[reorx]

Im with DavidMahler on this one. The Beatles are one of the few bands (if not the ONLY band) which can never be overrated. In terms of the totality of their musicality, songwriting, timelessness, contribution to music history, overall impact etc., they can never be rivalled.

But then again, maybe we should define what "overrated" really is. Overrated in my book means you are giving importance or significance to one thing more than it actually should get or deserves. But the inherent subjectivity of this definition is that "what it deserves" is based solely on personal preference. You may not like the lyrics of "Hard Days Night", but the over-all impact The Beatles made on modern music cannot be denied.

You can say you dont like The Beatles. You can say you hate their melodies. You can say the Stones or Floyd or even The Monkees are better accdg to your taste. But these indivdual biases alone do not make the Beatles overrated. I sure would like to hear a convincing argument as to why they do not deserve all the fame, acclaim, success and worldwide adulation they currently, and will in all probablity forever, possess. After all, THAT is the definition of overrated, that they do not deserve their current status as the most popular musical group in the history of music.

On Topic, Radiohead is getting a bit cheeky, but I wont say they are overrated. Wilco is overrated. Pavement is overrated. 90% of the stuff on Billboard is overrated. Pink Floyd is a bit overrated. Porcupine Tree is overrated. The Stone Roses are overrated.

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drubbing /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whilst in the 50s teenage years were considered an awkward stage, best shortened and 'got over with' as soon as possible, the seeds of a new demographic were born here, but cultural shifts take time, and the 60s, plus the Beatles were part of that. But, it is important to point out the 60s didn't 'happen' everywhere at the same time; the ideas, spirit, political and youth awareness, fashions etc didn't filter down to other western nations at the same time. The Summer of Love, Haight/Ashbury, Woodstock and the very stereotypical images we get of the 60s; the 'if you can remember, you weren't really there' stuff we hear today, is 1) Largely an American experience 2) Retrospective simplification Even in the UK, where I grew up, and Australia where I now live, we are still bombarded with images of the 60s that were mostly, if not completely, from the US perspective. Many people in these countries didn't pick up on the 60s phenomenon until they were over. My parents see such images represented as part of 'their' youth, and recognise none of it as true to their experience. That is, they may have been news items at the time, but there was not necessarily the understanding a 'movement' was occurring.

Right on, right on…perceptive analysis. Looked at in real time, these shifts are pretty gradual. I mean, the baby-boom youth-culture thing actually dates back to the Elvis Presley-era and the bobby-soxers, and even though the Beatles brought it even more into the forefront, they didn't take over the entire culture right away—and they had lots of help. (Btw, did anyone realize that the deceased newsman Walter Cronkite was partly responsible for the Beatles getting on The Ed Sullivan Show?)

One more for the most overrated pile: Nas