Beatles Over-Hype

Posted by: djl on 25 November 2013

Hi

Am I the only music lover who just don't get the Beatles.  Sure they could write a decent tune on occasion but as a group not that good by modern standards.  Surely it was an "at the right time"  situation.  Look at McCartney performances now and he certainly get's booked for the past glories and not his musical prowess. 

I'll grab my tin hat and dive for cover now. 

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by dave4jazz
Originally Posted by djl:

Hi

Am I the only music lover who just don't get the Beatles.  Sure they could write a decent tune on occasion but as a group not that good by modern standards.  Surely it was an "at the right time"  situation.  Look at McCartney performances now and he certainly get's booked for the past glories and not his musical prowess. 

I'll grab my tin hat and dive for cover now. 

1. Who are you comparing the Beatles with re: not that good by modern standards? The Beatles were one of the defining artists in modern popular music.

 

2. Agreed Paul McCartney is now past his sell buy date.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by Steve J

djl,

 

You obviously weren't around in their heyday. Their music was just so different and influential to popular music at the time. They are timeless and their music will continue to be played forever more.

 

Steve

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by Chris Dolan
Originally Posted by djl:

Hi

Am I the only music lover who just don't get the Beatles.  Sure they could write a decent tune on occasion but as a group not that good by modern standards.  Surely it was an "at the right time"  situation.  Look at McCartney performances now and he certainly get's booked for the past glories and not his musical prowess. 

I'll grab my tin hat and dive for cover now. 

We'll I suppose that you are entitled to your opinion - but I would be interested to know which modern groups you consider out perform them.

 

Yes of course Macca is a bit past his best by date now in vocal terms but he is a living legend and there aren't that many of them. 

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by The Strat (Fender)
Everything you say but equally anyone who can write Eleanor Rigby etc is a genius. As for Paul these days what is he meant to do? Ignore what is clearly a demand for him to perform?
Posted on: 25 November 2013 by Quad 33

No Beatles no modern standards! There is no major artist's of the last 40 years who has not been influenced by the Beatles  IMO. 

 

Graham.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by fatcat
Originally Posted by Quad 33:

No Beatles no modern standards! There is no major artist's of the last 40 years who has not been influenced by the Beatles  IMO. 

 

Graham.

NOT ARF

 

Not overrated IMO.

 

Can't say the same about Zeppelin, Springsteen and The Clash.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by Kevin-W

The Beatles are, if anything, underrated.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by winkyincanada
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

The Beatles are, if anything, underrated.

Yep. Everything they did, from their classics through to the "throwaways", is quite remarkable. We tend not to realize just how far ahead of just about everyone else they were. The other bands of the era are mostly forgotten. Without them, modern music is a very different place.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by DrMark

And did it without synthesizers, computers, and auto-tune.

 

Enjoyed the Todd & Utopia clip, featuring Staten Island's own Kasim Sultan on bass!

 

And to echo others, just who are these modern bands to whom they cannot stand up?

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by joerand

I wonder if anyone saying Macca is past due has seen him live recently? I mean actually been there in person and not watching on video? It's something magical. His energy is incredible. He is warm, engaging and humorous. His show in Seattle this summer was outstanding. Almost three hours without a break. 38 songs. People there of all ages knew them all, and sing along. The emotional attachment to the music is so strong that tears are shed by many as well. And he out-shined the all the surviving members of Nirvana that performed with him at the show's end. 

 

He's 71 years old and sure, his voice lacks the range is once had, but his performing ability is better than ever. Better this year than when I saw him 12 years ago. Both my 17 and 20 year old children were wowed by the show, so it's not just for the generation that grew up with his music.

 

The snippets we see on TV over and over again (Hey Jude at the Olympics) are old-hat. He's now doing a lot of songs he's never done live before and doing them quite well. Highly recommended if you have the chance don't miss him.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by BigH47

Totally overated, Dave Clark 5 were much better!

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by joerand
Originally Posted by BigH47:

Totally overated Dave Clark 5 were much better!

Well, they had an extra guy.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by DrMark:

And did it without synthesizers, computers, and auto-tune.

 

Although they did use a Moog on "Abbey Road".

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by BigH47
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:
Originally Posted by DrMark:

And did it without synthesizers, computers, and auto-tune.

 

Although they did use a Moog on "Abbey Road".

Their sound engineers where quite good too.

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by DrMark
Originally Posted by BigH47:

Totally overated, Dave Clark 5 were much better!

I actually had a copy of this at one time - sold it in a memorabilia purge!

 

 

 

Posted on: 25 November 2013 by joerand

Anyone know who won the shootout between the Fab Four and The Dave Clark Five?                                 

 

If you want to talk over-hyped, look no further than U2. Does that really get a toe tapping, or rather a finger reaching for the monotony relief valve? 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Jasonf

Oh yes. The Pre-Fab Four.

 

 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by osprey
Originally Posted by djl:

... he certainly get's booked for the past glories and not his musical prowess. 

 

The man is an old age pensioner what do you expect?

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by DrMark

My niece is a sophomore at George Mason University majoring in game design & minoring in music, and for one of her music classes the assigned paper was whether the Beatles affected 60's culture more than 60's culture affected the Beatles.  This being handed out as course work over 40 years after they had last recorded together.

 

You will not find one band today getting that treatment in 40 years...

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Steve J
Originally Posted by joerand:

Anyone know who won the shootout between the Fab Four and The Dave Clark Five?                                 

 

If you want to talk over-hyped, look no further than U2. Does that really get a toe tapping, or rather a finger reaching for the monotony relief valve? 

We better not start slagging off U2 again but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Quad 33
Originally Posted by Steve J:
Originally Posted by joerand:

Anyone know who won the shootout between the Fab Four and The Dave Clark Five?                                 

 

If you want to talk over-hyped, look no further than U2. Does that really get a toe tapping, or rather a finger reaching for the monotony relief valve? 

We better not start slagging off U2 again but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

What Steve said. 

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W

I always remember in the 1980s and 1990s, ITV used to air reruns of the classic '60s pop show "Ready Steady Go."

 

Dave Clark owned the rights, and the shows were edited to ensure that:

  1. The DC5 appeared in every episode at least once;
  2. The DC5 got top billing every time;
  3. The Beatles appeared only infrequently.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by bluedog
Originally Posted by djl:

Hi

Am I the only music lover who just don't get the Beatles.  Sure they could write a decent tune on occasion but as a group not that good by modern standards.  Surely it was an "at the right time"  situation.  Look at McCartney performances now and he certainly get's booked for the past glories and not his musical prowess. 

I'll grab my tin hat and dive for cover now. 

He's not actually in the Beatles any more though, is he?

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Roger Dearing
Originally Posted by joerand:

I wonder if anyone saying Macca is past due has seen him live recently? I mean actually been there in person and not watching on video? It's something magical. His energy is incredible. He is warm, engaging and humorous. His show in Seattle this summer was outstanding. Almost three hours without a break. 38 songs. People there of all ages knew them all, and sing along. The emotional attachment to the music is so strong that tears are shed by many as well. And he out-shined the all the surviving members of Nirvana that performed with him at the show's end. 

 

He's 71 years old and sure, his voice lacks the range is once had, but his performing ability is better than ever. Better this year than when I saw him 12 years ago. Both my 17 and 20 year old children were wowed by the show, so it's not just for the generation that grew up with his music.

 

The snippets we see on TV over and over again (Hey Jude at the Olympics) are old-hat. He's now doing a lot of songs he's never done live before and doing them quite well. Highly recommended if you have the chance don't miss him.

Great album from 1989. 

 

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by fred simon
Originally Posted by joerand:

I wonder if anyone saying Macca is past due has seen him live recently? I mean actually been there in person and not watching on video? It's something magical. His energy is incredible. He is warm, engaging and humorous. His show in Seattle this summer was outstanding. Almost three hours without a break. 38 songs. People there of all ages knew them all, and sing along.

I took my daughter to McCartney's concert for her 12th birthday two summers ago, and absolutely agree ... pure magic. Voice not as clear and strong as long ago but just as emotionally evocative, and still singing in the original keys!

 

Obviously everyone's entitled to like them or not, but to not acknowledge The Beatles' musical genius is flawed assessment, apart from taste.