Unpopular music opinion (borrowed from Twitter)

[Louisa]

Clearly neither do you if you think the Beatles were so great and not influenced by existing artists.

Louisa.

[Louisa]

Clapton, the faces, the kinks. They were all doing the same thing, better in my opinion. And yet all the hype was about the Beatles?

Paul had decent vocals (nothing out the ordinary) and was a basic bass player. Ringo basic/average drummer with no vocals. And as for John, yes he wrote some decent stuff early on but it soon faded. I must admit I did like George Harrison's solo stuff though.

Louisa.

[Jah Lush]

Oooh, there goes one right there. Eric Clapton, possibly the most overrated guitarist ever.

[DulwichFox]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oooh, there goes one right there. Eric Clapton,

> possibly the most overrated guitarist ever.

He certainly was no match for Gerry Garcia 'Grateful Dead' Dark Star was work of pure genius.

Foxy..

[Seabag]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Level 42 - underated

Not in this house ????'s

*plays Shakatak track*

[HonaloochieB]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You don't half write some crap Louisa.

> > HonaloochieB is spot on. I was there too. It

> was

> > ace.

>

> Nah I don't talk crap, I just have a valid opinion

> about yet another overrated 60's pop group, who

> were fortunate enough to hit the big time both

> sides of the Atlantic (luck more than judgement

> may I add).

It's not 'another' (which one?) 'overated' pop group, it's THE pop group. Unless you at the least acknowlege that then it's just a born in the 50's pub ranter.

Prefer the fackin' Stones, Me!!

'Fortunate enough to hit the big time both sides of the Atlantic'?

Maybe, possibly? Who knows? So?

'luck more than judgement

may I add'

If luck came into it, it was huge luck, the luckiest of all, and what 'judgement' was involved?

Music is subjective anyway. I think

> Jah and HonaloochieB are classic examples of pop

> brainwashing. I prefer to look at these things

> from afar rather than be lead along with the

> crowd. The Beatles were average artists who were

> pretty good at writing catchy lyrics off the back

> of the style of Elvis et al - who had already set

> the bar pretty damn high across the pond.

>

> Louisa.

[Louisa]

It's not 'another' (which one?) 'overated' pop group, it's THE pop group. Unless you at the least acknowlege that then it's just a born in the 50's pub ranter.

Prefer the fackin' Stones, Me!!

Who says they are "THE pop group"? I think if you ask people before the era and a distance after th3 Beatles era, most people would beg to disagree with you (if indeed they even know or care who the Beatles are!). I'm sure if my mother was asked about them she would say it was a bloody noise (different generations different opinions).

My point about them being fortunate was that they happened to be in the right place at the right time in terms of publicity and everything else that adds to the ingredients of success. IMO their talent (which was undeniable but on a par with many, many other bands coming out of this country at that time), was just one minor aspect of their success and hence why I believe them to be vastly overrated.

Louisa.

[ed_pete]

Jazz. Pretty much all sh1te. Especially that Miles Davis fella.

[HonaloochieB]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not 'another' (which one?) 'overated' pop

> group, it's THE pop group. Unless you at the least

> acknowlege that then it's just a born in the 50's

> pub ranter.

> Prefer the fackin' Stones, Me!!

>

> Who says they are "THE pop group"? I think if you

> ask people before the era and a distance after th3

> Beatles era, most people would beg to disagree

> with you (if indeed they even know or care who the

> Beatles are!). I'm sure if my mother was asked

> about them she would say it was a bloody noise

> (different generations different opinions).

WHAT? A distance before and a distance after? Surely you know that's garbage. It's about context, The Beatles were a time and place that made a huge difference to pop music. Doubt they knew they were doing it and they didn't set out to do it, they did it. Nothing to do with 'different generations'.

Not know who The Beatles are? Utterly daft, in their pomp they were better known than the Popes, the Prime Ministers, the Presidents, Mott The Hoople and Miss World.

[Louisa]

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> WHAT? A distance before and a distance after?

> Surely you know that's garbage. It's about

> context, The Beatles were a time and place that

> made a huge difference to pop music. Doubt they

> knew they were doing it and they didn't set out to

> do it, they did it. Nothing to do with 'different

> generations'.

You miss my point HonaloochieB. What im saying is they didn't necessarily make the difference you imply. They were on a par with other acts at the time coming out of Liverpool and other working class communities across this country, who ALL were influenced by early 50's Rock N Roll pioneers coming out of the states. They took the mantle on along with numerous other bands, and collectively influenced pop music later on. It wasn't some exclusive Beatles influence as you suggest.

>

> Not know who The Beatles are? Utterly daft, in

> their pomp they were better known than the Popes,

> the Prime Ministers, the Presidents, Mott The

> Hoople and Miss World.

Yes they were, but ask a kid nowadays who the Beatles are or their influence on popular culture and most kids wouldn't know or care, let alone be able to name a song.

Louisa.

[HonaloochieB]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I think if you

> ask people before the era and a distance after th3

> Beatles era, most people would beg to disagree

> with you (if indeed they even know or care who the

> Beatles are!)

>

> Louisa.

Although there may be something in what you assert about the different generations not appreciating the Mop Tops.

Tommy Trinder did once say " I didn't make no never mind about them, when ye're born 1909 up Streatham way, it don't make no nothin' to me. As fer me ol' mum, I remember 'er clear as day 30 year before them lovable moptops started sayin' "Thomas, if any ol' scousers ever start screamin', shoutin' and twistin' about, YOU BLOODY SEE THEM ORF SOON AS LOOK AT 'EM" Yes, my ol' mum I said, so I did."

And then I had another look and guess what? Some time later I decided to interview someone a 'distance after'.

A Wetherspoons pub (not identified for reasons of confidentiality, - present HB, 3 year-old Lynnsey and her mother).

HB - So tell me Lynnsey, what do think about The Beatles? I reckon they're FAB but someone of my acquaintance (sort of) reckons they're not all that.

L - ?????

HB - It's The Beatles Lynnsey, #She Loves You, Yeah Yeah...#

L - MUMMY!!!!!

HB - Ah, anyway Lynnsey, The Beatles, they sang great songs and I bet your nanny liked them.

L - Eeeeeew, your breath is all smell! Pooh. Stinky.

HB - Thanks Lynnsey, you're great, but am I the Walrus?

L - Why's your face so fat?

Crumbs, maybe Louisa's right after all.

[HonaloochieB]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HonaloochieB Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> >

> > WHAT? A distance before and a distance after?

> > Surely you know that's garbage. It's about

> > context, The Beatles were a time and place that

> > made a huge difference to pop music. Doubt they

> > knew they were doing it and they didn't set out

> to

> > do it, they did it. Nothing to do with

> 'different

> > generations'.

>

> You miss my point HonaloochieB. What im saying is

> they didn't necessarily make the difference you

> imply. They were on a par with other acts at the

> time coming out of Liverpool and other working

> class communities across this country, who ALL

> were influenced by early 50's Rock N Roll pioneers

> coming out of the states. They took the mantle on

> along with numerous other bands, and collectively

> influenced pop music later on. It wasn't some

> exclusive Beatles influence as you suggest.

It was exclusively a Beatles influence, I can't think of another group who were as influential, I really can't.

>

>

> >

> > Not know who The Beatles are? Utterly daft, in

> > their pomp they were better known than the

> Popes,

> > the Prime Ministers, the Presidents, Mott The

> > Hoople and Miss World.

>

> Yes they were, but ask a kid nowadays who the

> Beatles are or their influence on popular culture

> and most kids wouldn't know or care, let alone be

> able to name a song.

Whether they know the name or not, the influence is there, and also I think young'uns who are interested in the pop/rock milieu are well aware of peopl like the Beatles/Dylan.

>

> Louisa.

[maxxi]

If we get back a couple of years to that long and winding 'The Beatles' thread...

maxxi 18 January, 2014 13:44

Saying the Beatles are overrated is overrated and overdone.

I would just add that someone desperate to draw attention to themselves was bound to name them on this thread.

That is all.

[Louisa]

Maxxi I have no reason to draw attention to myself. Just because a few die hard Beatles fans take umbrage to someone daring to question the holy mantra of the Beatles and their so called influence on popular culture, that's not my problem. No one should feel bad for piping up and saying actually they weren't all that, and have been excessively overrated for decades. I find it highly amusing that Beatles fans can't just take it on the chin, some people didn't like them, get over it!

Louisa.

[Alan Medic]

Elvis Presley. Just don't like his stuff. Seems more of a performer than a singer. Don't get his cult following.

[*Bob*]

It?s fine to ?not like The Beatles?. You can probably back yourself into the tight parking spot of not liking all 275 songs.. if you?re really determined to get a park. You can think Paul a cock, hate John?s voice, sneer at Ringo?s drumming, say George is the best of ?em (a textbook one there) - but if you?re seriously doing them down on innovation and influence then you?re either squarely in Moron Territory or it?s back to the maverick ninny.

Let?s hope it?s just the latter.

[red devil]

This is up there with cheese on toast pizza, but not in a good way.

I'm afraid it's looking like another 12 months in solitary for our resident booze addled sexagenarian...

[adonirum]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Come on Jeremy, play along. Where's yours?

>

> Elvis. Famous for singing covers of samey

> 12-bar-blues songs.

Jeremy, think you've mixed Elvis up with Status Quo !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Louisa]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It?s fine to ?not like The Beatles?. You can

> probably back yourself into the tight parking spot

> of not liking all 275 songs.. if you?re really

> determined to get a park. You can think Paul a

> cock, hate John?s voice, sneer at Ringo?s

> drumming, say George is the best of ?em (a

> textbook one there) - but if you?re seriously

> doing them down on innovation and influence then

> you?re either squarely in Moron Territory or it?s

> back to the maverick ninny.

>

> Let?s hope it?s just the latter.

Like everyone who worships at the temple of Beatle perfection, you are blinded by the reality. 'beatlemania' was a manufactured foot-up which put an average band who wrote their own songs on a pedestal. If you're going to praise their 'innovation' and 'influence' you perhaps want to praise their management and record label of the the time, and not any specific uniqueness about them as a band IMO, which would and was matched by numerous bands coming out of the UK back then.

Louisa.

[DulwichFox]

If it weren't for The Beatles, many other bands would never of happened and many songs would never of been written..

The Beatles were arguably the most influential band ever..

Foxy..

[*Bob*]

she loves you

mmm, mmm, hmmm

she loves you mmmmmmm

yeah yeah yeah yeeeahhhh yeaaaaaaahh mmmmmmm'

cup of tea, Mum?

hmmm hmmm cmmmmmmmm oooh that would be lovely, ooh, I just love 'The Beatles'.

[Louisa]

But every musical genre of every era influences someone, that's just how music works! The Beatles loved Elvis, he didn't write a single song in his entire career. Definitely a performer, but not a writer. His innovation came from his hips, and in turn he was influenced by blues, country, gospel singers of his childhood. They were influenced by people from their era and so on. You can't use this argument of citing every single influence on ONE band. Influences come from many quarters.

Louisa.

[*Bob*]

When is the GCSE music written paper by the way?

Sounds like you're well up to speed.

[Louisa]

The key point in your message foxy is arguably. Because, arguably if it wasn't for Bill Hayley's massive commercial success with the 1955 song "Rock around the clock" Elvis, The Beatles and everything that's happened since wouldn't exist. I'm sure kids nowadays could cite any number of influences on musical styles, all of which didn't really have a starting point, as influences come and go over many decades.

Louisa.

[DulwichFox]

I would just love to be so overrated and a multi-millionaire...

Better than being an underrated genius (not me) and skint..

DulwichFox