Are The Beatles and Queen overrated?

Mad Eyed Screamer said:
I came back to England on a ferry from Denmark once in the late 80's.
Scores of Danish pensioners (female) travelling over for a Cliff convention or something. They infiltrated the disco and danced away to the Clif songs the DJ put on for them.
Later I asked the DJ to put Cliff and the Young Ones on......
He did - to the delight of the Cliffettes until after Cliff sang the first verse and Rik, Vivien, Neil and Mike kicked in...... they sat down in disgust as we pissed ourselves laughing
Click to expand...
I was on the Waterloo to Portsmouth Train late one night and Cliff had been on somewhere in London and the whole Train was suddenly invaded and subsequently packed out with female pensioner Cliff Fans on the way back to Surrey/Hampshire et
 
The late Queen can never be overrated.
She was as close to a goddess you will ever get. And and I am not forgetting about our dear Princess Diana.
 
talkativesprout said:
Anyway I'm off to listen to Our Favourite Shop album, A wonderful moving album that encompasses various musical styles and more than 3 chords xx
Click to expand...
Genuine question this: have you ever listened to much Beatles music? The variety of styles is something that defined them, they were able to move from pop songs like She Loves You to ballads like Yesterday and Here, There and Everywhere to proto-hard-rock like Helter Skelter to psychedelic classics like Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, Lucy In The Sky, A Day In Thel Life and Tomorrow Never Knows through to Victorian kitsch on For The Benefit. Songs like She's Leaving Home and Eleanor Rugby sound nothing like anything anyone was doing. I pretty much could go on but they were able to do pretty much any style better than their peers as the link I posted showed. I forgot about songs like Within which is the first time Western artists had written an Indian piece of music.

As for just having 4 chords, you're plain wrong on that. They broke boundaries by basically taking influences from classical music, the tape looping of Avant Garde classical music, Indian music, folk music etc. They were superb musicians and have a listen to what composer Howard Goodall says about them - basically it's very complex music and they knew more about melody than a lot of classical composers. You simply cannot do this if all you know is 3 chords.

I totally understand how people might not like certain musicians - I don't like Bob Dylan particularly - but I am able to recognise his genius. I do think if you listened to Revolver, Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper and The White Album you should be able to recognise more than 3 chords and a complexity, as well as melody, that few have ever matched.

I do think that somehow it's become cool to dislike them and that's fine. However you simply cannot say they are overrated, wrote simple songs and knew little about music. It's like saying my mate Dave draws an apple better than Picasso so he is shite.
 
chesterbells said:
Is this thread still alive?Unbelievable stuff.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, I love threads like this, quite happy to carry things on.

I happily acknowledge the sheer influence The Beatles had on music that came afterwards and some of their stuff is genuinely brilliant but I find the deification of Lennon really annoying - his solo work is incredibly ordinary for me and he came across as a lazy, narcissistic person at times - that "staying in bed to change the world" shite sums him up for me.

Queen produced some well written and performed songs for sure and I'm sure I'd have enjoyed them live but some of their stuff is downright dodgy. Remember "Body Language"? what a pile of shit. And "One Vision" is basically a fascist marching anthem, as hilariously highlighted by Laibach, Jawohl!

 
PaulPowerScreamer said:
Nonsense, I love threads like this, quite happy to carry things on.

I happily acknowledge the sheer influence The Beatles had on music that came afterwards and some of their stuff is genuinely brilliant but I find the deification of Lennon really annoying - his solo work is incredibly ordinary for me and he came across as a lazy, narcissistic person at times - that "staying in bed to change the world" shite sums him up for me.

Queen produced some well written and performed songs for sure and I'm sure I'd have enjoyed them live but some of their stuff is downright dodgy. Remember "Body Language"? what a pile of shit. And "One Vision" is basically a fascist marching anthem, as hilariously highlighted by Laibach, Jawohl!

Click to expand...

Agree with a lot of that, esp your views on Lennon solo and some of what I’ve read about him as a person.
I just find it utterly bizarre to lump Queen in with them! I can see the point of threads on both, but together?
Anyway, makes sense for me to swerve the thread now really doesn’t it? ;-)
 
Beatles = No
Queen = Yes
All personal taste but the Queen of 1971-75 were on the right track but it got seriously shit after that
 
Music is about opinions, none are right or wrong, there is no answer.
To me, the Beatles were a boy band, can't stand them other than a couple of songs....yes they are the most covered, but imo most covers are far better than the Beatles original.
Did they change music, yes but so did many others....whoever (i don't know who, as I hate it) was the first 'rap' artist changed it more, rap was far more diverse than anything that came before it!
Yes they were diverse in their musical styles (as their number one fan pointed out on here)....but no more, if as, diverse as Alice Cooper.
Queen? I like rock music....but they are not in my top 10, maybe 15 rock bands.
All opinions ;)
 
Bill Walker said:
I shake my head at people who think a band with 30 No 1 singles, 13 No 1 albums (in 7 years) and over 80,000 cover versions of the songs they wrote by the worlds top recording artists can even begin to call them overrated.
No other band comes close to those stats.

As for Queen I'm not a fan but realize they were a very talented band.
Click to expand...
Shaking stevens
 
GoatersLeftShin said:
Genuine question this: have you ever listened to much Beatles music? The variety of styles is something that defined them, they were able to move from pop songs like She Loves You to ballads like Yesterday and Here, There and Everywhere to proto-hard-rock like Helter Skelter to psychedelic classics like Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, Lucy In The Sky, A Day In Thel Life and Tomorrow Never Knows through to Victorian kitsch on For The Benefit. Songs like She's Leaving Home and Eleanor Rugby sound nothing like anything anyone was doing. I pretty much could go on but they were able to do pretty much any style better than their peers as the link I posted showed. I forgot about songs like Within which is the first time Western artists had written an Indian piece of music.

As for just having 4 chords, you're plain wrong on that. They broke boundaries by basically taking influences from classical music, the tape looping of Avant Garde classical music, Indian music, folk music etc. They were superb musicians and have a listen to what composer Howard Goodall says about them - basically it's very complex music and they knew more about melody than a lot of classical composers. You simply cannot do this if all you know is 3 chords.

I totally understand how people might not like certain musicians - I don't like Bob Dylan particularly - but I am able to recognise his genius. I do think if you listened to Revolver, Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper and The White Album you should be able to recognise more than 3 chords and a complexity, as well as melody, that few have ever matched.

I do think that somehow it's become cool to dislike them and that's fine. However you simply cannot say they are overrated, wrote simple songs and knew little about music. It's like saying my mate Dave draws an apple better than Picasso so he is shite.
Click to expand...
They jumped every band wagon going.
And fucked off out of Liverpool at the 1st opportunity
 
Bill Walker said:
I shake my head at people who think a band with 30 No 1 singles, 13 No 1 albums (in 7 years) and over 80,000 cover versions of the songs they wrote by the worlds top recording artists can even begin to call them overrated.
No other band comes close to those stats.

As for Queen I'm not a fan but realize they were a very talented band.
Click to expand...
How many number ones has the X Factor produced?
Number ones just mean sales, not quality.
It's like saying the rags sell the most replica shirts per season so they must be the best team in the world.
I've grown up (I'm now 61) being told The Beatles are the best band in the world ever just like I'm told the rags / red scousers are the best ever football team in the world. As with the majority of the population, tell them something enough times and they will believe it.....
Don't believe the hype.
 
southamptonblue said:
Music is about opinions, none are right or wrong, there is no answer.
To me, the Beatles were a boy band, can't stand them other than a couple of songs....yes they are the most covered, but imo most covers are far better than the Beatles original.
Did they change music, yes but so did many others....whoever (i don't know who, as I hate it) was the first 'rap' artist changed it more, rap was far more diverse than anything that came before it!
Yes they were diverse in their musical styles (as their number one fan pointed out on here)....but no more, if as, diverse as Alice Cooper.
Queen? I like rock music....but they are not in my top 10, maybe 15 rock bands.
All opinions ;)
Click to expand...
This. Manufactured very well by Epstein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top