beatles overrated???

[KDawgCometh 2]

keith is really a member of the wiggles.

huh? Please give me some clues as to who the wizard is behind this gimmick account

[JDawgG0eth 0]

the proof is in the pancakes, friend.

[KowboyKoop 0]

i don't know very much about the composition of music or anything like that, I know about how they sound to me, and in that regard, they are overrated. In terms of musical composition, i have no opinion, you can have all of that. In terms of me hearing their music and agreeing with everyone else that they are the greatest SOUNDING band of all time, I have to say they are overrated. There is no way you can prove to me that they are not overrated in this sense, because it is entirely my opinion, and that is the only thing I have said the entire time, so I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up over my opinions, unless I am a worldwide celebrity now or something...seriously though, why are you getting so worked up because I say I think their music isn't that good...

[KDawgCometh 2]

i don't know very much about the composition of music or anything like that, I know about how they sound to me, and in that regard, they are overrated. In terms of musical composition, i have no opinion, you can have all of that. In terms of me hearing their music and agreeing with everyone else that they are the greatest SOUNDING band of all time, I have to say they are overrated. There is no way you can prove to me that they are not overrated in this sense, because it is entirely my opinion, and that is the only thing I have said the entire time, so I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up over my opinions, unless I am a worldwide celebrity now or something...seriously though, why are you getting so worked up because I say I think their music isn't that good...

I'm not gonna get into an argument over semantics, I just think that you should probably delve into them much further then you have. I would like to hear more of your reasoning behind your opinion because just saying "their sound" is kinda ambiguous, I mean, someone could say that Megadeth was the greatest sounding band of all time, but really what does that mean. Is your opinion an indictment on their musicianship, musiciality, overall skill, I'm just not really grasping what is the crux of your argument. SOme comparisons would be very beneficial too

[mbreon 0]

Keith, looks like you have a new stalker.

[mk 11]

i don't know very much about the composition of music or anything like that, I know about how they sound to me, and in that regard, they are overrated. In terms of musical composition, i have no opinion, you can have all of that. In terms of me hearing their music and agreeing with everyone else that they are the greatest SOUNDING band of all time, I have to say they are overrated. There is no way you can prove to me that they are not overrated in this sense, because it is entirely my opinion, and that is the only thing I have said the entire time, so I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up over my opinions, unless I am a worldwide celebrity now or something...seriously though, why are you getting so worked up because I say I think their music isn't that good...

I'm not gonna get into an argument over semantics, I just think that you should probably delve into them much further then you have. I would like to hear more of your reasoning behind your opinion because just saying "their sound" is kinda ambiguous, I mean, someone could say that Megadeth was the greatest sounding band of all time, but really what does that mean. Is your opinion an indictment on their musicianship, musiciality, overall skill, I'm just not really grasping what is the crux of your argument. Some comparisons would be very beneficial too

If I'm not mistaken, he thinks AC/DC is the greatest band of all time. That's nice. I like AC/DC too. But you can see how someone who thinks AC/DC is the greatest band ever wouldn't particularly care for The Beatles.This thread reminds me of the line in High Fidelity, "How can it be bullshit to state a preference?"

[CJHunt 0]

i don't know very much about the composition of music or anything like that, I know about how they sound to me, and in that regard, they are overrated. In terms of musical composition, i have no opinion, you can have all of that. In terms of me hearing their music and agreeing with everyone else that they are the greatest SOUNDING band of all time, I have to say they are overrated. There is no way you can prove to me that they are not overrated in this sense, because it is entirely my opinion, and that is the only thing I have said the entire time, so I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up over my opinions, unless I am a worldwide celebrity now or something...seriously though, why are you getting so worked up because I say I think their music isn't that good...

I'm not gonna get into an argument over semantics, I just think that you should probably delve into them much further then you have. I would like to hear more of your reasoning behind your opinion because just saying "their sound" is kinda ambiguous, I mean, someone could say that Megadeth was the greatest sounding band of all time, but really what does that mean. Is your opinion an indictment on their musicianship, musiciality, overall skill, I'm just not really grasping what is the crux of your argument. Some comparisons would be very beneficial too

If I'm not mistaken, he thinks AC/DC is the greatest band of all time. That's nice. I like AC/DC too. But you can see how someone who thinks AC/DC is the greatest band ever wouldn't particularly care for The Beatles.This thread reminds me of the line in High Fidelity, "How can it be bucensored to state a preference?"

Very nice:-)

[KowboyKoop 0]

i don't know very much about the composition of music or anything like that, I know about how they sound to me, and in that regard, they are overrated. In terms of musical composition, i have no opinion, you can have all of that. In terms of me hearing their music and agreeing with everyone else that they are the greatest SOUNDING band of all time, I have to say they are overrated. There is no way you can prove to me that they are not overrated in this sense, because it is entirely my opinion, and that is the only thing I have said the entire time, so I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up over my opinions, unless I am a worldwide celebrity now or something...seriously though, why are you getting so worked up because I say I think their music isn't that good...

I'm not gonna get into an argument over semantics, I just think that you should probably delve into them much further then you have. I would like to hear more of your reasoning behind your opinion because just saying "their sound" is kinda ambiguous, I mean, someone could say that Megadeth was the greatest sounding band of all time, but really what does that mean. Is your opinion an indictment on their musicianship, musiciality, overall skill, I'm just not really grasping what is the crux of your argument. SOme comparisons would be very beneficial too

You are looking into my posts in too complicatef of a way, it is real simple. I don't like listening to the Beatles. I don't like the content, the sound, the lyric, the music, anything...that is all. So to me, they are not the greatest band ever, AC DC is, so therefore, I say the Beatles are overrated....don't make this more complex than it is...

[ubiquiti 0]

First, I will say I do not like the Beatles all that much, I like some of their songs:Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields, but I think most of their music, is for the most part very, very average. Here is the bottom line. The reason The Beatles get ALL the credit they do and all the praise to this day is because they were teh first guys to play pop rocknroll. And fair enough, props to them, they deserve it, and they were the first.But in terms of songwriting I think Lennon/McCarty were good songwriters, but I mean come on, better than Plant/Page/marvin Gaye/Van Morrison?Not to me anyways.And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average. They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better, The Who were better, on and on.So what does this all add up to?An above average band all things said, and an above average band that blazed a lot of trails.Are they overrated? Absolutely. And that is inevitable given their iconic pioneer status. If they had broke onto the scene in 1968, they would have been about as popular as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, IMO.

[mk 11]

And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average.   They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better,  The Who were better, on and on.

As instrumental musicians, you might be able to make the argument that some members of the bands you named were superior to the Beatles. But in terms of songwriting, it's not close. And in terms of vocals, it's not close.

[mk 11]

If they had broke onto the scene in 1968, they would have been about as popular as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, IMO.

In 1968, they were actually trying pretty hard to be less popular than Emerson, Lake and Palmer. We all know how that worked out.

[digitalmonkey 929]

First, I will say I do not like the Beatles all that much, I like some of their songs:Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields, but I think most of their music, is for the most part very, very average.  Here is the bottom line.  The reason The Beatles get ALL the credit they do and all the praise to this day is because they were teh first guys to play pop rocknroll.   And fair enough, props to them, they deserve it, and they were the first.But in terms of songwriting I think Lennon/McCarty were good songwriters, but I mean come on,  better than Plant/Page/marvin Gaye/Van Morrison?Not to me anyways.And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average.   They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better,  The Who were better, on and on.So what does this all add up to?An above average band all things said, and an above average band that blazed a lot of trails.Are they overrated?  Absolutely.  And that is inevitable given their iconic pioneer status.  If they had broke onto the scene in 1968, they would have been about as popular as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, IMO.

Thank you, you made me laugh about 4 times! I especially like how they improved from very, very average to above average in the short span of your post.

[KowboyKoop 0]

First, I will say I do not like the Beatles all that much, I like some of their songs:Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields, but I think most of their music, is for the most part very, very average.  Here is the bottom line.  The reason The Beatles get ALL the credit they do and all the praise to this day is because they were teh first guys to play pop rocknroll.   And fair enough, props to them, they deserve it, and they were the first.But in terms of songwriting I think Lennon/McCarty were good songwriters, but I mean come on,  better than Plant/Page/marvin Gaye/Van Morrison?Not to me anyways.And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average.   They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better,  The Who were better, on and on.So what does this all add up to?An above average band all things said, and an above average band that blazed a lot of trails.Are they overrated?  Absolutely.  And that is inevitable given their iconic pioneer status.  If they had broke onto the scene in 1968, they would have been about as popular as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, IMO.

GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I FULLY AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING YOU SAID!!!!!!!!!!!! FINALLY, SOMEONE TO SUPPORT MY POSITION. THERE IS NO WAY THEY WERE BETTER MUSICALLY THEN ZEPPELIN OR THE WHO. ALOT OF PEOPLE JUST SAY THEY WERE THE GREATEST SONG WRITERS/VOCALISTS OF ALL TIME BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY SOMETHING THEY SEE AS A FACT, WITHOUT ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT IT AND REALLY COMING UP WITH THEIR OWN OPINION. SINCE THEY HEARD THAT THE BEALTLES WERE THE BEST, THEY TAKE IT THAT IT MUST BE SO AND THAT IT IS "WRONG" TO SAY OTHERWISE....

[KDawgCometh 2]

You are looking into my posts in too complicatef of a way, it is real simple. I don't like listening to the Beatles. I don't like the content, the sound, the lyric, the music, anything...that is all. So to me, they are not the greatest band ever, AC DC is, so therefore, I say the Beatles are overrated....don't make this more complex than it is...

I don't think that I am. If you are gonna dislike something or like something, you should be able to come up with something more concrete then the balse ambiguous ways of disliking them that you are. Why is AC/DC better them them, and don't say just sound, give me reasons why, cause if you can't give a reason of substance, then its kind of an invalid opinion to be honest

And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average. They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better, The Who were better, on and on.

I think I already went into what made them grerat songwriters. As pure musicians, no they don't hold up, but I will also say that Jimmy Page was not as good of a soloist as people seem to think. His solos were written out and barely deviated from the original solo that he came up with. He was a great comping guitarist, but as a soloist he was not even close to what people want to think of him as

[Oziumrules 0]

First, I will say I do not like the Beatles all that much, I like some of their songs:Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields, but I think most of their music, is for the most part very, very average.  Here is the bottom line.  The reason The Beatles get ALL the credit they do and all the praise to this day is because they were teh first guys to play pop rocknroll.   And fair enough, props to them, they deserve it, and they were the first.But in terms of songwriting I think Lennon/McCarty were good songwriters, but I mean come on,  better than Plant/Page/marvin Gaye/Van Morrison?Not to me anyways.And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average.   They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better,  The Who were better, on and on.So what does this all add up to?An above average band all things said, and an above average band that blazed a lot of trails.Are they overrated?  Absolutely.  And that is inevitable given their iconic pioneer status.  If they had broke onto the scene in 1968, they would have been about as popular as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, IMO.

GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I FULLY AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING YOU SAID!!!!!!!!!!!! FINALLY, SOMEONE TO SUPPORT MY POSITION. THERE IS NO WAY THEY WERE BETTER MUSICALLY THEN ZEPPELIN OR THE WHO. ALOT OF PEOPLE JUST SAY THEY WERE THE GREATEST SONG WRITERS/VOCALISTS OF ALL TIME BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY SOMETHING THEY SEE AS A FACT, WITHOUT ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT IT AND REALLY COMING UP WITH THEIR OWN OPINION. SINCE THEY HEARD THAT THE BEALTLES WERE THE BEST, THEY TAKE IT THAT IT MUST BE SO AND THAT IT IS "WRONG" TO SAY OTHERWISE....

Once again opinions are like ass.holes, everyone has one.

[ubiquiti 0]

First, I will say I do not like the Beatles all that much, I like some of their songs:Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields, but I think most of their music, is for the most part very, very average.  Here is the bottom line.  The reason The Beatles get ALL the credit they do and all the praise to this day is because they were teh first guys to play pop rocknroll.   And fair enough, props to them, they deserve it, and they were the first.But in terms of songwriting I think Lennon/McCarty were good songwriters, but I mean come on,  better than Plant/Page/marvin Gaye/Van Morrison?Not to me anyways.And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average.   They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better,  The Who were better, on and on.So what does this all add up to?An above average band all things said, and an above average band that blazed a lot of trails.Are they overrated?  Absolutely.  And that is inevitable given their iconic pioneer status.  If they had broke onto the scene in 1968, they would have been about as popular as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, IMO.

Thank you, you made me laugh about 4 times! I especially like how they improved from very, very average to above average in the short span of your post.

No I said most of their music was very average and they were an above average band.I know it might be difficult to see the distinction there, but it is indeed there.A better, more clear cut example - Van Halen with Hagar - above average band, average music; Van Halen with David Lee Roth - Above average band, above average music...Don't get me wrong, I AM NOT SAYING THEY SUCK.I'm just saying because they were the first, they get more credit than they probably deserve.

[ubiquiti 0]

And musically, I know no Beatles fans want to hear this, but musically, they were very average.   They do not stack up to their contemporaries in any way - Zeppelin was better, Sabbath was better, Jethro Tull was better, Cream was better,  The Who were better, on and on.

As instrumental musicians, you might be able to make the argument that some members of the bands you named were superior to the Beatles. But in terms of songwriting, it's not close. And in terms of vocals, it's not close.

Songwriting maybe, but vocals?From those bands I listed?Come on - Robert Plant, Ian Anderson, Ozzy, Roger Daltry, - you might have me on Cream, but holy crap man.......Those 4 vocalists I'm sorry but IMO they are all waaaaay better than Lennon or McCartney for pure vocals.Let's see Paul McCartney sing Aqualung along with flute solos and not pass out due to lack of oxygen.

[econ_tim 0]

I think most of the people in this thread have not listened to enough Beatles songs.

[KowboyKoop 0]

KDAWG WROTE: I don't think that I am. If you are gonna dislike something or like something, you should be able to come up with something more concrete then the balse ambiguous ways of disliking them that you are. Why is AC/DC better them them, and don't say just sound, give me reasons why, cause if you can't give a reason of substance, then its kind of an invalid opinion to be honestYou are being a douchebag....did I ever claim to be an expert on musical composition??? NO. Did I ever claim that my opinion is better than anyone else's??? NO. Did I ever say that the Beatles had little significance to music??? NO. Did I say that they were crappy musicians?? Did I say that Brian Johnson was a better pure singer than John Lennon or even any of the Beatles?? NO. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT WHEN I HEAR THE BEATLES MUSIC, I DO NOT LIKE IT THAT MUCH. I DON'T LIKE WHAT THE LYRICS ARE ABOUT THAT MUCH, I DON'T LIKE THE SOUND OF THEIR MUSIC, I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY SING, THEY SOUND A LITTLE SOFT OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT, SIMPLE AS THAT...ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN I HEAR AC/DC, I LOVE IT, I LOVE THE LYRICS, I LOVE THE GUITAR AND THE POUNDING BASS AND THE THUNDEROUS DRUMS. I LOVE THE WAY BRIAN JOHNSON SINGS. IS IT A BETTER PURE SINGING VOICE THAN JOHN LENNON. HELL NO, I CAN SING BETTER THAN BRIAN JOHNSON, HE IS A SCREAMER, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT. BUT I LOVE IT, THAT IS WHAT I LIKE. THAT IS NOT AN INVALID OPINION YOU DIPSHIT. YEAH, YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT MUSIC COMPOSITION THAN ME AND ALL THAT, SO WHAT, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. IF I HAD SAID THAT "AC/DC WERE BETTER PURE MUSICIANS THAN THE BEATLES," THEN YES, YOUR POINTS WOULD BE RELEVANT. BUT AC/DC ARE NOT BETTER THAN PURE MUSICIANS THAN THE BEATLES. HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION, THEY SOUND BETTER, SO I LIKE THEM MORE...THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO IT, WHAT THE **** IS YOUR PROBLEM

[mk 11]

I DON'T LIKE THE SOUND OF THEIR MUSIC, I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY SING, THEY SOUND A LITTLE SOFT OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT, SIMPLE AS THAT...ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN I HEAR AC/DC, I LOVE IT, I LOVE THE LYRICS, I LOVE THE GUITAR AND THE POUNDING BASS AND THE THUNDEROUS DRUMS.

Listen to Helter Skelter. Track 6, Disc 2, White Album. Please. Download it right now off Kazaa or something.

[KowboyKoop 0]

i have heard Helter Skelter, yes, I know not all of their songs are soft and that they have some harder songs and all, I know, I was speaking in general terms, that is all. It is better than some of their other songs, but I still prefer some Hell's Bells and Back in Black..

[digitalmonkey 929]

FYII have listened to songs from;The Beatles - RevolverThe Beatles - Rubber SoulLed Zeppelin - IILed Zeppelin - IVAC/DC - Back in BlackLionel Ritchie - Can't Slow Downsince this thread began and all I have to say is ...I love the Beatles music and enjoy listening to it very much. I really wouldn't care if I was the only Beatles fan on the fucking planet as long as it was still available. I also enjoy many other bands/musicians and don't see a necessity to rank them in order of preference or argue whether they are overrated by anyone. I really don't understand who you (KowboyKoop) are referring to when you ask if the Beatles are overrated. Who has rated them? Is this an arbitrary rating you have assigned the Beatles based on the coverage they have received in the media?Back to my CD collection....

[timwakefield 68]

I've got blisters on me fingers!!!!

[KDawgCometh 2]

KDAWG WROTE: I don't think that I am. If you are gonna dislike something or like something, you should be able to come up with something more concrete then the balse ambiguous ways of disliking them that you are. Why is AC/DC better them them, and don't say just sound, give me reasons why, cause if you can't give a reason of substance, then its kind of an invalid opinion to be honestYou are being a douchebag....did I ever claim to be an expert on musical composition??? NO. Did I ever claim that my opinion is better than anyone else's??? NO. Did I ever say that the Beatles had little significance to music??? NO. Did I say that they were crappy musicians?? Did I say that Brian Johnson was a better pure singer than John Lennon or even any of the Beatles?? NO. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT WHEN I HEAR THE BEATLES MUSIC, I DO NOT LIKE IT THAT MUCH. I DON'T LIKE WHAT THE LYRICS ARE ABOUT THAT MUCH, I DON'T LIKE THE SOUND OF THEIR MUSIC, I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY SING, THEY SOUND A LITTLE SOFT OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT, SIMPLE AS THAT...ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN I HEAR AC/DC, I LOVE IT, I LOVE THE LYRICS, I LOVE THE GUITAR AND THE POUNDING BASS AND THE THUNDEROUS DRUMS. I LOVE THE WAY BRIAN JOHNSON SINGS. IS IT A BETTER PURE SINGING VOICE THAN JOHN LENNON. HELL NO, I CAN SING BETTER THAN BRIAN JOHNSON, HE IS A SCREAMER, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT. BUT I LOVE IT, THAT IS WHAT I LIKE. THAT IS NOT AN INVALID OPINION YOU censored. YEAH, YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT MUSIC COMPOSITION THAN ME AND ALL THAT, SO WHAT, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. IF I HAD SAID THAT "AC/DC WERE BETTER PURE MUSICIANS THAN THE BEATLES," THEN YES, YOUR POINTS WOULD BE RELEVANT. BUT AC/DC ARE NOT BETTER THAN PURE MUSICIANS THAN THE BEATLES. HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION, THEY SOUND BETTER, SO I LIKE THEM MORE...THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO IT, WHAT THE censored IS YOUR PROBLEM

testy aren't and a bit over defensive. How was I being a douche? What because I asked you to explain why you feel the way you do, wow, really tough . WTF is your problem to completely overreact to people's disagreement with you. In fact, I have been civil with you, but yet you have gone overboard. you sir need to chill the fuck out

[KowboyKoop 0]

I am a little "testy" because I have said the exact same thing for about 9 posts now, that I don't like the beatle's music that much and therefore I think they are overrated in terms of their music....a ton of people think they are the greatest band ever, i don't think they are that good, SIMPLE AS THAT!!!!!!!!!!! Yet you keep on responding saying that I don't have a good reason that I don't like them and that my "opinion is invalid" because I don't have some kind of scientific explanation!?!?!??! What reason do I need to not like them?????Why don't you give me a detailed, scientific answer as to why you don't like AC DC as much as the Beatles. I want a long, detailed response comparing the two bands, in terms of lyrics, music composition, ALL of their influences, ALL of the bands they may have influenced themselves, and their motives for every single song they have ever ever written...sound like a bit much????? I said i don't like them, there is nothing else to say about it. Let me make it clearer for your feeble mind, since you seem to have a problem understanding that some people have different opinions-I DO NOT LIKE THE BEATLES MUSIC-I, THE ORIGINAL POSTER, AM NOT THAT FOND OF THE BEATLES MUSIC-I DO NOT LIKE LISTENING TO THE BEATLES MUSIC-I DO NOT LIKE HEARING THE BEATLES MUSIC -THE PERSON WRITING THIS POST, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, DOES NOT ---LIKE THE BEATLES MUSIC AT ALL-WHEN I, THE ORIGINAL POSTER, HEAR THE BEATLES MUSIC, I OFTEN ---THINK TO MYSELF, "MAN, I DON'T LIKE THIS VERY MUCH, WHY DOES -----EVERYONE ELSE LIKE THIS SO MUCH, I THINK THEY ARE A BIT OVERRATED"-IN MY OPINION, THE BEATLES MUSIC IS NOT AS GOOD AS A LOT OF OTHER BANDS THAT I LIKE