’t then pipe down and stop trying to kid yourself and others that you have any real knowledge re the matter which leads you to make the outrageous comment that they were overrated. You may not like them and that’s fine by me, but to say they were overrated is quite frankly an insult to those of us who lived through those times, who knew what took place and witnessed the phenomenon that was The Beatles. They will leave a legacy and catalogue of work that will be listened to and revered for centuries to come, whether you like it or not.
This is an odd argument. 'Sure it sounds rubbish now, but at the time there was no-one to compare them to so we thought they were great.' Pretty sure that's a great summary of how a band can be overrated
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
People can say other people would have done what the Beatles did but they didn't, the Beatles did.
The fabs took their influences (Elvis, Chuck, Buddy, Phil and Don, Little Richard) and took them to the next level and then the next level and then the next.
And not in hindsight or obscurity but there and then.
Crucially, they wrote the songs themselves which seems normal NOW but wasn't then. Context, context, context.
The almost religious praise for the Beatles can be grating and there was some dire stuff like Ob la di but they were ground breakers.
And I say this someone who prefers the Stones any day.
Nobody exists in a bubble, least of all the Beatles. But, the competition between the Beatles and Brian Wilson of the beach boys led to some groundbreaking albums. Might it have happened anyway? Moot point.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
That's not what I said though was it. I said that if the Beatles hadn't existed then some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation.
Just to clarify, I do not agree that the Beatles are overrated. As Henry said, it's all context. Your first post gives the impression that modern music would no exist without the Beatles, or that those born after their time are not allowed to express an opinion on their music and should be grateful that people like you have appointed themselves custodians of musical history.
I gave the impression that modern music would not exist, did I really, I don’t remember saying that? Of course it would, it always has and always will.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were. The Beatles: Were just a band.
And who the fuck is Scroobius Pip and why do we care what he or she says?
Apart from being a respected artist in his own right, I think it is more the message that is important and not who said it. The actual quote includes about 20 other bands who are "just a band" but people tend to put on ridiculous pedestals.
Comments
The pain of living to Red Hot Chilli Peppers for last hour or so
Boy they are crap same noise lie a fly you cannot swat !! How are they so big ?
Another beer called for
3 Power chord whiney nonsense. Maybe you had to be there then.
My original post was a bit hyperbolic. I do kind of get the appeal, that Gen X angst, with the benefit of understanding some of the history. But it just doesn't do anything for me.
I've never really liked RHCP much. But growing up near to where they're from in LA, admittedly 15 years younger, I get their appeal, and maybe that's because of a context I don't have with Nirvana. I also realized recently that there are a handful of RHCP songs that I really like, but they're spread over the course of like 10 years and I think there's a lot of filler in there.
Absolute fools beyond words......how can you call the band by whom all others are judged overrated.
You have absolutely no idea in your wildest dreams how they changed the face of popular music around the world, it was a musical revolution the likes of which the world has never seen. Sure, nowadays some of it must seem a bit cheesy and pop musicy and of course naturally somewhat dated, that goes without saying......but “at the time” it most certainly wasn’t and that’s why you’re simply not getting it.....it’s simply beyond your comprehension.
You had to be there to even begin to understand and if you weren’t then pipe down and stop trying to kid yourself and others that you have any real knowledge re the matter which leads you to make the outrageous comment that they were overrated.
You may not like them and that’s fine by me, but to say they were overrated is quite frankly an insult to those of us who lived through those times, who knew what took place and witnessed the phenomenon that was The Beatles.
They will leave a legacy and catalogue of work that will be listened to and revered for centuries to come, whether you like it or not.
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were.
The Beatles: Were just a band.
If you like a band you like them. If you don't like them you don't. Maybe you can call a footballer overrated because his price is much higher than other footballers who have better statistics. It simply doesn't work with bands. Overrated is simply a poncey and high-horse way of saying 'I dislike a band most other people like.'
It really was amazing.
Btw I'm not one of the people you are raging against, but Leuth made some great points regarding that they were very much the right hand in the right moment.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
People can say other people would have done what the Beatles did but they didn't, the Beatles did.
The fabs took their influences (Elvis, Chuck, Buddy, Phil and Don, Little Richard) and took them to the next level and then the next level and then the next.
And not in hindsight or obscurity but there and then.
Crucially, they wrote the songs themselves which seems normal NOW but wasn't then. Context, context, context.
The almost religious praise for the Beatles can be grating and there was some dire stuff like Ob la di but they were ground breakers.
And I say this someone who prefers the Stones any day.
And XTC, good band but please.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Just to clarify, I do not agree that the Beatles are overrated. As Henry said, it's all context. Your first post gives the impression that modern music would no exist without the Beatles, or that those born after their time are not allowed to express an opinion on their music and should be grateful that people like you have appointed themselves custodians of musical history.
Of course it would, it always has and always will.