No one thinks Yellow Submarine is a great song. It's sung by their drummer for fuk's sake.

The beatles were a game changer bro, they also represent a peak in music complexity that we've long since departed from.

"A day in the life" used 40+ orchestral musicians plus the band. Compare that to today's drum machine+sampler music.

This. The Beatles didnt even think it was a good song, they had to write it for a stupid animated film lol. Try attacking songs on revolver, the white album or sgt pepper if you want a decent argument.

Sell me on the Beatles, skipper. What should I go back and listen to? What will help me understand their supposed genius? Show me the light.

lol at OP misinterpreting posts thinking people are praising Yellow Submarine

OP if you can't appreciate something like this double string quartet arrangement by George Martin and Paul McCartney's sad poetic lyrics then I don't know what you're looking for in music from that time




Or the storytelling and unique production of this song

the beatles had some major hits where their musicianship came together in a massively great way. Those few hits propelled them into being the first band that everyone knows.

but try listening to their albums from start to finish ... 1-3 hits surrounded by lots of weird, psychedelic garbage/filler that nobody actually likes.

i'd say they have maybe 10 great songs that everyone knows, but the rest of their discography is pretty much unheard of by the general population. You could say they are hugely overrated by pop culture and rock music history trivia.

My personal favorite beatles songs are probably George Harrisons. Listen to Something or While my Guitar Gently Weeps, dont see how you can call either song teeny bopper garbage.

Rolling Stones are 10000x better and it's not even an argument.

Can't you hear me knocking or..

Yellow Subarmine


lmao.


CANT



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fa4HUiFJ6c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krIus0i9xn8


LMAO, this isn't even an argument. Stones are so much better

Can't say these do anything for me, partner. I'm as flaccid as I've ever been.

Repped for that. Harrison is criminally underrated. Some of his is solo songs with the Beatles rank among their best, and his solo album All Things Must Pass is easily the best solo effort from the Beatles members

[QUOTE=Foxmulder0 post_id=1564629301]Rolling Stones are 10000x better and it's not even an argument.

Can't you hear me knocking or..

Yellow Subarmine


lmao.


CANT



[URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fa4HUiFJ6c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fa4HUiFJ6c[/URL][/video]

[URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krIus0i9xn8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krIus0i9xn8[/URL][/video]


LMAO, this isn't even an argument. Stones are so much better[/QUOTE]Absolutely. 100% agreed.

I was once drinking at a bar talking to a hipster soyboy ex friend of mine about Beatles and Stones and some biker dude joined in and just ended the convo:

"If I got a smokin hot piece of ass on the back of my bike, do you think I'm gonna fuking play yellow subarmine or Can't you hear me knocking? Case closed"

So youre just going to sit there and pretend that the stones dont have tons of filler garbage too and that thier first popular single wasnt written by the beatles lol.

The music not being to your tastes is a completely different thing to thinking they're no good. I don't care for jazz, but I'm not going to go on about how the best Jazz artists were overrated or that the musicians were without talent.It says a lot about the Beatles that they had three very talented songwriters. Most bands are lucky to even have one.

Wah Wah and Let It Roll are my favorites from All Things Must Pass.

Listen guy, I've never claimed that the Beatles were without talent. Never said that. Not even once. Of course they had some level of musical ability, but we seem to disagree on where that level exactly was. I certainly don't think anything they did was all that special. Nothing to blow a load over. And definitely not anywhere close to being worthy of the kind of fanfare they received. Had they been four visually unappealing fellas with bad hair, do you seriously think they would've been even a fraction of as big as they were? Huh? Do you? Nothing they produced came ANYWHERE CLOSE to warranting that kind of reaction.

i like the white album the most but sgt peppers and revolver are tied for second. "helter skelter" straight up invented heavy rock, there was nothing like that before

You can say the same for most bands that made it big. Would the Rolling Stones have been as popular if they were all fat geeks?

Anyways, if they weren't something special they would've been forgotten with time. None of the people here praising the Beatles were even born during Beatlemania. None of us give a chit about their hair or how much the girls went crazy over them. I barely even know anything about them as people other than that Lennon was a bit of a dick. We just think the music was great.

Wife loves them, but I never saw the appeal. Historically, I guess it’s pretty cool how they sort of changed the trajectory of music. But not something I’d sit and listen to.

george harrison def had the best post-beatles record but lennonplatic onois close. wings was lame af

yo check the re-release of sgt pepper's that came out last year, it has some really dope demo versions of some of the songs

Back then it literally didn't take much to WOW the world. The Beatles are basically all very mediocre musicians that just so happened to hit at the right time. It just kills people to even fathom that but true. Never liked them never will..

I think they were really good song writers - and I appreciate when other people play their songs, but don't enjoy listening to them at all. What I would expect to hear a bunch of 80 year old people slow dancing to.

Massively overrated. Have like 3-4 good songs and the rest is garbage. Don't deserve their reputation.

Agreed. They were more of a cultural phenomenon than anything else.

this is a rare gem that wouldnt fly in todays radio...

Well, I'd rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or you won't know where I am

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand, little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end'a little girl

Only a complete musical philistine would say this.

The Beatles were revolutionary, both in their Rock 'n Roll era and then their Psychedelic era.

Contributed more to modern music than any other band in history.

Negged

/thread

You don't have to like them or go out of your way to listen to the Beatles, but I automatically disregard the music-related opinions of anyone who says they "suck" or tries to downplay their influence on music. Ironically, pretty much everyone I've ever known who goes as far as to say they were bad or overrated (much different from saying they just don't personally like the music) thinks modern top 40 radio garbage is great music.

They're the same type of people who say The Dark Knight was a crappy movie and that pizza of any and all varieties is a bad food.

Honestly don't see much difference between them and Hanson.

What I really love about the Beatles is how versatile they are. Listen to "Helter Skelter" than "While my Guitar Gently Weeps" back to back. You would have never guessed those are from the same group. If you listen through an entire album, the songs will feel really different, something you don't see with modern artists. Above you said "A day in life" does nothing for you. That's fine, but you should still be able to see how it is a pretty unique song and cleverly composed.
Now the versatility is true for many older bands. "The Who" would be a great example to me, but the Beatles never seem to go over the top or mess up by being to complicated or just jamming around without much purpose.
They are also often credited with creating the first real music video with I am the Walrus as opposed to just videos of the band just being filemd playing. Have never researched how influential they were with their videos.Were those guys really that attrative to you or did the people think they were hot due to their music? (Note that this is a staged photo by a professional photographer)



We got
-rapey Franz Kafka-looking rat man
-the "pretty one" lazy eye Paul with the receding jawline
-young John Oliver
-big Howard from the Big Bang Theory mixed with Prince Charles

Do you really think in an era, where people coulde watch James Dean and a young Marlon Brando on TV, those dudes would have stood out for their looks?



I think a huge part of their success is their personalities and the way Paul Best marketed those. If you watch any Beatles movies the guys come off as really likeable and charismatic and are doing a great job at living out those boy band personas. They seem really great to be around.