[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

The Beatles were only going for less than a decade. Their catalogue of music they produced in that time is astounding. Elton John hasn't even got close in 6 decades.

I don't think churning out huge amounts of content in a short period of time is really an indicator of quality... in fact it's one of the main reasons I don't think they're as great as people say. YES they do have great songs, but they have a lot of "filler" as well. Huge amount of music but most of it is forgettable ... some of it truly great. Like most pop artists these days to be honest. That's why I think it's a fairly apt comparison... Amongst their other influences, The Beatles were really the first massive "Pop band". Mostly releasing filler pop, and then there are a few tracks where you stop and say "oh wow this is stand-out".

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think churning out huge amounts of content in a short period of time is really an indicator of quality... in fact it's one of the main reasons I don't think they're as great as people say. YES they do have great songs, but they have a lot of "filler" as well. Huge amount of music but most of it is forgettable ... some of it truly great. Like most pop artists these days to be honest. That's why I think it's a fairly apt comparison... Amongst their other influences, The Beatles were really the first massive "Pop band". Mostly releasing filler pop, and then there are a few tracks where you stop and say "oh wow this is stand-out".

that is surely a reflection of the influence early on of the label and as they get older and wiser they can begin to release what they actually want rather than what the label thinks will make them money?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

that is surely a reflection of the influence early on of the label and as they get older and wiser they can begin to release what they actually want rather than what the label thinks will make them money?

Well yes that's the way with most good bands, it's why the 3rd album is often the best. It's the one where the artist is given more freedom but hasn't gone TOO far off the deep end with it experimentally. Experimental 4th/5th albums are sometimes truly exceptional and sometimes ... well... they're called experimental because experiments can fail, I guess.

[bots]

Arguably, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Everly Brothers, Chuck Berry etc were more influential musically than the beatles ever were and I find their stuff to be complete pish, so personal taste influences perception a lot. Younger generations, ie less than 18 yo are going to have a completely different opinion on what is good and that's how it should be

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think churning out huge amounts of content in a short period of time is really an indicator of quality... in fact it's one of the main reasons I don't think they're as great as people say. YES they do have great songs, but they have a lot of "filler" as well. Huge amount of music but most of it is forgettable ... some of it truly great. Like most pop artists these days to be honest. That's why I think it's a fairly apt comparison... Amongst their other influences, The Beatles were really the first massive "Pop band". Mostly releasing filler pop, and then there are a few tracks where you stop and say "oh wow this is stand-out".

Saying the Beatles are overrated in the field of music is like saying that Usain Bolt is overrated at sprinting.

You're talking absolute twoddle again. Now go away and click your fingers and tap your knee to The Lighthouse family, where you belong.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Saying the Beatles are overrated in the field of music is like saying that Usain Bolt is overrated at sprinting.

Why?

You should really try to actually back your arguments up Alf, it's fine that you disagree but "NO u r WRONG!!" is not really very convincing. Again I will reiterate that I'm not saying The Beatles weren't good, great even, nor that their contribution to music from that point onwards wasn't absolutely massive and perhaps even unparalleled ... but that doesn't mean I can't find them over-rated by some people. Some of their music is only average. Some of it is completely forgettable. Some people act like every note they played and every lyric that left their lips was crafted from solid gold and completely beyond criticism, which is obviously nonsense.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Alf

Saying the Beatles are overrated in the field of music is like saying that Usain Bolt is overrated at sprinting.

You're talking absolute twoddle again. Now go away and click your fingers and tap your knee to The Lighthouse family, where you belong.

Poor Lighthouse Family.

Ironically songs like Lifted & Ocean Drive are childhood memories for me.

[Zizu]

Now I’m not claiming these are standout Beatles songs

And I Love Her is a fairly well known song .. a single in the uk and an album track ( I think )

In the States they put it out as a single but with a strong b-side ... If I Fell




https://youtu.be/9_c2XZd9mMo

https://youtu.be/F_80s6S_7Vw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

A few random melodies



https://youtu.be/S-rB0pHI9fU

https://youtu.be/fR4HjTH_fTM

https://youtu.be/SyNt5zm3U_M

https://youtu.be/NrgmdOz227I

https://youtu.be/WoBLi5eE-wY

https://youtu.be/YBcdt6DsLQA

https://youtu.be/xdcSFVXd3MU

https://youtu.be/fR4HjTH_fTM

https://youtu.be/UelDrZ1aFeY


https://youtu.be/UPBd8eHQqIw

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro