Most overrated Beatles song?

[famous beagle]

Obviously, the Beatles are the greatest, but which song of theirs do you think is most overrated? That's not to say it's not a good song still, but it just may not be as great as so many of their others.

I vote for "Julia."

[undrgrnd studio]

Helter Skelter. Mehh.

[DAS19]

None are really over rated. If anything they are all rated to the greatness they are.

[tattered]

No such thing.....

[mattkw80]

I always loved Julia.....

....and then I heard Bongwater's cover of it.... and loved it even more.

(Check out Bongwater's album "Double Bummer". Amazing cover of that song)

[zazz]

Originally Posted by undrgrnd studio

Helter Skelter. Mehh.

yeah..i agree.....

[YeshuasFan]

"Revolution Number 9"
What a waste of tape and time!

[Nick The Man]

Julia never really gets "rated", not a very popular song... but if I had to pick a popular song that i think is over-rated, I would go with Yellow Submarine

[zazz]

Originally Posted by Nick The Man

Julia never really gets "rated", not a very popular song... but if I had to pick a popular song that i think is over-rated, I would go with Yellow Submarine

yellow submarine seems like an easy choice....but is it overated?? everyone seems to accept it as a childrens track ....and its catchy but nobody would say it was on the same artistic level as something such as yesterday.

[Whatmysay]

I think all their songs – well someone had to say it.

I get the whole greatness, classic thing. I get the crafting tunes for their time. I even get the lessons in song writing/arranging/melody for us all to learn (I assume we are including George Martin as well?).

But I am still not sure if they are where they are in our universal cannon simple because they where there at the start and helped define popular music and rock stars and so much more.

It is a bit like Charlie Chaplin’s physical comedy – I know that he is doing everything right, but why do I laugh at Mr Bean more. In his context Chaplin was a genius, but does he, other than an object lesson in craft, hold relevance for today?

I am not trying to be provocative or purposefully naive– just airing a real personal uncertainty about the perpetuation of the Beatles’ relevance to today’s song writers/musician/performers.

Please provide clarity if you think you have a better take on this.

[zazz]

Originally Posted by Whatmysay

I think all their songs – well someone had to say it.

I get the whole greatness, classic thing. I get the crafting tunes for their time. I even get the lessons in song writing/arranging/melody for us all to learn (I assume we are including George Martin as well?).

But I am still not sure if they are where they are in our universal cannon simple because they where there at the start and helped define popular music and rock stars and so much more.

It is a bit like Charlie Chaplin’s physical comedy – I know that he is doing everything right, but why do I laugh at Mr Bean more. In his context Chaplin was a genius, but does he, other than an object lesson in craft, hold relevance for today?

I am not trying to be provocative or purposefully naive– just airing a real personal uncertainty about the perpetuation of the Beatles’ relevance to today’s song writers/musician/performers.

Please provide clarity if you think you have a better take on this.

i think to a certain degree your right....its hard to seperate the history from the track itself..

but when i slap on "paper back writer" i am just blown away by the whole craft of that track ....if blur had done it i would love it just the same.

but for sure a lot of their lesser tracks get more respect for who they are written by ...but a well crafted pop song will stand the test of time and so far alot of those tracks are staying true to the course.

...people still smile and listen when a beatles track comes on....and thats the litmus test.

[Whatmysay]

Originally Posted by zazz

...people still smile and listen when a beatles track comes on....and thats the litmus test.

I know what you mean and I'm big on the smile test - but are they smiling because it is the Beatles and they think they have got to smile? Or did P.J.G.R. + G.M. do things that go to our DNA?

How do you separate innate excellences from culturally imposed values? Particularly when the criteria by which we judge excellence is crated culturally, with reference to previous exemplars of excellence often including the Beatles?

[zazz]

i think the true test is time ..and the beatles are being listened to by a generation that werent even alive during the creation of those tracks. Therefore the peer pressure ect to like that music doesnt exist for them.

Take for example oasis who pretty much emulated a lot of the beatles formula and were embraced by the 90s generation.....who are now clearly already becoming an also ran type band in the history of pop.

it would be hard to imagine that in the year 2040 we would be talking about an oasis track like we are now talking about beatles tracks that are now nearly fifty years old.

If the music wasnt truely remarkable then it would have been forgotten by now.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by zazz

i think the true test is time ..and the beatles are being listened to by a generation that werent even alive during the creation of those tracks. Therefore the peer pressure ect to like that music doesnt exist for them.

Take for example oasis who pretty much emulated a lot of the beatles formula and were embraced by the 90s generation.....who are now clearly already becoming an also ran type band in the history of pop.

it would be hard to imagine that in the year 2040 we would be talking about an oasis track like we are now talking about beatles tracks that are now nearly fifty years old.

If the music wasnt truely remarkable then it would have been forgotten by now.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[VSpaceBoy]

I can speak from the generation not around for the Beatles. The only exposure I got really was watch 'Life Goes On' the show.


I grew up in the 90's and snubbed the Beatles for sure. I learned guitar and started played grunge music so I was all about Soungarden, Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins etc. I made fun of the Beatles' music, and said most of the same stuff that was said earlier.. "It wouldn't hold its own these days" etc.


but I was wrong.

I bought a piano book with various different kinds of music from the 60's to today and just to make fun of it, I learned a Beatles song.

The problem was, is after I learned it, something magical happened... I was moved. I started learning more and more, and REALLY listening to it. Its very strange, but they did have a gift. One of my favorite songs to play on the piano to sing along with is Across the Universe.

[Whatmysay]

Originally Posted by zazz

i think the true test is time ..and the beatles are being listened to by a generation that werent even alive during the creation of those tracks. Therefore the peer pressure ect to like that music doesnt exist for them.

Take for example oasis who pretty much emulated a lot of the beatles formula and were embraced by the 90s generation.....who are now clearly already becoming an also ran type band in the history of pop.

it would be hard to imagine that in the year 2040 we would be talking about an oasis track like we are now talking about beatles tracks that are now nearly fifty years old.

If the music wasnt truely remarkable then it would have been forgotten by now.

I agree with this totally, but even following generation are not coming to Beatles music completely ignorant of its social relevance.

Also I make no claims about the persistence of Oasis, but I do not think you can compare apples (pardon the pun) with oranges - Oasis while demonstrating variations on a Beatles’ vibe, also cite Burt Bacharach as a major influence. Oasis also produced music in a considerable more saturated and crowded environment than the Beatles.

For me ‘The Long and Winding Road’ is one of the most beautiful songs written – but as a canon of work when compared to Bacharach or Elvis Costello or Dylan or U2 or The Police should the Beatles unquestionably stand out as something more.

I agree that the Beatles have stood the ‘test of time’ argument, but so has Shakespeare – supported by a whole industry and set of values about ‘classics we should appreciate’. Just standing the test of time does not necessarily equate to excellences. War, famine, greed, British Royal family have all stood the ‘test of time’!

The very title of the thread exemplifies the sort of debate that surrounds their music and no others. Why not ask ‘What is the most overrated song by the Rolling Stones’. There is an assumption that we already place the vast majority of the Beatles work above a watermark that only a few would fall below.

My question is why? And the ‘standing the test of time’ argument does not stand because the minute time passes, new social influences occur and cause a work to take on value way beyond it original context. Equally while the Oasis’s work is not popular at the moment who is to know where it will be

I’m not picking at individual beautiful, amazing, songs that prove the Beatles genius beyond a doubt – I am questioning the value placed on all their work.

[Whatmysay]

Originally Posted by zazz

i think the true test is time ..and the beatles are being listened to by a generation that werent even alive during the creation of those tracks. Therefore the peer pressure ect to like that music doesnt exist for them.

Take for example oasis who pretty much emulated a lot of the beatles formula and were embraced by the 90s generation.....who are now clearly already becoming an also ran type band in the history of pop.

it would be hard to imagine that in the year 2040 we would be talking about an oasis track like we are now talking about beatles tracks that are now nearly fifty years old.

If the music wasnt truely remarkable then it would have been forgotten by now.

I agree with this totally, but even following generation are not coming to Beatles music completely ignorant of its social relevance.

Also I make no claims about the persistence of Oasis, but I do not think you can compare apples (pardon the pun) with oranges - Oasis while demonstrating variations on a Beatles’ vibe, also cite Burt Bacharach as a major influence. Oasis also produced music in a considerable more saturated and crowded environment than the Beatles.

For me ‘The Long and Winding Road’ is one of the most beautiful songs written – but as a canon of work when compared to Bacharach or Elvis Costello or Dylan or U2 or The Police should the Beatles unquestionably stand out as something more.

I agree that the Beatles have stood the ‘test of time’ argument, but so has Shakespeare – supported by a whole industry and set of values about ‘classics we should appreciate’. Just standing the test of time does not necessarily equate to excellences. War, famine, greed, British Royal family have all stood the ‘test of time’!

The very title of the thread exemplifies the sort of debate that surrounds their music and no others. Why not ask ‘What is the most overrated song by the Rolling Stones’. There is an assumption that we already place the vast majority of the Beatles work above a watermark that only a few would fall below.

My question is why? And the ‘standing the test of time’ argument does not stand because the minute time passes, new social influences occur and cause a work to take on value way beyond it original context. Equally while the Oasis’s work is not popular at the moment who is to know where it will be in the charts in 2015?

I’m not picking at individual beautiful, amazing, songs that prove the Beatles genius beyond a doubt – I am questioning the value placed on all their work collectively.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by Whatmysay

I agree with this totally, but even following generation are not coming to Beatles music completely ignorant of its social relevance.

Also I make no claims about the persistence of Oasis, but I do not think you can compare apples (pardon the pun) with oranges - Oasis while demonstrating variations on a Beatles’ vibe, also cite Burt Bacharach as a major influence. Oasis also produced music in a considerable more saturated and crowded environment than the Beatles.

For me ‘The Long and Winding Road’ is one of the most beautiful songs written – but as a canon of work when compared to Bacharach or Elvis Costello or Dylan or U2 or The Police should the Beatles unquestionably stand out as something more.

I agree that the Beatles have stood the ‘test of time’ argument, but so has Shakespeare – supported by a whole industry and set of values about ‘classics we should appreciate’. Just standing the test of time does not necessarily equate to excellences. War, famine, greed, British Royal family have all stood the ‘test of time’!

The very title of the thread exemplifies the sort of debate that surrounds their music and no others. Why not ask ‘What is the most overrated song by the Rolling Stones’. There is an assumption that we already place the vast majority of the Beatles work above a watermark that only a few would fall below.

My question is why? And the ‘standing the test of time’ argument does not stand because the minute time passes, new social influences occur and cause a work to take on value way beyond it original context. Equally while the Oasis’s work is not popular at the moment who is to know where it will be in the charts in 2015?

I’m not picking at individual beautiful, amazing, songs that prove the Beatles genius beyond a doubt – I am questioning the value placed on all their work collectively.

To this I'd say I think you may be thinking too much about it. It's kind of like the chicken or the egg. Are the beatles great because we think they are, or do we think they are because they're great?

Try to think of another band that had the combined critical and commercial success throughout their career (and afterwards). You had classical music theorists commenting on their songwriting as early as their 3rd album.

The public speak in terms of appreciation and sales. Obviously, sales are not the only valid factor in the judgement of artistic merit, because bands like NKOTB sell millions of records. However, after their brief careers, bands like them and the Spice Girls and whomever else disappear completely and usually become the subject of mockery.

Critical acclaim is the other big factor in judging artistic merit, and most of those flash in the pan successes have absolutely nothing in this regard. Even with artists that have sustained long successful careers, such as Shania Twain, one can hardly argue that she receives a fraction of the critical acclaim as someone like the Beatles.

The Beatles are in their elite status, in my opinion, because they managed to combine these two forms of success more consitently and in a greater scale than any other artists. Sure they had a few flops in their day, such as Magical Mystery Tour (which of course in hindsight contains some brilliant stuff in my opinion), but for the most part, they sustained a long, successful, groundbreaking career in which they never really had a weak moment.

Yes, many bands have had much longer careers, but I defy you to name any whose star shone brighter during their time and continues to do so afterward.

If they had burnt out shortly after Beatlemania, I could understand your point. But that was only the beginning. They continued innovation after innovation after that and experienced enormous commercial and critical success while doing it. That's the reason they're viewed as legends and not just some significant footnote in music history.

To add to all this, it's interesting to point out that all of the bands you named would, without hesitation, attest to the Beatle's unquestionable brilliance and deserved legendary status.

[Whatmysay]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

To this I'd say I think you may be thinking too much about it. It's kind of like the chicken or the egg. Are the beatles great because we think they are, or do we think they are because they're great?

Try to think of another band that had the combined critical and commercial success throughout their career (and afterwards). You had classical music theorists commenting on their songwriting as early as their 3rd album.

The public speak in terms of appreciation and sales. Obviously, sales are not the only valid factor in the judgement of artistic merit, because bands like NKOTB sell millions of records. However, after their brief careers, bands like them and the Spice Girls and whomever else disappear completely and usually become the subject of mockery.

Critical acclaim is the other big factor in judging artistic merit, and most of those flash in the pan successes have absolutely nothing in this regard. Even with artists that have sustained long successful careers, such as Shania Twain, one can hardly argue that she receives a fraction of the critical acclaim as someone like the Beatles.

The Beatles are in their elite status, in my opinion, because they managed to combine these two forms of success more consitently and in a greater scale than any other artists. Sure they had a few flops in their day, such as Magical Mystery Tour (which of course in hindsight contains some brilliant stuff in my opinion), but for the most part, they sustained a long, successful, groundbreaking career in which they never really had a weak moment.

Yes, many bands have had much longer careers, but I defy you to name any whose star shone brighter during their time and continues to do so afterward.

If they had burnt out shortly after Beatlemania, I could understand your point. But that was only the beginning. They continued innovation after innovation after that and experienced enormous commercial and critical success while doing it. That's the reason they're viewed as legends and not just some significant footnote in music history.

To add to all this, it's interesting to point out that all of the bands you named would, without hesitation, attest to the Beatle's unquestionable brilliance and deserved legendary status.

Thank you this is the clarity I have failed to articulate to myself

Cheers

Burt

[DAS19]

Originally Posted by VSpaceBoy

I can speak from the generation not around for the Beatles. The only exposure I got really was watch 'Life Goes On' the show.


I grew up in the 90's and snubbed the Beatles for sure. I learned guitar and started played grunge music so I was all about Soungarden, Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins etc. I made fun of the Beatles' music, and said most of the same stuff that was said earlier.. "It wouldn't hold its own these days" etc.


but I was wrong.

I bought a piano book with various different kinds of music from the 60's to today and just to make fun of it, I learned a Beatles song.

The problem was, is after I learned it, something magical happened... I was moved. I started learning more and more, and REALLY listening to it. Its very strange, but they did have a gift. One of my favorite songs to play on the piano to sing along with is Across the Universe.

If you make fun of the Beatles music then you haven't listened to it enough. Period.

[VSpaceBoy]

Originally Posted by DAS19

If you make fun of the Beatles music then you haven't listened to it enough. Period.

That was my point. I didn't give it a chance because of trendy latest and greatest and being childish.

Kind of like food that looks gross that you joke about before you try it. Its easy to do, then when you take a bite in private your eyes are opened.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by VSpaceBoy

That was my point. I didn't give it a chance because of trendy latest and greatest and being childish.

Kind of like food that looks gross that you joke about before you try it. Its easy to do, then when you take a bite in private your eyes are opened.

That nevery really happened with brussel sprouts though. I tried those and realized why they have that reputation.

[geewizu2]

Originally Posted by zazz

i think to a certain degree your right....its hard to seperate the history from the track itself..

but when i slap on "paper back writer" i am just blown away by the whole craft of that track ....if blur had done it i would love it just the same.

but for sure a lot of their lesser tracks get more respect for who they are written by ...but a well crafted pop song will stand the test of time and so far alot of those tracks are staying true to the course.

...people still smile and listen when a beatles track comes on....and thats the litmus test.

Yea ! Best recorded…crafted piece of art. Put on a pair of headphones and listen to Paperback Writer. It’s amazing.

[Xeries]

If I never heard When I'm 64, I think never would have missed it.

[D_Vincent]

For me the most overrated Beatles song is probably - Hello Goodbye...Its an ok sounding song however it repeats itself a bit to much for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf2S7kKLtEQ

I like the beatles music and listened to it a lot when I was growing up in the 70's...i had an older brother who used to buy a lot of music and I would listen to the beatles every night when i went to bed.

Having said that though i have never bought a beatles record for myself...i have learned a lot of their tunes from tapes my brother made for me however i was spending my cash on Zeppelin and Van Halen records...