YAY!!!! My love for the beatles is unnatural... OK I admit not much about me is natural (hope I spelt that right). I'm always humming a song by them... Drives my friends crazy, but they deserve it, seeing that one of them likes Kelly Clarkson Anyway, I think the beatles were one of the best bands ever! I like the song I am the Walrus WAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! And Hey Jude and Lady Madonna

I first heard about Beatles from some older cousins, when I was no more than 10 years old... My cousin used to buy their vinyls... My first contact with them though, was when I listened to one of my dad's old tapes... Yellow Submarine was the track I first heard from them and it was quite good. But I wasn't much into music then... So today, when I started exploring my musical horizons, I searched more about this subject. Indeed they're the creators of rock and early Heavy Metal. As someone said before, the song Helter Skelter is one of the biggest innovations of that time...
Also I'm thinking of writing an article here, about how from 60's rock, hard rock and heavy metal came out...

The first Satanic Black Metal band, that is the first sentence I read about Beatles in some music magazine, I was like wow, I mean I listen Beatles whole life and I never realise that. Ok, someone was having fun confusing people who never heard them. Beatles are great influence to me, but I don't like their image and everything about it, but when music is good, everything else is not important. Their songs will stay legendary like they will. Helter Skelter!

Long Live Beatles

One of the best bands ever: The Beatles.

Beatles are one of the greatest bands especially for their political opinions. Although I like them. I own an alboum with the 27 No1 hits in the music charts. I like a lot Eleanor Rigby, let it be, yellow submarine, help and yesterday...

The Beatles are amazing. Definately one of the best band ever, and possibly Britains finest. They released some truely great material over their time. But I'd have to say their best came around 'Abbey Road' with songs like Come Together.

I love them!, man, I honestly can't imagine a world without the Beatles because that would equal a world without music as we know it. Anyways while I don't listen to them much anymore I still think they're awsome.

The White Album is one of the best albums ever made, anyone who goes through life without listening to it all the way through is missing out.

Their most popular songs (kids songs like Yellow Submarine and the like) are pretty inane but there's some great stuff in their catalog. Songs like "Helter Skelter" "Only A Northern Song" "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" "Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!"... The list goes on... It's kind of sad how it seems to be "trendy" (from what I've seen anyway) to look on them with disdain and compare them to boy bands because of their hair and shit... I've always liked them though, you do have to be selective with their songs though

You may don't like what i say but Beatles is one of most overrated bands ever. They did compose ordinary songs without anything special. But they did it in the right time and after that loving Beatles was like a good style. Sure, there are people that like Beatles very much (like you all in this thread), lots of bands have something good and interesting in their playing style, songs, concerts and so on but Beatles aren't that good.

I like only Let It Be and Yesterday, besides none of songs captivate me. But well, high respect to the band if they influenced bigly for metal later.

I agree with W-Lash, they're overrated, I never much liked them. I like them much better on their solo careers, especially George Harrison with his Hare Krishna songs

One Beatles song I really like though is "Within You Without You", It has all these sitars and other Indian instruments! I love Hindi music, it makes me feel so at peace with myself.

They changed history...but now they are exactly that: history; ok...legend. I like a few songs, but they're...how to say it? old

Wow......I think this band are an aquired taste. My opinion now is slightly different from what I last posted. I actually like alot of their songs now. I think it's safe to call myself a fan
They're actually good but take getting use to.

Tom Jones covered "Hey Jude"

The Beatles simply the best of its time and still is great to listen to. My Favorite album in my opinion was their last "Let it Be" especialy when they played the album live on the rooftoops of Liverpool, England I only have three albums but not one song gets old to me they are all great I recomend Let it Be the most.

Some of the responses in this thread make me laugh so hard.

Anyways, the semi-psychedelic Sgt. Pepper era was the best("I Am the Walrus" ftw). Some of their early material isn't bad, but lots pof it is just annoying. All material White Album and after is just them doing a back-to-basics approach of sorts.
Cream, The Doors, The Who, and Blue Cheer were the real innovative bands at this time(well, Cream broke up in '68, but then)

And Helter Skelter sucks. All tracks on Abbey Road are much better,

Edit:Actually, I think it's the way the chorus is sung that really annoys me. The rest is just rather blashh.

Am I the only person on this earth to believe the Beattles are seriously overrated. Yes, they had some good tunes but compared to stuff like the Stones or the Yardbirds, come on. And they gave a bad name to hippy/psychedelic music. They left us with a whole load of joyful hippy shitty bands who continued in their style throughout the 70s. Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Blue Cheer...that's proper hippy music and it beats the Beattles to a pulp.

Written by Haddonfield on 17.06.2009 at 02:05

Am I the only person on this earth to believe the Beattles are seriously overrated.

No, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me what was so great about them, cause, apparently, I don't know.

Written by Elio on 17.06.2009 at 13:43

Written by Haddonfield on 17.06.2009 at 02:05

Am I the only person on this earth to believe the Beattles are seriously overrated.

No, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me what was so great about them, cause, apparently, I don't know.

Whats great in Renato Zerro? Well man go beck in time and thet time music, public, it was something new , new generation rise after WWII they need something its like nowdays Green Day or whatever, it was one of firts bands who make so many people scream for me(like Bruce Dickinosn says) bun they still played good muisc

Written by Bad English on 13.07.2009 at 00:56

Written by Elio on 17.06.2009 at 13:43

Written by Haddonfield on 17.06.2009 at 02:05

Am I the only person on this earth to believe the Beattles are seriously overrated.

No, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me what was so great about them, cause, apparently, I don't know.

Whats great in Renato Zerro? Well man go beck in time and thet time music, public, it was something new , new generation rise after WWII they need something its like nowdays Green Day or whatever, it was one of firts bands who make so many people scream for me(like Bruce Dickinosn says) bun they still played good muisc

Yes they had a few decent songs but I consider the Beattles as the first boys band not a rock band at all. You have to take in consideration that all music in them days was played as a band, soul singers had backing bands everything was authentic, If the Beattles had come about in the 90s, they would have sounded more like Take That or Boyzone then rock bands like Green or Offspring and the likes. Pop artists in the 60s like Aretha Franklin, Dusty Sprinfield, Petula Clark all had a rock edge simply because they had authentic music played with real instruments and recorded as played. Today's pop is just to synthetic with fake drums and any instrument used during recordings sessions is polished and transformed to sound as clean as possible. The Beattles would certainly have had a clean polished sound to them if they had played in the 90s which would have taken away the rock edge. Just listen to Paul McCartney's solo stuff from the 70s, doesn't sound very rock because that is when sythenticized music was introduced. Howver, the Rolling Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds, Buffalo Sprinfield...really had a rock edge to their music.

Written by Elio on 17.06.2009 at 13:43

No, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me what was so great about them, cause, apparently, I don't know.

I don't think I can show you that they were great, or what was great about them, but maybe at least make you appreciate a couple of stuff. My dad is a huge fan of The Beatles, so whether I liked them or not, I've been listening to them my whole life, though my dad liked mostly their more popular rockish stuff. And I liked a few of them, I mean, I enjoyed them but it's not like I was a huge fan. But then, after my first acid trip (haha), I started to get a bit more into them, but specially into their psychedelic era, and actually got to "understand" some of their music a bit more. I don't think that they're overrated, just that, since we were born after they were the "huge hit" of the moment, maybe we don't fully get what the whole bragging about them is all about, but like Bad English said on his post, maybe it was because they started to change the music of that time, gave people a different sound of what they were used to, and allowed them to identify themselves with their music. That's how I view it.

Written by Elio on 17.06.2009 at 13:43

Written by Haddonfield on 17.06.2009 at 02:05

Am I the only person on this earth to believe the Beattles are seriously overrated.

No, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me what was so great about them, cause, apparently, I don't know.

Well, first of all Beatles opened "doors" for other bands - without the success of the Beatles in the early 60s, there wouldn't have been the British invasion IMO, a lot of bands followed successfully in their footsteps. And these bands often helped each other - as Beatles helped The Rolling Stones in 1963, they were friends - and respected each other. (Harrison was friends with Clapton, Ringo Starr was friend with The Who's Keith Moon).

The Beatles experimented a lot - after the mid 60s scandal (Lennon declaring they were bigger than Jesus) and they gave up touring in 1966 and settled in the studio just to make music. For instance the 1966 Revolver album was quite unique for 1966. Sg Pepper was amazing as well, only Moody Blues' Days of Future passed was on the same level. By late 60s, there were conflicts in the band,especially between paul and John who could hardly make any music together and Lennon was focusing too much on his relationship with Yoko and even tried to make music with her which frustrated the other band members (or so I've read). So for the last 3 albums, McCartney and Harrison wrote most of those songs.

Frankly even their rock'n'roll/beat years were great, they revived the genre which by the beginning of the 60s became pretty sappy. Their best works lies nevertheless between 1966 to 1970.

What i like about the Beatles is they never took themselves too seriously, they were pretty creative (and luckily had an amazing help in producer George Martin if i remember right). If one cannot like their works, they still deserve some respect for what they did.

Written by [user id=17278] on 13.07.2009 at 01:50

By late 60s, there were conflicts in the band,especially between paul and John who could hardly make any music together and Lennon was focusing too much on his relationship with Yoko and even tried to make music with her which frustrated the other band members (or so I've read). So for the last 3 albums, McCartney and Harrison wrote most of those songs.

Frankly even their rock'n'roll/beat years were great, they revived the genre which by the beginning of the 60s became pretty sappy. Their best works lies nevertheless between 1966 to 1970.

What i like about the Beatles is they never took themselves too seriously, they were pretty creative (and luckily had an amazing help in producer George Martin if i remember right). If one cannot like their works, they still deserve some respect for what they did.

What I watched on a documentary about them, or about Lennon or whatever, was that the band didn't like Yoko and therefore didn't like her relationship with Lennon, so that started that whole crash specially between McCartney and Lennon. I guess that also led to the fact that the few stuff they did as a band after that was crappy and that was when they went with their solo careers, which I think was for the best.

Written by tulkas on 13.07.2009 at 02:09

Written by [user id=17278] on 13.07.2009 at 01:50

By late 60s, there were conflicts in the band,especially between paul and John who could hardly make any music together and Lennon was focusing too much on his relationship with Yoko and even tried to make music with her which frustrated the other band members (or so I've read). So for the last 3 albums, McCartney and Harrison wrote most of those songs.

Frankly even their rock'n'roll/beat years were great, they revived the genre which by the beginning of the 60s became pretty sappy. Their best works lies nevertheless between 1966 to 1970.

What i like about the Beatles is they never took themselves too seriously, they were pretty creative (and luckily had an amazing help in producer George Martin if i remember right). If one cannot like their works, they still deserve some respect for what they did.

What I watched on a documentary about them, or about Lennon or whatever, was that the band didn't like Yoko and therefore didn't like her relationship with Lennon, so that started that whole crash specially between McCartney and Lennon. I guess that also led to the fact that the few stuff they did as a band after that was crappy and that was when they went with their solo careers, which I think was for the best.

Lennon started writing fewer and fewer songs once he began his relationship with Yoko and that was 1966. Their best works are after 1966. People underestimate Paul who was a lot more skilled than anyone else in the band.

One can pick on Beatles earlier work for being poppy, but not their last albums - Revolver, Sgt Peppr, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Abbey Road, Let It Be.

Written by [user id=17278] on 13.07.2009 at 01:50

Written by Elio on 17.06.2009 at 13:43

Written by Haddonfield on 17.06.2009 at 02:05

Am I the only person on this earth to believe the Beattles are seriously overrated.

No, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me what was so great about them, cause, apparently, I don't know.

Well, first of all Beatles opened "doors" for other bands - without the success of the Beatles in the early 60s, there wouldn't have been the British invasion IMO, a lot of bands followed successfully in their footsteps. And these bands often helped each other - as Beatles helped The Rolling Stones in 1963, they were friends - and respected each other. (Harrison was friends with Clapton, Ringo Starr was friend with The Who's Keith Moon).

The Beatles experimented a lot - after the mid 60s scandal (Lennon declaring they were bigger than Jesus) and they gave up touring in 1966 and settled in the studio just to make music. For instance the 1966 Revolver album was quite unique for 1966. Sg Pepper was amazing as well, only Moody Blues' Days of Future passed was on the same level. By late 60s, there were conflicts in the band,especially between paul and John who could hardly make any music together and Lennon was focusing too much on his relationship with Yoko and even tried to make music with her which frustrated the other band members (or so I've read). So for the last 3 albums, McCartney and Harrison wrote most of those songs.

Frankly even their rock'n'roll/beat years were great, they revived the genre which by the beginning of the 60s became pretty sappy. Their best works lies nevertheless between 1966 to 1970.

What i like about the Beatles is they never took themselves too seriously, they were pretty creative (and luckily had an amazing help in producer George Martin if i remember right). If one cannot like their works, they still deserve some respect for what they did.

The Beattles created nothing, they simply used rock and roll and added the garage rock sound that was already growing over in the USA. Frankly a lot of bands made better music and in 66 Buffalo Spriengfield released their debut album, garage rock with a real psychedelic edge to it not the so-called psychedelic the Beattles made. Anyone who talks of the Beattles having a psychedelic period needs to listen to real psychedelic music. The Beattles were nowhere near Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, 13th Floor Elevators, Blue Cheer or even Cream. When Lennon went to the USA, he thought he was a founder of the psychedelic and people laughed at him because the psych era was already gone and Hard Rock was on the rise. And anyone saying that the Beattles gave something new after the Second World War, I've three words, Elvis Aaron Presley. It's him who created the whole mainstream era of rock and roll that allowed bands like the Beattles and the Stones to hit large audiences instead of being small bands people would have forgot. There's only one king of rock'n'roll and it certainly isn't Lennon nor McCartney.

Quote:
[
The Beattles created nothing, they simply used rock and roll and added the garage rock sound that was already growing over in the USA. Frankly a lot of bands made better music and in 66 Buffalo Spriengfield released their debut album, garage rock with a real psychedelic edge to it not the so-called psychedelic the Beattles made. Anyone who talks of the Beattles having a psychedelic period needs to listen to real psychedelic music. The Beattles were nowhere near Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, 13th Floor Elevators, Blue Cheer or even Cream. When Lennon went to the USA, he thought he was a founder of the psychedelic and people laughed at him because the psych era was already gone and Hard Rock was on the rise. And anyone saying that the Beattles gave something new after the Second World War, I've three words, Elvis Aaron Presley. It's him who created the whole mainstream era of rock and roll that allowed bands like the Beattles and the Stones to hit large audiences instead of being small bands people would have forgot. There's only one king of rock'n'roll and it certainly isn't Lennon nor McCartney.

I wasn't even implying that the Beatles werre the greatest or most important band ever or something like that. The way i see it, the Beatles in their earlier works continued what Elvis started in the 50s. Frankly Elvis did not do much in the 60s except for the movies. And not even the music in those films was that great. The Beatles greatly respected Elvis and admitted that he was one of their influences during their rock'n'roll/beat period.

The Beatles did not invent psychedelia, i wasn't implying this either. I was just saying that The Beatles did some good albums after 1966, that's all. Not perfect, but still good music.

A band that was necessary into the rock scence, they did what no one was able to do until the date, create an style which anyone agreed and suceed, they're awesome, they had everything, and 40 years after their separation we still talking about them. Long live to the Beatles!

Sorry to say but I really do find The Beatles the singel most overrated band ever together with U2

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.08.2009 at 03:32

Sorry to say but I really do find The Beatles the singel most overrated band ever together with U2

Do NOT compare Beatles to U2 from any perspective, not even from the overratedness perspective (sorry I'm inventing words, but you get it ) - it's insulting.

You've said it before you dislike the Beatles, why bother doing it again?

Written by [user id=17278] on 02.08.2009 at 19:51

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.08.2009 at 03:32

Sorry to say but I really do find The Beatles the singel most overrated band ever together with U2

Do NOT compare Beatles to U2 from any perspective, not even from the overratedness perspective (sorry I'm inventing words, but you get it ) - it's insulting.

You've said it before you dislike the Beatles, why bother doing it again?

That's true, it's insulting to U2.

Written by Haddonfield on 06.08.2009 at 06:49

Written by [user id=17278] on 02.08.2009 at 19:51

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.08.2009 at 03:32

Sorry to say but I really do find The Beatles the singel most overrated band ever together with U2

Do NOT compare Beatles to U2 from any perspective, not even from the overratedness perspective (sorry I'm inventing words, but you get it ) - it's insulting.

You've said it before you dislike the Beatles, why bother doing it again?

That's true, it's insulting to U2.

predictable remark, not funny, but whatever...

i understand you dislike the Beatles but at least let others enjoy them. Excuse my rudeness.