It seems all of my friends do but me. I don't understand why they're considered so great... they're boring. They have a few good songs, yes, but nothing to deserve the praise they receive by so many people.

I do not care much for the Beatles.

200 posts.

I don't.

I'd say they are probably one of the most overrated bands ever...but you have to put things into context...and I can't. Atleast...for when they were actually around. People now listen to them to be cool.

They've got some really great songs but I wouldn't say they're one of my favorites or anything. I think we've had this topic/discussion before - they were really influential for their time and did a lot of original things while staying accessible to the general public, hence their lasting popularity.

I don't dig them either.

Aside from Rocky Raccoon, nothing they have does it for me. The most overrated band evar.

One of my favorites. I have no trouble understanding that many people don't consider their works to be very stellar, but I've been astounded by their recordings/in love with them since I was a kid. It was probably due in part to my upbringing. I heard a lot of Beatles as a young'un.

I think the earlier stuff (like Love me Do, Hard Day's Night) doesn't hold up, but the mid-and-later stuff is still really good.

A lot of you throw the word overrated around, but you're definitely in the minority. There's no way they'd have the kind of legacy they've built over the past 40 years with praise from virtually every well-known, respected, and reliable source of music knowledge if they didn't have the substance to back it up. They were innovators and pretty much changed the music industry.

I can understand how their songs could be considered boring though. Personally I find them really relaxing, they're just great tunes to put me in a good mood. If you sort of like them but think the songs are a bit on the boring side I recommend downloading the new album "Love" because all the songs are remastered and remixed to fit a more "modern" sound that will go well with the Cirque de Soleil show.



agreed

Love rules. I love how they seamlessly transitioned each track into one another.

I will also agree that the early stuff is so-so compared to the mid-late stuff.

Still, you can't fuck around with a group that created the songs "A Day In The Life" and "Across The Universe".

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If they were a band that came out ten or twenty years ago, instead of when tey did, they would be overlooked as just another band. The ONLY reason they are considered great, amazing, best of all time is because they were there first.

I personally find them to be complete crap and can only stand one or two of their songs. They are absolutely beyond boring to me.

I saw the show Love, it was fan-fucking-tastic.

That's a stupid thing to say. The fact is that they weren't there later, so how do you know that if they were they wouldn't have been just as innovative and ahead of the game?

I've never cared for The Beatles beyond a few songs. Most early/mid-60s music seems to bore me, though.

I agree. Also, the same goes for Bob Dylan, the Velvet Underground, and all that stuff.

You are a homosexual.

The Beatles are far and away my favorite band. I realize that many people don't like them, or at least don't love them, but I can't understand how it could be. The only other band I like anywhere near as much is Queen, and that's not really that near.

Most bands don't even have as many songs altogether as the Beatles have OUTSTANDING songs. And then there are the tons of good songs, and a couple of okay to bad ones.

The fact that I've listened to them since I was a baby might matter, but I'm not sure.

And I didn't really like Love. It sounded decent in theory, and they did a good job of editing it all together, but I just didn't like it much compared to the originals.

P.S. Zeppelin's more overrated than The Beatles.

Also for everyone saying all of The Beatles stuff is boring and you only like 1-2 songs, have you even listened to that many? Out of the hundreds of songs they have and across a quite diverse range of music style you honestly only found 1 to 2 songs you could stand? Because their later stuff is definitely WAY different than the poppy, light-hearted early songs.

Only for you baby.

all you haters try listening to the LATER sixties music (in full album form) instead of "beatles one"

Man, Elvis was such a piece of shit. If he came out 20 years later, he wouldn't of been shit.

THEY CHANGED POPULAR MUSIC. That is why people like them.

I think they are overrated, but I still think they are very good.

I, however, think the Rolling Stones/Led Zeppelin are extremely overrated, as well, and I don't really care for their music.

Definitely agree, Bob Dylan bites hard. I like VU a bit though

I don't care for the Beatles music, but even in covered songs, you can see how great of song writing there is. Same goes for Dylan.

Nope. Love them.

You can say you don't care for their music, which is perfectly fine, but to deny the legacy they set is completely stupid. Practically any band you like today wouldn't exist in its current state if it weren't for the Beatles.

Any popular band from the 60's or 70's was better. Get the Led out, you fags.

What are Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour considered?

Sgt. Pepper's falls apart after the second track and so does MMT pretty much.

And whether or not they changed music is completely irrelevant.

How do the albums fall apart exactly? And how about the White Album, another late 60's classic.

How is the fact that they changed music irrelevant when we're discussing their legacy and status in the eyes of music listeners today? If they're overrated then clearly they don't deserve the praise they receive, but in fact their innovation demonstrates that they do deserve it.

Name some of these popular bands from the same genre and the same era that you consider to be superior.

That's your opinion, Kele. I love those two albums. And it's not irrelevant that they changed music...

THAT'S THE BIGGEST POINT OF ALL.

You can state your opinion that you don't care for their sound, that's fine. Not everyone has to like their sound. But saying they're "overrated" is complete nonsense. Rush or any of your other favorite bands wouldn't exist without the Beatles.

They are overrated because there are so many people, yourself included apparently, who get all pissy when someone doesn't think they are that great. So much "OMG BEATLES" and not enough realizing people have different tastes in music.

I like them even...just not OMG OMG OMG OMG a lot.

Read my posts again, dumbass.

I said it's perfectly fine to not like their sound. Not everyone will due to tastes. But saying they're overrated is nonsense. They're rated so high because they influenced every single band you listen to today. There's simply no way around that. People like them because of their legacy, which was also due to them being able to write dozens of hits that spawned dozens of bands trying to emulate them.

That is a totally different perspective than a fan getting upset because someone said "omg their sound sucks." That's their opinion, fine. But the Beatles are not overrated.

Just because they are probably the most influential band doesn't mean they are the greatest band. A very large number of people do(EDIT: think they are the greatest band). That makes them overrated.

You and a few guys from this site aren't a very large number of people.

Disliking the Beatles because of their sound is one thing. Disliking them because of how popular and influential they were based on you not liking their sound is something else.

I never said I didn't like the Beatles.

Why can't you accept the fact that they ARE overrated? Being overrated doesn't mean they sucked, or even weren't an excellent band, just that they get hyped up way more than they really deserve.

Fuck...I'm sure Chuck Berry influenced the music I listened to just as much, probably more actually especially since he influenced the Beatles and John Lennon stole his shit...why aren't people all over his cock?

People aren't over Chuck Berry's cock? I must have missed something. I've always considered him one of the greatest and most influential musicians ever. I'm pretty sure everyone else feels the same way.

I don't accept the Beatles being overrated because I don't think it's possible for them to be. Once again, all opinion, and yours is your own, so quit acting like a dick about it.

What's with you lately anyway? You've been a dick to me ever since we started over here.

IT'S ALL THOSE BULLETINS MAN, WHAT'S WITH YOU AND YOUR BULLETINS

I don't care for them much either. After being forced to listen to them on a weekly basis because of my mother, I can't take hearing them anymore.

People that are actually really into music like Chuck Berry. I don't see people walking around in Chuck Berry t-shirts.

I think I seem to be a dick to you because you take what I say too seriously. I pretty much argue with you for the fun of it. So be happy, you are fun to argue with. Hey, it's creates discussion and that's a good thing.

Also this. Music aside, I fucking hate Dylan's sound but his actual songs make it more than worthwhile.

LISTENIN' TO BUCK OWENS

And people that are actually really into music like The Beatles.


And please, please tell me how a piece of clothing factors into this at all.

It factors into how overrated they are. I NEVER FUCKING SAID THEY WERE A BAD FUCKING BAND JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

People don't wear Chuck Berry T-shirts because he was a fan of little girls and Cleavland steamers. I thought everyone knew this.

I don't like their music. I've been exposed to quite a range of their music, as a dated a guy for a year and a half whose family was absolutely obsessed with The Beatles. I didn't like them before that, either, so it's not my feelings for him coming through here. I'm just saying, I don't like them at all, and I have heard enough of their music to be able to say that with confidence. I find their songs to be uninteresting, musically, and occasionally it to be a little bit frightening that their songs with questionable lyrics (such as You Can't Do That) are so popular.

I just takes a different type of person to appreciate The Beatles, Bob Dylan and whatever you people might classify as "boring."

I can get some things out of The Beatles and Dylan that I could never get from some other artist.

There's just something about hearing a simple song. It's not as heavy handed as other songs tend to be. Like listening to Leonard Cohen's Famous Blue Raincoat or Dylan's Girl From The North Country.

I don't think that that's quite it. I definitely like music that fits into the "boring" category. I like simple music when I'm in the mood for it. And yet I am never in the mood for The Beatles (and certainly not for Bob Dylan, but that's because I just can't stand his voice). Their sound just doesn't do anything for me.

They become completely uninteresting borefests.

Bands I like from the late 60s:
King Crimson
The Doors
Deep Purple
The Who (Get boring though)
Jimi Hendrix
Led Zeppelin

Anything those guys did surpassed the Beatles. They may have taken influence from the Beatles, but that says nothing of the quality of any of those bands nor the Beatles.


So? Lots of things wouldn't exist without lots of other things. I don't live in the 60s, I don't care about what they did. I care about how they sound now, and it isn't too hot. Bands take Beatles songs and cover them, modernizing the song, and it sounds much better.

Fuck, Sgt. Pepper's is cited as one of the foundations of prog rock. Do I care? King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, etc. took it, expanded on it, and made much better music.

Should I consider Rush great and not overrated because of all the bands they've influenced? Of course not. That'd be absurd.

Stick a big fat old "in my opinion" right here because I apparently have to state it, instead of it usually being, uh, implied.

Thank you.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OVERRATED MEANS, YOU'RE OVERRATING THEM.