Let's talk about The Beatles being overrated.

11,315 Views | 185 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Bottlehead90
62strat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.

As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.

texags08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly. There are wildly different perceptions of what they were. And people project that perception on to their entire career.
Bob Loblaws Law Blog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocagnante said:

Been a couple of eye rolling claims on this thread, like the Beatles "invented" heavy metal with one song or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

You missed the biggest oneā€¦ that the Beatles are overrated.
LawHall88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mick makes a stop at the Broken Spoke.
Bottlehead90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
62strat said:

Quote:

They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.

As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.




I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.

They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bottlehead90 said:

I will say the Beatles were a big musical influence. Partly because of the timing of there debut and the musical climate at that time. They were four harmless white males with matching haircuts and wearing coats and ties. They appealed to teenage girls and were not considered threatening to their parents.


They were this for about 4 years. After 1964 they were very controversial. They stood up on civil rights and refused to play for segregated audiences, the made controversial comments about Christianity, changed their style quite a bit, were accused of satanic backtracking, experimented with different sounds, and started experimenting with hard core drugs too, and many more controversies.
62strat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bottlehead90 said:

62strat said:

Quote:

They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.

As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.




I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.

They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.
definitely. They were way more diverse than those 3.
Bob Loblaws Law Blog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bottlehead90 said:

62strat said:

Quote:

They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.

As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.




I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.

They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.

We talking about the same band that had all the old farts up in arms after John said they were more popular than Jesus?
Bottlehead90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

Bottlehead90 said:

62strat said:

Quote:

They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.

As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.




I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.

They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.

We talking about the same band that had all the old farts up in arms after John said they were more popular than Jesus?


That was controversial and taken a little out of context. He was self centered and virtue signally and I doubt that was in Epstein's script.
Bottlehead90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
62strat said:

Bottlehead90 said:

62strat said:

Quote:

They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents.

As long as you agree this changed in about 3-4 years, then, yeh, what you said.




I think they were calculated in their output and were very aware of their audience. They were safe even when they let their matching haircuts grow out.

They were never going to be Jimi or Sabbath or Zeppelin.
definitely. They were way more diverse than those 3.


Not sure on "way more diverse". I will take your word for it. But the Beatles became a studio band and when recording they never had to consider if they would perform the music in concert. Zeppelin was a touring band that spent less time in the studio and recorded music that they would tour with. Hendrix was somewhere in between. He recorded songs that he never played in concert and played songs in concert that were never put on albums in his lifetime. Regardless he toured heavily until 69 and he released his three studio albums in less than two years while touring.
dcAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Beatles
The Who
The Rolling Stones

Zeppelin - If there was no Beatles, Who, Stones and especially Hendrix, Zeppelin would never exist.
Bottlehead90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dcAg said:

Beatles
The Who
The Rolling Stones

Zeppelin - If there was no Beatles, Who, Stones and especially Hendrix, Zeppelin would never exist.


That's pretty fun right there.

Zeppelin was heavily influenced by American music. Elvis, early rock n roll, delta and Chicago post war blues as well as the California folk music. And they set their sights to conquer America with a heavy tour schedule.

Hendrix was also heavily influenced by American music with blues as his touchstone.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.