Customer Discussions > Music forum

The Beatles: Most overated band of all time?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Aug 10, 2010 5:35:42 PM PDT
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." I've quoted this line often in these forums, and thought it fitting to do so here too.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 5:36:53 PM PDT
Ice has still not changed her tune.
A boy band would be Menudo, N Synch or Backstreet Boys.
Not Duran Duran or someone that writes their own songs and plays their own instruments.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 5:42:18 PM PDT
Janice Roman... I like that name.
Are you doing this because your own band has its own overated thread?

http://www.amazon.com/tag/classic%20rock/forum/ref=cm_cd_search_res_rm?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxMRW9CBRLTD5T&cdMsgID=MxEAURWPQ9CDNX#MxEAURWPQ9CDNX

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 5:44:15 PM PDT
Iceblossom says:
So, just so I understand, SA, are you quibbling with me with what I said about the Beatles or about what constitutes a boy band?

Are you disagreeing that the first mass appeal the beatles had were to tween and teen girls?

Are you saying that Twist and Shout was not a cover song? Or Roll Over Beethoven? Or Please Mr Postman? Or the average of six cover songs on each of their first umm.. 4? not including the movie album Hard Day's Night albums?

Or do you just not like the term being applied to the Beatles?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 5:51:16 PM PDT
Janice Roman says:
No I dont think so, I made this thread out of pure curiosity.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 5:53:06 PM PDT
Well, it was nice meeting you Janice. Thanks for the interesting chat.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 5:55:10 PM PDT
Janice Roman says:
Thank you everyone for a nice chat, and yes, i do love selling england by the pound :)

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 5:58:37 PM PDT
Gino says:
why, no, the beatles aren't over-rated. an act honed on the reeperbahn in hamburg hardly constitutes a "boy band". of course the little girls loved them. the men don't know, but
the little girls understand.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 6:05:46 PM PDT
We had this same talk in 2007[?]. I am NOT trying to be mean. Just don't get your outlook.

"The term being applied to" ~ the bands that write and perform with their own instruments.

Just so I understand... is a band with 20 something males that are ugly also a boy band... or just the good looking bands?

Is Pearl Jam a boy band?

"Are you disagreeing that the first mass appeal the beatles had were to tween and teen girls?"

Yes. Many, many males also liked them so much that they went out and started copying their look. Some even copied their band.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 6:17:15 PM PDT
Iceblossom says:
A band playing poppy music with catchy hooks that appeals primarily to tween and teen girls made up of 4 cute guys in matching outfits = a boy band.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 6:22:43 PM PDT
ice -

there is one BIG difference though - boy bands (backstreet boys, n sync, etc) dont play their own instruments.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 6:33:27 PM PDT
By late 1965, the release of a new Beatles album was a cultural event. (We all skipped school to buy Sgt. Peppers the day it was released.) Apart from Paul McCartney on bass, they may not have been virtuosos, but they were damned good musicians, writers, and performers. As a band, they were (and remain) unrivaled. They not only opened the doors of creativity in popular music, they blew them off the hinges for countless other artists to follow. Over rated? Almost 50 years on, what a silly question to ponder. (PS: My wife saw them in Montreal in '64.)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 6:38:10 PM PDT
Alt9999 says:
"A band playing poppy music with catchy hooks that appeals primarily to tween and teen girls made up of 4 cute guys in matching outfits = a boy band."

Couldn't that be said of any of the British Invasion groups? Other than maybe the Who or the Animals?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 6:45:00 PM PDT
There is a couple of things wrong with your generalisation of boy bands.

Firstly, the number is not confined to 4 as Take that or N'Sync will attest.

Secondly, and more importantly, the boy bands that you would compare the Beatles to do not take the stage with instruments and are not musically self contained.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 6:48:42 PM PDT
Bwich'd says:
Now it sounds 'poppy' but in 63, it was rock and roll. No tween girls in the Cavern Club either.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 6:52:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 10, 2010 6:58:26 PM PDT
Iceblossom says:
So basically you are not commenting on what I said about the Beatles, but rather what the definition of a boy band is -- or is not so long as it doesn't include the Beatles in it.

Oh, another thing about the Beatles, how do you feel about them sometimes lip syncing in concert because they couldn't be heard over the screaming anyway? Is that a non-boy band thing or not?

Ok, how about the totally manufactured Monkees. Were they a boy band or something else -- heck they were Saturday cartoon fare. But somehow the sum was greater than the parts and they did some pretty good stuff too. Including trying to bring Jimi Hendrix to a wider fan base. I'm not comparing the Monkees to the Beatles so please don't go there. (OMG OMG ICE SAID THE MONKEES WERE AS GOOD/BETTER THAN THE BEATLES! Now stop that because I didn't say that at all, just thought I'd just head off that whole disingenious attack before it started.)

Edited --

Is funny, I just looked at the wikipedia entry on what makes a boy band :)

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 6:55:36 PM PDT
How about: the crap that whoever created this post listens to is overrated.

The Beatles were symbolic of an entire era and are to rock what Mozart is to classical: impossible to imitate and impossible to ignore.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 7:01:56 PM PDT
Although the Monkees were modeled on the Beatles from their movie "A hard days night", there the similarities end.

As others have pointed out, the Beatles were primarily a rock 'n' roll band who moved into pop music through sheer vent of their popularity.

They never mimed as such to a backing track, they just decided that there was no use trying to sing over the din being made, so they just mouthed the songs. That is very different to miming.

If you don't like the Beatles, that's fine, but what you are doing is misrepresenting them and then attacking the misrepresentation.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 7:11:02 PM PDT
Iceblossom says:
So when I say things like John & Paul were a great writing team and wrote many classic songs, am I misrepresenting or saying I don't like the Beatles? When I say things like the early Beatles made great poppy songs with many catchy hooks I'm saying something bad? When I say that they were able to grow and change and their growth and change opened up music experimentation to other bands I'm misrepresenting them?

Really, it's all attack the Ice the big blue meanie and complain about the term boy band and such because you are blinded by your own devotion. Have I ever said I don't like the Beatles? Just because I don't think they are the best band ever and I don't listen to them every day of my life doesn't mean I don't like something.

Show me somewhere, anywhere, where I say I don't like them. I just don't idolize them. I think I look at them objectively and I think other than a few songs in another 20 or so years after the baby boomers really start to die off they will fade into some degree of obscurity just like Gilbert & Sullivan (the operetta writers, not the shlock singer), or Lizst, or Cole Porter, or Stephen Foster, or any of a number of other people who were HUGE during their lifetimes, still admired and liked after their passing but that life and styles and things don't last forever. Sure, people still go see HMS Pinafore today (and I can still sing and play pieces on the piano) but they aren't fainting in the streets over them any more.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 7:19:47 PM PDT
It is you that insist that, against all evidence, the Beatles are or were a boy band.

Don't play the victim here.

If you stand by your assessment, then stand by it and defend it.

If you don't, then detract it and accept that you are making an argument from a false premise.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 7:22:24 PM PDT
You say that you are looking at the situation objectively, but I sense that you have an emotional investment about the Beatles not being as good as others think, but only as good or as bad as you think.

If its just about being contrary, then there is no point in arguing just for the sake of arguing.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 7:24:32 PM PDT
>>Gilbert & Sullivan (the operetta writers, not the shlock singer)<<

Ha ha. I presume you mean Gilbert O'Sullivan who wrote "Alone again (naturally)" one of the saddest songs ever written.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 7:27:13 PM PDT
Iceblossom says:
Once again, I said that I consider a boy band that made good.

They grew and changed, but I believe it was the success they had and the money they made by songs like I Want To Hold Your Hand and the other boy band type of stuff is what allowed them the creative freedom to change.

I'm not playing the victim, I'm trying to get you to take off your blinders and show me exactly where and when I ever said the Beatles were bad or I don't like the Beatles. Or where I've ever said anything negative about them at all other than you don't like the term or usage of boy band.

So... argue on what I said. And don't try and put words in my mouth and how I (direct quote from Buck)
"If you don't like the Beatles, that's fine, but what you are doing is misrepresenting them and then attacking the misrepresentation."

So please, tell me again what and where and when I said something that is a misrepresentation. Other than you don't like the label boy band.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 7:27:21 PM PDT
Book Lady says:
why do discussions always end up like this? Everyone always fights. live and let live. Most of us are beatles fans. Do any of you listen to their words? think about it. All you need is love.

Posted on Aug 10, 2010 7:27:58 PM PDT
Bwich'd says:
Haha Ice.. that comment in parenthesis about the Beatles/Monkees thing made me laugh out loud (no abbreviation). That was good and so true!
(Btw..I've seen you on a few other threads in the past and meant to comment on a cool screen name).

I don't think anyone would argue that the Monkees fit the boy band profile in that, even though 3 of the 4 were actual musicians, they were assembled to market as a TV show.
Buck, Ice never said she didn't like them..In fact that she DID, but sometimes isn't in the mood for them. And gave them credit for a number of things.
But I agree that saying they were young and had teenage girls as fans is too much a generalization to classify them as a boy band.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Music forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  365
Total posts:  1348
Initial post:  Aug 10, 2010
Latest post:  Jul 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 12 customers

Search Customer Discussions