What's the most overrated band ever and why is it The Beatles?

>Beatles
>Not Led "Boy, we sure love black people's music alot I guess we'll just steal it and call it our own that will be totally fine right? Fuck black people anyway. Oh yeah and we will also steal from white people too especially other muscians on tour with us. Yeah thats sounds real good people will never know that we have literally zero talent whatsoever and we will be so famous that we will be able to rape (and it is rape because there's no such thing as legal sex with underaged girls) all the underaged girls we want which is totally cool and a respectable thing to do and then just go on being famous and pretending that we aren't horrific shitstain cancer fucks upon the earth for many decades after the fact while living comfortable lives" Zeppelin

hows middle school for you?

Pink Floyd

hes' right, though. even worse because plebs just hype up the beatles despite having very limited music knowledge.
also this. DSOTM is the most overrated album

well the beatles have the ability to grab you emotionally. You can love the beatles as a kid and as an adult, I dont see why this is such a difficult concept to understand.

I will agree that it is over hyped, but it's still really good, not god tier though

of course it's the Beatles. they're still really great though, from rubber soul onwards

People tend to say that based in a Piero Scaruffi comment on the Beatles. And pretend to agree to be part of the club. As taste is subjective, but there are some consensus in which albums are good, people come here to explicitly annoy Beatles fanboys and have a laugh.

Yeah, this shit sure grabs me emotionally.

youtube.com/watch?v=wAgqCPzUuAM

youtube.com/watch?v=rblYSKz_VnI

youtube.com/watch?v=S-rB0pHI9fU

youtube.com/watch?v=VRLxkHGbN_8

Look, I'm not saying these are bad songs. I like some of these songs, but they don't reach to me on a personal level, and IMO if this relates you in some personal level you have to be pretty simple-minded, because both musically and lyrically The Beatles are not anything special.

Just look at this fucking comment section:

youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM

Overhyped to fuck and back. People talk about this band as if they were the second coming of Christ, and yes, it triggers me. I know that's kinda childish, but meh.

Meh, I think they're okay. They have some good songs but nothing that can't be surpassed by the local music school that there is here.

...

...

what meme "criticism". I agree they fucking suck, but all that "slealin from da black man evil whitey" is kill yourself tier.

> and IMO if this relates you in some personal level you have to be pretty simple-minded
Iamverysmart

the songs you posted about are about love, nostalgia, and sympathy three feelings that every non autistic person can relate to in one way or another.

But please I want to know where all these Le complex songs are that deal with higher emotions of people of such civilized gentry as yourself.

Strawmanning: the post.

The Beatles have a very simple understanding of these topics. Anyone that isn't a layman could write Love Me Do, it's goddamn simple.

Of course I can relate in some to what they are talking about, but that doesn't mean I think their particular way of addressing it does not relate to me in any level, and yes, it may be because I'm somewhat of an edgelord myself.

Musically speaking you can't get any simpler than the I-IV-V or I-VI-IV-V they probably use in the song. They don't do anything interesting with it.

However, if I wanted to express something sweet to someone, I'd rather use Grandpa's Violin from Yuki Kajiura (youtube.com/watch?v=wAgqCPzUuAM) than by Love Me Do. I'm not even sure what Love Me Do is trying to convey.

If I wanted to talk about being let down, I'd use Space-Dye Vest from Dream Theater (youtube.com/watch?v=qHz-JqYRSu8), I don't have extensive knowledge of Beatles's lyrics but I don't think they have anything that can capture what Space-Dye Vest does.

Using another DT example, if I wanted to talk about nostalgia, I'd much rather use The Best of Times (youtube.com/watch?v=ly3LrYbAjMQ) even if I like how Yesterday tackles it.

My point is, just because somebody writes a song about something that is remotely humanly relatable, it doesn't mean that it should be appreciated or that you're an autist if it doesn't relate to you. Justin Bieber's "Sorry" talks about wanting to go back with your girlfriend, but I don't think there's anything relatable about it at all.

The Beatles didn't have the best lyricist, their executions were mediocre (they are literally the worst interpreters of their own music), none of their singers sung particularly well, none of them had any special talent or virtuousness or mastery of their instruments and there's nothing remarkable about their harmony.

How are they even close to being the best band ever? They're decent at best.

i didn't read a single word of your post because it's too long

but i agree the beatles are not not that great, end of discussion

>Musically speaking you can't get any simpler than the I-IV-V or I-VI-IV-V they probably use in the song.
>probably use in the song
>probably

cool analysis my dude

Cool counterargument man. It wasn't a wild guess, just from hearing it I could tell it was probably a I-IV-V cadence... and you know what, it WAS.

tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/t/the_beatles/love_me_do_crd.htm

Guess that facts don't matter if whoever presented them isn't too sure of them though.

>didn't have the best lyricist
>executions were mediocre
>worst interpreters of their own music
>none of their singers sung particularly well
>none of them had any special talent or virtuousness or mastery of their instruments
>nothing remarkable about their harmony

>decent

>judging the Beatles off their early work
Confirmed for pleb. A lot of their later stuff is awesome. Who gives a shit about Love Me Do. That's not even the best song of their early work. You just cherry picked one of their shitty songs, why don't you do a musical analysis of A Day In the Life or She's so Heavy.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

Literally posted A Day in the Life there.

Anyway... later work:

youtube.com/watch?v=rfX0q1aNCos

youtube.com/watch?v=_HONxwhwmgU

youtube.com/watch?v=dsxtImDVMig

youtube.com/watch?v=upeMmis6eQE

I'm even posting classic Beatles music here. How are any of these tracks even remotely special? Not saying they're bad, but they aren't even close to being genius or masterpieces.

So what's your analysis of a day in the life? In your original post you were judging it based on the comments for it

They were shit until Abbey Road.

I'm no expert, but A Day in the Life is not very engaging musically. I don't know the harmony but the psychodelic parts sound VERY out of place and Lennon's (or whoever sings it) voice sounds psychodelic as well. This directly clashes with the theme of a day-to-day theme.

In the end, there's nothing remarkable about the song outside the psychodelic shit and that sounds awful. The lyrics are nothing special but they do communicate starting up a day I guess? I'm not sure what it refers to. I don't like the song tbqh.

Comments:

>You could ignore the rest of the Beatles entire library and they'd still be the greatest band ever.
>Is it even possible to make something like this?
>Hands down, this is the best song of all time. No arguments
>One of the best songs I 've ever heard.
>In my top 3 favorite songs of all time. i can just imagine how insane it must have been to hear that in 1967. Especially on psychedelics : )
>An absolutely brilliant song from John lennon and Paul McCartney , classic . John's voice is beautiful
>This song is just perfect for when you wake up early. It gives life to every morning. Just beatleful.
>Maybe this be the best song ever
>I hate it when people say that the Beatles were the One Direction of the 60s - One Direction don't deserve to be compared to the Beatles. You could tell when a song was by the Beatles because they wrote, recorded, produced and performed it themselves, but modern "pop" bands don't write their own music, it's edited so much that you can't tell who's singing it, it's made by sound technicians and computer editors, and played live from an iPod. Until real talent becomes popular again, no-one can be compared to the Beatles (le not writing your own music makes you mediocre meme)

This is the most retarded shilling I've seen in my life. I can understand if you like the song but this is just being mentally handicapped. Many of these comments are also the most upvoted of the video.

Every band has retarded fans, it's not a reflection on the band

A lot of the stuff they were doing was relatively new at the time. They did a lot of stuff in their production that wasn't being done at the time. You just cherrypicked okay songs again. You mentioned A Day In the Life but didn't address it. They wrote one of the first Metal songs for gods sakes:

youtube.com/watch?v=kLWSQRNnGY8

youtube.com/watch?v=S-rB0pHI9fU

youtube.com/watch?v=kE-VRFWmHJ4

youtube.com/watch?v=qvypQtn4bVc

youtube.com/watch?v=zei3xnivwFk

youtube.com/watch?v=5g4Ki7ryYAI

youtube.com/watch?v=rdIeSHYin88
For example: an ending like that in popular music was unheard of at that time.

Then a lot of the music they wrote was just good pop music. It sticks with you but a lot is shit, especially their early stuff.

Everything after revolver has at least 4 good songs on it.

My point is literally that The Beatles are not even 1/8 of what people make them out to be. I find Beatles's fans to be grating and they literally make me want to hate the band and not hear it at all lest they confuse me for and insuferrable hipster faggot that has only ever heard the Beatles and whatever music they put on parties today.

I'd virtually have no opinion of the Beatles if it weren't for its retarded fanbase that heralds it as the second coming of Christ when they were just and okay band with a couple of actually good songs.

Wow what a retarded analysis. It literally comes down to "I don't like it". Which is fine, but before you were going on saying "lmao any musician who isn't a layperson could write beatles moosics XD!" and then tried to criticize it for having forced "psychedelic"(that's how it's spelled btw) shit. Can you into diabetics? Atonal and tonal music clashing is beautiful.

>actually judging a band off it's fans.
WEW

ITT:

Kids who are butthurt about popular music.

>They wrote one of the first Metal songs for gods sakes:

Yeah and Baroque composer pioneered fucking tonal music but you don't see academicalfags heralding them as the best composers ever.

>They did a lot of stuff in their production that wasn't being done at the time.

Then they didn't pass the test of time. We have people studying music from literally 400 years ago so The Beatles have no excuse.

>You mentioned A Day In the Life but didn't address it
>You just cherrypicked okay songs again.

>Let it Be
>Come Together
>Love is all You Need
>Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

>literally classics from the band
>literally some of the best known songs of their work
>this is cherry picking

>Then a lot of the music they wrote was just good pop music.

Hence why they aren't the best thing ever. See
>they were just and okay band with a couple of actually good songs.

>Yeah and Baroque composer pioneered fucking tonal music but you don't see academicalfags heralding them as the best composers ever.
I guess you haven't ever been to a universities music department? In case you didn't notice, classical music hasn't exactly been relevant for years, but Baroque composers are studied intently if you study classical music at a university. I don't know what you mean by academiafags.
>Then they didn't pass the test of time. We have people studying music from literally 400 years ago so The Beatles have no excuse.
>They didn't pass the test of time
Even though they're still being heralded as being one of the most influential bands ever, and you were just complaining about how autistic their large fanbase is decades later?

>Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Is the only song from there that's decent.

>Hence why they aren't the best thing ever. See
No one ever said that. But they have more than " a couple good songs".

Kys

>I don't know what you mean by academiafags.
Literally people who study academic or classical music.

>classical music hasn't exactly been relevant for years

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean to say that there aren't people who are still living off studying this music and teaching it? 'Cause there totally are.

>No one ever said that

Seems to be a very popular opinion. See OP: most overrated band ever.

>Is the only song from there that's decent.
Don't like the style desu.

>I guess you haven't ever been to a universities music department?

I have, I have studied classical music and considered pursuing a carreer in music. I've seen plenty of musicians who love Baroque but they don't herald it as the pinnacle of classical music, even if it's their favorite.

It's either Tame Impala or Sticky Fingers

you shut your dirty whore mouth

>
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean to say that there aren't people who are still living off studying this music and teaching it? 'Cause there totally are.

No I mean the reason you don't see people praising Baroque composers on Justin Biebers music video is because they haven't been relevant for years.

>I have, I have studied classical music and considered pursuing a carreer in music. I've seen plenty of musicians who love Baroque but they don't herald it as the pinnacle of classical music, even if it's their favorite.

>Seems to be a very popular opinion. See OP: most overrated band ever.
Led Zeppelin is the worst

I never said The Beatles were the pinnacle of rock. Just that they did a lot of innovative work in pop music and moved the genre forward.

>I have, I have studied classical music and considered pursuing a carreer in music. I've seen plenty of musicians who love Baroque but they don't herald it as the pinnacle of classical music, even if it's their favorite.

Nice, I study Jazz. But I have taken classical guitar lessons before. A lot of people in my school study Baroque composers when they study classical.

Nirvana.
The Beatles are overhyped but they're a very goo band. You need to appreciate them for what they are, since they are the unbeaten masters of writing pop music. They could fucking sneeze in a 3-vocal harmony and it would sell hotcakes.

hello

Essential then?

didnt some k-pop group steal all of beebs audience?

The Rolling Stones
Queen
Metallica
The Smiths

i agree

because it's the beatles

>Posters saying Beatles were this, Beatles were that

We stand on the shoulders of giants, guys.

Dream Theater wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Beatles. You might not be able to appreciate the "simple" Beatles, but simplicity doesn't equal bad, not that Beatles were always as simple as you make them out to be.

Across the Universe is a beautiful song lyrically.

The fact that (lol) you like Dream Theater and put them over The Beatles speaks volumes about your taste, as well. Dream Theater think that technicality is the be-all, end-all, and they STILL come up with uninspired prog that comes off as cheesy.

The Beatles are a mainly vocally-oriented pop band in which three members were good songwriters with varying levels of talent and output frequency. They are irrationally revered for every aspect of their sound, and this is most evident when people try to talk up Ringo's drumming or Harrison's guitar like they are the baseline from which all music after is built. The studio work of their later period had its innovating aspects but they were mainly able to accomplish it through having the kind of funds few other groups had, the amazing producer that Martin was, and the ambition of at least Paul (with the others trailed along more or less) to try to make these studio-intensive works.

If anything The Rolling Stones are underrated nowadays.

If you can't appreciate them than I'm not sure what to say to you. You may be a legitimate nu-male.

The Beatles were mediocre. Just mediocre.

New Zeppelin copy pasta.