The Beatles not getting along is overrated....

[Westerly Wood]

sure look like a family here:

 

[walrus]

They were certainly drifting apart at this time, like most all bands do eventually. John and George in particular had had enough. Paul was trying desperately to keep them together, he has said as much.

But they were "brothers", too, so I agree they were still a "family" during the filming for "Let It Be". But they all knew it was ending, hence their final album being the majestic "Abbey Road", ending with the song "The End".

walrus

 

[Westerly Wood]

They were certainly drifting apart at this time, like most all bands do eventually. John and George in particular had had enough. Paul was trying desperately to keep them together, he has said as much.

But they were "brothers", too, so I agree they were still a "family" during the filming for "Let It Be". But they all knew it was ending, hence their final album being the majestic "Abbey Road", ending with the song "The End".

walrus

 

[fronobulax]

The Beatles are overrated and the people who obsess over them after several decades might consider getting a life.




I am being snarky but I do look forward to the time when someone posts something about the Beatles on LTG that is new and different and not a rehash of what has been posted many times before. If your reaction to this post is to defend the Beatles and their reputation then you are part of the problem as I see it.

 

[Midnight Toker]

To be on a music-centric website, it is known full well that music can be very personal in the hearts and minds of the listener. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest if someone says a band I love is overrated. That’s one person’s opinion about the music. When you tell people who do love it and obsess over something they need to get a life, you’re no longer talking about the Beatles. You are now bashing people for their own personal musical tastes and loves. So, I’m not here to defend the Beatles, but I will defend myself.

Hmmm.

 

[wileypickett]

I think I get what fronobulax is / was saying: I grew up with the Beatles, bought all their records when they came out and loved them. Over the ensuing decades however there were many times (hearing their music in a record store or at somone's house) where I felt like, "Ye gods, how many more times do I have to listen to this @#$$#@ record?!"

It's the curse of something becoming so overly-familiar that you can no longer get anything out of it and can't bear to hear it anymore.

There's also the fact that hardcore fans can be so undiscerning and uncritical, as if everything the Beatles did or touched was equally great. (Some songs ARE markedly better than others, no?)

But after ignoring their music for a couple decades, I heard a feature on NPR a few years ago about the Sgt Pepper's remaster. At the end they played "A Day in the Life" and I about drove off the road during the orchestral part at the end. I suddenly remembered the goosebump-y feeling I'd had when I first heard that song, back when the album was issued, and how amazed I was at it.

I bought that remaster and the Revolver one and have -- more or less -- rediscovered the Beatles. In addition to the clarity and punch of the new mixes, I can hear things now I didn't pick up on as a much younger man (McCartney's bass parts for instance, or just how much George Martin brought to the party and how lucky the Beatles were to have him in their corner).

I feel I can better appreciate them now as A BAND, separate from their status as '60s icons. I can also distinguish between what I consider their best and worst songs, and I'm not shy about hitting the "skip" button.

Looking at them in this new light, it's possible the Beatles are actually underrated -- that is, that they're rated more for their status, their outsize omnipresence, and the uncritical reverance with which some fans view them -- than as an actual "band," with all that that implies.

 

[Westerly Wood]

I thought sgt peppers was pretty terrible.
I liked abbey a lot. White album good. I think revolver is their masterpiece but I am not a Beatles fan per se. I think if one grows up a rabid Who fan, it’s hard to like the stones or beatles. Always thought those bands were boring in comparison. As I get older, I started to appreciate beatles more. Not that any of this matters.

 

[davidbeinct]

How many people are out there who think that is a beatle?

 

[Uke]

I do look forward to the time when someone posts something about the Beatles on LTG that is new and different

Ringo packed canned beans in his luggage when the Beatles went to India. Oh, wait, this probably isn't new (enough).

 

[Rocky]

How many people are out there who think that is a beatle?

Always thought The Scarabs would be a good band name.

 

[Uke]

I thought sgt peppers was pretty terrible.

Yes, I agree -- with the exception of "She's Leaving Home" and "A Day In the Life"

 

[Brad Little]

I was not a big Beatles fan when they first hit. I was in high school and had discovered Leadbelly, Muddy Waters and the blues in middle school, so found the early Beatles a bit derivative. I did warm to them over the years, but agree with WesterlyWood that Revolver was their finest work (IMO).

 

[Midnight Toker]

Well being someone who has sought and collected every single known circulating live recording of The Beatles over the last 40 years, I find them highly….underrated! As musicians and performers, I cannot think of 4 other popular musicians who could play through an inadequate PA system w/ no monitors where screaming teens completely drowned out the PA and stage volume, yet based on direct feed recordings, they somehow still kept perfect time and stayed in perfect vocal pitch! John and Paul basically relying on the vibrations in their own heads, and Ringo only knowing where they were in a song by the physical movements of the 3 guys in front of him. The well over 10,000 hrs they put in in L’pool and Hamburg, imo, make their standing in the world f popular music very well earned!

Never mind that they basically put out the average singer/songwriter’s life’s work in volume in 7 short years, w/ basically no throwaways. Resulting in the biggest global album sales by any group in music history. There’s a reason why people from teens to geezers are (still) obsessed by this band. Why if you were to attend a Macca show in a 60,000 seat stadium, during his medley of early Beatles tunes, if you look around, you will see grown assed men balling like a 13 yr old girl as far as the eye can see. It’s not because they were pulled into some manfactured marketed product full of teenage peer pressure. It’s because their music resonated in the hearts and minds and has been more than proven to stand the test of time while most of their contemporaries are largely forgotten today.

Personally, I’m a bigger fan of everything up to 66 (Revolver, and their last touring year) than anything that came after. My least favorite probably being the White Album as it’s pretty much solo material backed by the other members and has the most material I have no problem skipping over. Sgt Pepper is likely my 2nd least favorite but do acknowledge that technically, it is a recording masterpiece in what was able to be done in the confines of just 4 tracks! But if not for Pet Sounds, it likely wouldn’t even exist.

That being said, The Beatles aren’t even my No 1 fav band. (Definite #2 though, and my first true musical love that taught me the thrills of being emotionally invested in music) Honestly, I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t have something/someone in art they are obsessed over, even after decades. Would anyone dare tell a 70 yr old classical conductor or master violinist, “What, Mozart AGAIN? It’s been over 230 years already! Get a life!!”

 

[DougH]

Ringo packed canned beans in his luggage when the Beatles went to India. Oh, wait, this probably isn't new (enough).

I've packed canned beans in my luggage ever since I heard The Beatles first album. They're Great!

 

[fronobulax]

Had the OP not used the word "overrated" I would not have responded. It's the difference between discussing a musician and discussing people's reactions to the musician. The latter is my problem because decades of reactions to the Beatles posted on LTG has identified fans who will not tolerate the expression of any negative opinion about the band.

 

[fronobulax]

Ringo packed canned beans in his luggage when the Beatles went to India. Oh, wait, this probably isn't new (enough).

 

[Midnight Toker]

Had the OP not used the word "overrated" I would not have responded. It's the difference between discussing a musician and discussing people's reactions to the musician. The latter is my problem because decades of reactions to the Beatles posted on LTG has identified fans who will not tolerate the expression of any negative opinion about the band.

I fully expect… and can tolerate and even laugh with negative opinions about ANY artist. You however crossed the line and gave negative opinions of the überfans themselves! That includes me! Music should be passion, especially on a music centric Internet forum. If a person is just putting their finger on a predetermined fret while plucking a predetermined string like a robot…with zero emotional attachment, may I suggest putting your instrument back in it’s case and take up needlepoint or something. I personally applaud anyone who finds a real true love in an artist that can’t be outgrown. If a particular artist isn’t your cup’o, why even chime in? I’m certainly one of the younger regular members here at 56 yrs old and my real passion is in blues based hard rock music of the late 60’s and 70’s. There are countless threads here talking about artists from the 50’s/60’s that I could give 2¢ about, but I’m not about to chime in and tell people their musical tastes and passions are in question. The only time I ever wrote anything negative on this board about an artist was about the universally loathed band Nickleback, and you deleted it. I guess opinions only count if they come from a moderator. On that note, I think I’ll be taking an extended break from here. Seems etiquette doesn’t apply to everyone.

I have an extensive Beatles collection of rarities and memorabilia, but it PALES in comparison to my LED Zeppelin collection where I might be considered one of the top 20 collectors in the world w/ several pieces of my collection having been submitted and credited in official books and deluxe album boxed set liner notes. Do I need to get a life? I don’t think so, as it’s given me great pleasure over the past 45 years. Should all the folks here w/ 40+ guitars need to get a life? Hell No. It’s their passion, even if not even remotely understood by the majority.

Peace.

 

[Westerly Wood]

Had the OP not used the word "overrated" I would not have responded. It's the difference between discussing a musician and discussing people's reactions to the musician. The latter is my problem because decades of reactions to the Beatles posted on LTG has identified fans who will not tolerate the expression of any negative opinion about the band.

"...is potentially a tad exaggerated"?

lol

 

[Westerly Wood]

I watched a documentary once on Netflix re the Beatles incredible popularity in Russia. Some of you might have seen it. They have an annual Beatles fest. To commemorate the alleged (but never verified) concert they played over there in the 60s. Which may or may not have happened.

Great film. So interesting to see so many Russians perform covers of their fave Beatles songs too.

 

[Uke]

Didn't know Daltry went with them -- heck, another new fact about the Beatles!