Imagine a boy band becoming the most famous people in the world then releasing Revolver and Sgt Pepper in the span of like six months. Absolutely insane
The only time I ever heard people say the Beatles suck was from "punk rockers" at some shitty venue. They don't know how boring and shitty their own music is of course.
@@desuretard8654the beatles started out as a boy band as part of a wave of ultra commercialization of rock that had nothing against stealing chuck berry's or the beach boys work, this, aside from not wanting my ears to bleed personally is why i dislike them
Please remember that the sound systems for live performance was pretty bad back then. No monitors, very little mics on the amplifiers, etc. Not to mention they could not hear themselves over the crowd. They also were effectively a bar band that ended up on huge stages. They never really got the big crowd thing down. If they toured today they would have had touring musicians supporting them. e.g. a pro bass player to play when Paul was on piano, a keyboard player when Paul or John had to a song that included piano and a percussionist so they could fill out the percussion as they did on the recordings. And a string and horn section!
Yes, also like they could have some ppl to do stings, brass and other stuff, am amazing example of That is the beach boys assembling one of the greatest support live band (shootouts to Ed Carter and Billy hinsche)
The Beatles were NOT overrated as performers. On the contrary, they were the best from the time they returned from their first Hamburg gig until right when they were internationals stars. No rock n roll band could touch them.
I think the fact that they even got through their performances of the songs live at-all during the Beatlemania years was an amazing achievement. When we listen back to the thin mono recordings of those gigs, it doesn’t even begin to do justice to how incredibly ear-burstingly loud the screams were. They couldn’t hear a thing, Ringo basically read Paul’s backside movements to have any idea where he was in the song. They still pulled it off. They had amazing chemistry, in and out of the studio. The Beatles are underrated.
@@gtrdoc911 it just dawned on me those are all Harrison songs yes haha. Actually I think John wrote the greatest Beatles songs.: Strawberry, In My Life, A Day in the Life, Across the Universe
@@bobsbigboy_ l too have a soft spot for Lennon but Mc and G were legends too. Incredible that such talent coexisted at the same time, at the same place.
Technically I’m not a hater, but, with all due respect, let’s not make assumptions/stereotypes about haters! We have no way of knowing what they have/-n’t heard!
The most incredible thing about the Beatles is their range. And I think ironically this is a major reason for the haters. Truth be told, this even bothered John. He always made fun of Paul's "granny songs" but that generated their broad sppeal. The rockers love Zep, Sabbath, Priest and consider the Beatles wimpy because of Honey Pie, etc. Yet what rocks more than Skelter and Yer Blues? And the "granny songs" had much more complex chord structure than any heavy metal song.
I grew up in Memphis, the center of Beatles hate. ...but I'm a 90s kid, so I never saw any of that. People weren't as religious and conservative when I grew up there. Everyone I knew loved the Beatles. In my own personal experience, I've found two main types of Beatles haters. The first is the contrarian/edgelord. They're just trying to sound nonconformist and they NEVER actually have an argument to back up their opinion. They just say "oVeRrAtEd" and then dip out. The second is the conspiracy theorist. The dumb ones think that Paul is dead and the _slightly_ smarter ones think that the Beatles were a PSYOP and creation of the Tavistock Institute. This is actually based in some truth. The Tavistock Institute is definitely a rabbit hole worth going down and there's plenty of evidence that the CIA was deeply involved in shaping/infiltrating the counterculture of the 60s. That's a fact and Lennon even discussed it a tiny bit in his last interviews. ...but in my decades of researching that stuff, I've NEVER seen any connections between intelligence agencies and the Beatles. None. I agree that the Beatles weren't very solid as a live band and I'll even add that in the early years, George's lead guitar playing was really sloppy. As a guitarist, some of his early period solos bug the crap out of me. His vibrato technique was pretty rough. But as an audio engineer, I do have to give them some credit. They were playing with no real PA system, no vocal monitors, no sound guy, and an ocean of screaming kids. The fact that they were as tight as they were is actually pretty damn impressive. RIngo said that a lot of times, he would use Paul and John's head bobbing as cues because he couldn't actually hear them at all. They probably got even worse after '66 because they really only played a song together enough to learn it and get the basic track down on tape for overdubs. I can think of _a lot_ of artists who gained global success but are totally overrated. The masses are dumb and easily influenced by trends and marketing. ...but the Beatles gained global appreciation because they were simply THAT GOOD.
@@clicheguevara5282 Great points and overall great comment! Yeah i mean i’ve seen some decent arguments, but all of them eventually fall back on opinion, which is fine, but baseless. That’s kinda my goal with this vid, i know that some of those “edgelords” will stop by to say their piece, so maybe among them i will see some decent points
Although Brian Epstein marketed The Beatles really well. They were lucky to have Epstein and George Martin as part of the team. Plus they came out in just the precise moment in history to be successful. They had talent and luck on their side. An overrated band would have flopped in a year.
Thank you for this video! My only issue was your critique of their Performance! I was 8 on February 9th 1964 and watched their Ed Sullivan performance! It was the most exciting thing I had ever seen!!! They looked like they came from another planet! We had never seen a band like that! Trust me the next day at school every guy had a Beatles haircut! (At least guys who didn’t have a buzz cut like me😂) Watching them performing was amazing and you can hear the reaction of the girls. (You have to admit that there live performances sounded like their records) My advice is to watch their 1964 concert in Washington DC! Sure their concerts were around 40 minutes long but notice the joy the Beatles had performing and the Beatlemania of the crowd! As far as Quincy Jones comment, the Beatles were the very definition of a Garage Band! They were not graduates of The Royal Academy of Music! The Beatles were a bar band that went on to conquer the world!
@@gregoryrish8505 Yeah, i see what you mean! As i said i do believe 1964 was a good year for them as performers, but the other years im not the biggest fan but i think its more a thing of “had to be there” you know? Great comment!!
Also, disregarding Beatles for Sale as one would with Yellow Submarine is crazy. Beatles for Sale is an incredible album, it’s just that it has to compete with other Beatles’ album. Any rock band of that era would’ve loved to have written what they had on Beatles for Sale.
This is a slightly dangerous point of view. Whilst I agree that The Beatles were honestly one of the best bands of all time, to shut down the "The Beatles are overrated" schtick, however badly expressed, is evidence of "groupthink" and must be looked into.
In the early years, the performance was certainly good because they were well-rehearsed and always played with the same line-up: Drums, bass, rhythm guitar and lead guitar. At the earliest since Rubber Soul, but at the latest since Revolver, the Beatles broke away from their “usual” music and tried out a lot of new things. It takes time to find the right sound for a song, especially as they didn't write down their music and arrangements. They also tried out other instruments: classical instruments of all kinds, synthesizers, sitar and so on. In the end, they sat in the studio and let their pieces grow through trial and error. This was the reason why the Beatles didn't give any more concerts after 1966 (apart from the rooftop concert for Let it be). So I think it's very unreasonable to give the Beatles a bad mark for performance.
As someone who does genuinely think The Beatles are a little overrated, nothing frustrates me more than seeing people who just blindly say it for the sake of contrarianism. It doesn't provide for any substantive discussion at all (which is my favourite thing about music!), and essentially just reduces dialogue surrounding it to "album good" or "album bad". This doesn't just happen with The Beatles either, you can go into any beloved band's fanbase (be it Radiohead, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd), and there will always be people who just cry overrated for the sake of clicks and attention. Obviously people can think any bands/artists are overrated (again, I'm in that camp with The Beatles), but if you can't provide any meaning behind your opinions outside of just trying to get attention, I don't see the point of even commenting them in the first place. Please, create interesting dialogue, and stop boiling opinions down to "good", "bad", and "overrated"!
@@humanreviewsstuff 100%!! I would ask your reasoning to why they are overrated but i scroll through some of your vids and i saw you reacted to most of their albums, so I’ll probably just watch them and see what you have to say
Any band that can record and release albums like *_Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album_* and *_Abbey Road_* all in the span of about 4 short years is definitely *NOT* overrated.
@@Yemeno45 Yes it is as it is regarded as the first studio developed album. By this time they were already fed up with making songs for stage and were progressing. Like Beatles for Sale it was pushed for the American market but at least no single was taken from it in the UK. Magical Mystery Tour is a bad example as it wasn't an official Beatles album. Once again it was released in the US much against their wishes. Once they stopped touring EMI and Capitol were worried they were going to split so released as much as they could to capitalise whet they could. The reason why Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields weren't on Sgt Pepper.
@@Yemeno45 That's the thing it wasn't a album for hits it was an "Album," The Beatles didn't like putting hits on albums as they felt it cheated the customer. MMT wasn't an album at all it was an EP but in America they (Capitol) put out the EP plus the three last singles to make an album. It's why the UK albums differ from the US albums.
Not even worth talking about! If you were not around when The Beatles first came to the US on Feb.7, 1964...then you missed everything!...You have NO idea what it was like! If The Beatles hadn't happened...then you've got no Rolling Stones...No Who...No Kinks...No DC5...No Led Zep...No Hendrix...No electric Dylan...No Byrds...No Creedence...No Elton John...No ELO...No British Invasion...NOTHING! They changed EVERYTHING.....
Could you please cover their begining and their experience with drugs? In terms how the drugs using affected their relationship and their music in general. I think Its great topic and its closely conected with their work at the studios and during recording sessions. Thanks a lot😊
I love the Beatles and I absolutely don't think they are overrated. However, in terms of greatest discography in music, I'd choose Joni Mitchell. She released masterpieces like "Clouds", "Ladies of the Canyon", "Blue", "For The Roses", "Court and Spark", "The Hissing of Summer Lawns" and "Hejira" in 7 years, like the Beatles. Add to that "Miles of Aisles" (a live album released the same year as "Court and Spark") and you have the best discography.
@@bulldoginyellowsubmarine9259 Joni is up there for me too! Not as high as The Beatles but then again, for me nobody is. If you like Joni you should give Vashti Bunyam a try, she is an amazing singer although only released a few albums
The Beatles chucked a song over to the Stones that was their first hit…and they could not hear themselves play live. The PAs were terrible back then with no monitors like now. Just listen to the rooftop concert from Get Back/Let it be…just brilliant when they could actually hear through the bloody screaming. I’m not sure you actually realise the noise of 10,000 screaming kids can make when you have 50 watt amps to play with. Even Shea stadium they played with a 100 watt set up…for 67,000 people. If you want to know what they sounded like live, listen to their early albums.
"Beatles '65" and "Help" (American release) are great albums in their own right! Unfortunately, most critics don't give these albums any credit for what they are! Those two albums are better than anything their peers did in the seventies, eighties, nineties, and 2000's! I own "Pet Sounds" and it is very 'overrated', especially the garbage 'mini opera' of Mike Love's on side two.
Great video. Although, I disagree with your reasoning for them being overrated performers based on having bad recordings. Taping playthroughs is part of the song writing process in many instances. Especially for the Beatles when you consider how much they innovated studio production. So the assumption that every taping was them attempting to perform the finished song isn't accurate
And I think the fact John didn't know the words to his songs performing live on the rooftop is more a comment on how good the performance level was. They were writing, jamming a recording the songs in quick succession. John didn't learn all the words to Don't Let Me Down, but the arrangement is NOT simple, they were pretty tight and in tune (no clicks, no headsets/earpieces) - and it looks like they just chucked on the first warm clothes to hand, as also it was the middle of winter on a rooftop. And it looks kinda effortless. And they'd done bugger all live performances for years. And the chemistry is there. They knocked out albums in weeks. I would dispute it took them a lot of takes. I'd say it's more that they were writing and jamming and arranging on the fly (mainly thinking of Rubber Soul here), and because they were the Beatles, they recorded everything and kept everything. Led Zeppelin II is one of my very favrourite albums. It's pretty safe to say the individual performances on that album show a level of virtuosity beyond the Beatles. But it really does lack the finesse or tightness of a Beatles album. In conclusion, Beatles performances not being up to par, evidenced by the number of takes where they didn't get it right... I'm not sure I buy it.
People think “overpraised” and “overrated” are the same thing. The Beatles are overpraised by the media and fans, not overrated by music critics and certainly not by their peers.
I find that people who dislike The Beatles only know the half dozen songs that are usually played on the radio. I'll ask them how many songs they can name and they struggle to get three. Their dislike is usually based on ignorance. People I work with will play me some insipid and derivative singer (it's hardly ever a band) they claim to be profound or musically innovative, and without exception it's some dreary number with lyrics a 13-year-old could have written, or really on-the-nose themes which have zero nuance. No matter if the song is a ballad or more up-tempo, the singers perform each song in an almost identical manner. There's none of McCartney's or Lennon's vocal variety, and the instrumentation is dreary and predictable. Paul McCartney's bass lines alone are more interesting than 2020s pop. I find it hard to relate to people who don't at least admire The Beatles, even if they prefer other bands and singers. Plus, they're missing out massively. I disagree that the Beach Boys were more influential as a pop band. They were excellent at their best, but their best stuff was often on albums hardly anyone bought (even Pet Sounds sold poorly in America on release), and after Pet Sounds they basically fell off a cliff in terms of commercial success. Plus, of course, the Beatles had far more number one albums and singles, and their music was covered by other acts exhaustively. Hardly any cover versions of Beach Boys hits had any kind of success, so clearly their pop hits weren't as influential as the Beatles'.
I disagree on one point you made, I agree they were clumsy performers but disagree they didn’t have chemistry while performing, the chemistry they have on stage is actually the good part of their performance, also they could improvise alright, there was one in particular instance where they were performing Help! And John fucked up the lyrics so when Paul and George had to come in with the backing verses they just repeated what John said even tho it was wrong to make it less noticeable, and they did this together on the spot. Another one was when John’s microphone was extremely loud compared to Paul and while singing he stepped back to allow Paul’s voice to be heard. I mean, I think the reason why some of their performances were shit is because first the equipment sucked, second the screaming, and they also unckowledged this they because of that they couldn’t hear themselves and they would suck, reason why they stopped touring, and also they were still relatively new to performing for large crowds, it was only a couple of years essentially, and they certainly had grown as musicians and you can tell in their last live performance on the roof.
Their last live performance on the roof was after they had 3 more years of practice in the studio. They didn't have much practice time during their touring years and they have admitted they weren't sounding good in their live performances in 1966.
If anything, The Beatles are underrated. Let's set music aside for a second. The cultural impact of the beatles is unmatched. The Beatles singlehandedly lifted the spirits of an entire nation, perhaps the world. Again, you need to understand the history. At the end November 1963, the United States, and the world, were in MOURNING over the assassination of JFK. Thanksgiving 1963 was dark socially. Christmas 1963, the holiday that gives us hope, failed to lift the spirits of a nation that was still talking about the assassination of JFK. Then February 1964 came, and Ed Sullivan introduced the nation to a band that lifted everyone spirits. The Beatles gave us something to shout about again. Who were these guys?? They were witty, charming, and played so well, and more importantly, they were YOUNG. We all wanted to be like them. On the night the beatles were introduced on Ed Sullivan, CRIME in America went down! That is just how captivating they were. Within a year, everyone had longer hair. Everyone was wearing Beatle "boots." More importantly, musicians began to write their own songs, and perform them, just because the beatles could do it. Elvis? Never wrote a song in his life. The Beatles made Elvis look like a hip Frank Sinatra or Pat Boone. Now, you had to do more than just "sing." You had to create, play, and sing.
@@michaellacross5266 Your comment reminds me of something Ozzy Osbourne said “the before and after The Beatles was like going to sleep in a black and white world, and wake up in a multicolor world”
You are right except for the live performances. They are acknowledged by the most accomplished musician RUclipsrs as one of the best live performers of all time.
Have you heard the Live At The BBC albums? Such great performances there, definitely done with little time for rehearsals due to their hectic schedule of 1963/1964 but still impressively solid. Have you heard the Star-Club concerts from Hamburg 1962? The band chemistry over there is quite plain strong to my ears, as is on the rooftop concert
this is an argument I can't back down on. it's ok for anyone to not like the Beatles, but you can't call artists who changed the entire landscape of the medium they worked in overrated
Actually the 69 roof top session was incredible. I suspect you are not a practising musician. Try playing the riff to I Dig a Pony by John and George''s incredibly tasty licks. Pretty challenging esp. in the cold. Of course Paul's bass and vocals were always other worldly.
Creating great music demands much of one's time. Segovia was an incredible performer but did not compose, while Álvarez was a brilliant composer who did not perform.
Almost everyone will admit that they weren't the best musicians of all time. They were all professional level musicians but George was no Jeff Beck or Jimi Hendrix. The Beatles never did any improvising in live performances, as far as I know. We can't really rate them with respect to metal, punk, new wave, grunge, emo or hip hop, because they were too early to participate in those genres, so young listeners may rate them unfairly in that respect. So, what is their real claim to fame. It's their songwriting. Lennon & McCartney was the greatest songwriting team of their generation, and I haven't heard of anyone better than them as of 2024. I have aspired to be a good songwriter since I got my first guitar in 1964, and the Beatles have always been my personal benchmark when rating my own efforts.
@@ktcarl Talor Swift is talented,but not to the same extent as the Beatles. She has @ a dozen songwriters helping her write her songs, and they aren't anywhere near as creative as Lennon & McCartney.
I find most of the people who are “anti-Beatles” where late Boomers born in the late 50s/early 60s who because they were born during those years grew up when the Beatles where active but simply too young to appreciate the music that came out and only when they broke up that generation began to appreciate music of the 70s there was a growing resentment having to listen to the early boomer generation born in the late 40s/early 50s saying how great the band was and it caused a reaction no doubt intensified with the outbreak of late 70s Punk & New Wave that was entirely divorced from the 60s/early 70s music artists.
@@stormhawk3319 Yesss! There’s also my generation who have heard the usual Beatlemania records but don’t know about the second half of their discography (their best)
I recently attended the 9 oct love fest for Lennon and the Beatles at central park in NYC. This is the 39 th year this has occurred. What other band gets this adulation?
I'm one of "them", I'm afraid. I genuinely don't understand the godlike reverence the Beatles have always received. They had only two or three OK tracks, their best was released posthumously (so-to-speak - "Free as a Bird"); they couldn't dance, they had stupid hair, and their later material was straight-up _gibberish_ . "You had to be there" my parents say. Thank goodness I wasn't, is what I say.
Someone made a comment that the Beatles were a boy band !! No they were not. They were, and forever will be a group of musical geniuses who came together and brought some of the best music the world has ever seen. They will be played forever like Mozart and Bach. There is no problem if there are people who dislike them - not everyone has reached a level of maturity and can understand the higher spiritual level of their music 🎶🎵
Actually, stick around RUclips long enough, most people, places & things have haters. I just shrug. Your life views end at the tip of my nose. Beatles did fine before, they’ll do fine after whatever.
I think Beatles are overrated because the popular songs that came out before the Beatles like Stand by me Rock around the Clock or Be my Baby have more rhythm and better vocals than The Beatles music they sound like folk or indie music to me
I kind of agree that their early material can be very simplistic with its sound, but I think that anything past Rubber Soul was very cool. It's when they truly started revolutionizing rock music and other genres
The Beatles were great however calling them "geniuses" is ridiculous. Without question, the Beatles are the most overrated musical group in history. John Lennon was right on target when he referred to much of Paul M.'s songs as granny music.
Check the who, the doors, the yardbirds, jeff beck, hendrix, rolling stones. Musically the beatles are not a breakthrough they didn't do anything different. They are the face if the 60s because they were really good, but they get glorified like they invented music. I'm not critisicing the beatles, I've got mad respect for them. I'm saying that everyone should listen to more music and be objective. I don't see armies of people defending black sabbath for practically creating metal. But whenever the beatles are questioned its like you don't know shit. That's called being a stan, not liking music.
"Musically the beatles are not a breakthrough they didn't do anything different. " Lennon & McCartney were the best songwriting team of their generation. They were adept at using counterpoint, changing keys and consistently writing melody hooks in their songs. I would rate them along with the great composers in history, up there with Clair de Luna & Moonlight Sonata. My opinion of course.
The Beatles are definitely overrated, there’s lots of Beatle fans that discount many artist because of how high of a pedestal the beatles are given. Some fans treat the beatles with such high regard, and forget many other artists were just as innovative in the 60s (Jimi Hendrix, The Beach Boys, Rolling Stones) especially with more contemporary 60s movements. The Beatles were a dynasty in popularity with their airplay, and I think some Beatles fans are quick to dismiss other bands or artist. Their legacy will never be forgotten and people already know how big they are. There’s no shortage of Beatle fans. With that being said though, they are my favorite band and deserve the respect as best band in the world lol
I personally don't disregard the other artists, but it is a fact that when you try to listen to the full discography of the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys, there are certain songs or albums that are very forgettable because of how much they have released from the 1960s until the modern day. I'm not saying that any Beach Boys material past the 60s is bad for instance, but it is simply less memorable or there are less gems. Then, bands like Jimi Hendrix Experience and CCR are iconic, but they did not last for long (only releasing a few albums in a couple of years). For me, the magic of the Beatles is that they only lasted through the 60s, and the truly progressed from 1962-1969 when they stopped recording new music. They didn't last too long for them to become irrelevant, and their releases are mostly perfectly well-rounded (when listening to their albums, there are barely any songs that I would skip over). Their evolution is what makes me appreciate them just as much as other bands, and the fact that they covered a lot of ground in terms of genres and innovative production techniques. I understand they can't be everyone's cup of tea, but they definitely deserve a high pedestal alongside other musicians
I only listened to the rock n roll radio stations in 1963 thru 1965 and there was just no one better than The Beatles. They couldn't be touched. The 'overrated' argument is very puzzling and mostly thrown out there by people not born in the '60's.
The most incredible thing about the Beatles is their range. And I think ironically this is a major reason for the haters. Truth be told, this even bothered John. He always made fun of Paul's "granny songs" but that generated their broad sppeal. The rockers love Zep, Sabbath, Priest and consider the Beatles wimpy because of Honey Pie, etc. Yet what rocks more than Skelter and Yer Blues? And the "granny songs" had much more complex chord structure than any heavy metal song.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine a boy band becoming the most famous people in the world then releasing Revolver and Sgt Pepper in the span of like six months. Absolutely insane
@@azloii9781 EXACTLY
They were NEVER a boy band .
except the fact that they never were a boyband lol
I think contrarians have peddled the idea that the Beatles suck for so long that the tide is starting to swing back in the Beatles' favor
The only time I ever heard people say the Beatles suck was from "punk rockers" at some shitty venue.
They don't know how boring and shitty their own music is of course.
@@desuretard8654the beatles started out as a boy band as part of a wave of ultra commercialization of rock that had nothing against stealing chuck berry's or the beach boys work, this, aside from not wanting my ears to bleed personally is why i dislike them
@@xavier4519 you've got to be crazy
rhis is genuinely incorrect @@xavier4519
Please remember that the sound systems for live performance was pretty bad back then. No monitors, very little mics on the amplifiers, etc. Not to mention they could not hear themselves over the crowd. They also were effectively a bar band that ended up on huge stages. They never really got the big crowd thing down. If they toured today they would have had touring musicians supporting them. e.g. a pro bass player to play when Paul was on piano, a keyboard player when Paul or John had to a song that included piano and a percussionist so they could fill out the percussion as they did on the recordings. And a string and horn section!
Yes, also like they could have some ppl to do stings, brass and other stuff, am amazing example of That is the beach boys assembling one of the greatest support live band (shootouts to Ed Carter and Billy hinsche)
And a half dozen women, harmonizing!
The Beatles were NOT overrated as performers. On the contrary, they were the best from the time they returned from their first Hamburg gig until right when they were internationals stars. No rock n roll band could touch them.
Right! If The Beatles were overrated then how bad did that make all the other bands from both England and America in the early 60's?
I think the fact that they even got through their performances of the songs live at-all during the Beatlemania years was an amazing achievement. When we listen back to the thin mono recordings of those gigs, it doesn’t even begin to do justice to how incredibly ear-burstingly loud the screams were. They couldn’t hear a thing, Ringo basically read Paul’s backside movements to have any idea where he was in the song. They still pulled it off.
They had amazing chemistry, in and out of the studio. The Beatles are underrated.
Beatles haters have never heard blue jay way, circles, its all too much, only a northern song etc etc. so much fascinating gold in their catalog
Obviously a Harrison fan.
@@gtrdoc911 it just dawned on me those are all Harrison songs yes haha. Actually I think John wrote the greatest Beatles songs.: Strawberry, In My Life, A Day in the Life, Across the Universe
@@bobsbigboy_ l too have a soft spot for Lennon but Mc and G were legends too. Incredible that such talent coexisted at the same time, at the same place.
Technically I’m not a hater, but, with all due respect, let’s not make assumptions/stereotypes about haters! We have no way of knowing what they have/-n’t heard!
@@EdwardRoach-gp5gv the thing is tho most their haters eventually get proven to have only heard like 5 of their most popular songs
Anyone who "doesn't like the Beatles" just needs to listen to more of their songs.
The most incredible thing about the Beatles is their range. And I think ironically this is a major reason for the haters. Truth be told, this even bothered John. He always made fun of Paul's "granny songs" but that generated their broad sppeal. The rockers love Zep, Sabbath, Priest and consider the Beatles wimpy because of Honey Pie, etc. Yet what rocks more than Skelter and Yer Blues? And the "granny songs" had much more complex chord structure than any heavy metal song.
You can hate all the Beatles all you want but your favourite artist would not agree with you
I grew up in Memphis, the center of Beatles hate. ...but I'm a 90s kid, so I never saw any of that. People weren't as religious and conservative when I grew up there. Everyone I knew loved the Beatles.
In my own personal experience, I've found two main types of Beatles haters. The first is the contrarian/edgelord. They're just trying to sound nonconformist and they NEVER actually have an argument to back up their opinion. They just say "oVeRrAtEd" and then dip out. The second is the conspiracy theorist. The dumb ones think that Paul is dead and the _slightly_ smarter ones think that the Beatles were a PSYOP and creation of the Tavistock Institute. This is actually based in some truth. The Tavistock Institute is definitely a rabbit hole worth going down and there's plenty of evidence that the CIA was deeply involved in shaping/infiltrating the counterculture of the 60s. That's a fact and Lennon even discussed it a tiny bit in his last interviews. ...but in my decades of researching that stuff, I've NEVER seen any connections between intelligence agencies and the Beatles. None.
I agree that the Beatles weren't very solid as a live band and I'll even add that in the early years, George's lead guitar playing was really sloppy. As a guitarist, some of his early period solos bug the crap out of me. His vibrato technique was pretty rough. But as an audio engineer, I do have to give them some credit. They were playing with no real PA system, no vocal monitors, no sound guy, and an ocean of screaming kids. The fact that they were as tight as they were is actually pretty damn impressive. RIngo said that a lot of times, he would use Paul and John's head bobbing as cues because he couldn't actually hear them at all. They probably got even worse after '66 because they really only played a song together enough to learn it and get the basic track down on tape for overdubs.
I can think of _a lot_ of artists who gained global success but are totally overrated. The masses are dumb and easily influenced by trends and marketing. ...but the Beatles gained global appreciation because they were simply THAT GOOD.
@@clicheguevara5282 Great points and overall great comment! Yeah i mean i’ve seen some decent arguments, but all of them eventually fall back on opinion, which is fine, but baseless.
That’s kinda my goal with this vid, i know that some of those “edgelords” will stop by to say their piece, so maybe among them i will see some decent points
Although Brian Epstein marketed The Beatles really well. They were lucky to have Epstein and George Martin as part of the team. Plus they came out in just the precise moment in history to be successful. They had talent and luck on their side. An overrated band would have flopped in a year.
Thank you for this video! My only issue was your critique of their Performance! I was 8 on February 9th 1964 and watched their Ed Sullivan performance! It was the most exciting thing I had ever seen!!! They looked like they came from another planet! We had never seen a band like that! Trust me the next day at school every guy had a Beatles haircut! (At least guys who didn’t have a buzz cut like me😂) Watching them performing was amazing and you can hear the reaction of the girls. (You have to admit that there live performances sounded like their records) My advice is to watch their 1964 concert in Washington DC! Sure their concerts were around 40 minutes long but notice the joy the Beatles had performing and the Beatlemania of the crowd! As far as Quincy Jones comment, the Beatles were the very definition of a Garage Band! They were not graduates of The Royal Academy of Music! The Beatles were a bar band that went on to conquer the world!
@@gregoryrish8505 Yeah, i see what you mean! As i said i do believe 1964 was a good year for them as performers, but the other years im not the biggest fan but i think its more a thing of “had to be there” you know?
Great comment!!
Also, disregarding Beatles for Sale as one would with Yellow Submarine is crazy. Beatles for Sale is an incredible album, it’s just that it has to compete with other Beatles’ album. Any rock band of that era would’ve loved to have written what they had on Beatles for Sale.
This is a slightly dangerous point of view. Whilst I agree that The Beatles were honestly one of the best bands of all time, to shut down the "The Beatles are overrated" schtick, however badly expressed, is evidence of "groupthink" and must be looked into.
In the early years, the performance was certainly good because they were well-rehearsed and always played with the same line-up: Drums, bass, rhythm guitar and lead guitar.
At the earliest since Rubber Soul, but at the latest since Revolver, the Beatles broke away from their “usual” music and tried out a lot of new things. It takes time to find the right sound for a song, especially as they didn't write down their music and arrangements. They also tried out other instruments: classical instruments of all kinds, synthesizers, sitar and so on. In the end, they sat in the studio and let their pieces grow through trial and error.
This was the reason why the Beatles didn't give any more concerts after 1966 (apart from the rooftop concert for Let it be). So I think it's very unreasonable to give the Beatles a bad mark for performance.
As someone who does genuinely think The Beatles are a little overrated, nothing frustrates me more than seeing people who just blindly say it for the sake of contrarianism. It doesn't provide for any substantive discussion at all (which is my favourite thing about music!), and essentially just reduces dialogue surrounding it to "album good" or "album bad". This doesn't just happen with The Beatles either, you can go into any beloved band's fanbase (be it Radiohead, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd), and there will always be people who just cry overrated for the sake of clicks and attention. Obviously people can think any bands/artists are overrated (again, I'm in that camp with The Beatles), but if you can't provide any meaning behind your opinions outside of just trying to get attention, I don't see the point of even commenting them in the first place. Please, create interesting dialogue, and stop boiling opinions down to "good", "bad", and "overrated"!
@@humanreviewsstuff 100%!! I would ask your reasoning to why they are overrated but i scroll through some of your vids and i saw you reacted to most of their albums, so I’ll probably just watch them and see what you have to say
Any band that can record and release albums like *_Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album_* and *_Abbey Road_* all in the span of about 4 short years is definitely *NOT* overrated.
Rubber soul is not a good example
@@Yemeno45 Yes it is as it is regarded as the first studio developed album. By this time they were already fed up with making songs for stage and were progressing. Like Beatles for Sale it was pushed for the American market but at least no single was taken from it in the UK. Magical Mystery Tour is a bad example as it wasn't an official Beatles album. Once again it was released in the US much against their wishes. Once they stopped touring EMI and Capitol were worried they were going to split so released as much as they could to capitalise whet they could. The reason why Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields weren't on Sgt Pepper.
@petebear8212 rubber soul didn't have very strong hits. Its a snooze fest. Magical mystery tour has better hits easily.
@@Yemeno45 That's the thing it wasn't a album for hits it was an "Album," The Beatles didn't like putting hits on albums as they felt it cheated the customer. MMT wasn't an album at all it was an EP but in America they (Capitol) put out the EP plus the three last singles to make an album. It's why the UK albums differ from the US albums.
@petebear8212 okay well the album rubber soul sucks. It doesn't have good songs on it. They're mediocre as compared to any other Beatles lp
Not even worth talking about! If you were not around when The Beatles first came to the US on Feb.7, 1964...then you missed everything!...You have NO idea what it was like! If The Beatles hadn't happened...then you've got no Rolling Stones...No Who...No Kinks...No DC5...No Led Zep...No Hendrix...No electric Dylan...No Byrds...No Creedence...No Elton John...No ELO...No British Invasion...NOTHING! They changed EVERYTHING.....
Could you please cover their begining and their experience with drugs? In terms how the drugs using affected their relationship and their music in general. I think Its great topic and its closely conected with their work at the studios and during recording sessions. Thanks a lot😊
@@radekdohnal2041 ofc!! Coming soon
I love the Beatles and I absolutely don't think they are overrated. However, in terms of greatest discography in music, I'd choose Joni Mitchell. She released masterpieces like "Clouds", "Ladies of the Canyon", "Blue", "For The Roses", "Court and Spark", "The Hissing of Summer Lawns" and "Hejira" in 7 years, like the Beatles.
Add to that "Miles of Aisles" (a live album released the same year as "Court and Spark") and you have the best discography.
@@bulldoginyellowsubmarine9259 Joni is up there for me too! Not as high as The Beatles but then again, for me nobody is.
If you like Joni you should give Vashti Bunyam a try, she is an amazing singer although only released a few albums
The Beatles chucked a song over to the Stones that was their first hit…and they could not hear themselves play live. The PAs were terrible back then with no monitors like now. Just listen to the rooftop concert from Get Back/Let it be…just brilliant when they could actually hear through the bloody screaming. I’m not sure you actually realise the noise of 10,000 screaming kids can make when you have 50 watt amps to play with. Even Shea stadium they played with a 100 watt set up…for 67,000 people. If you want to know what they sounded like live, listen to their early albums.
"Beatles '65" and "Help" (American release) are great albums in their own right! Unfortunately, most critics don't give these albums any credit for what they are! Those two albums are better than anything their peers did in the seventies, eighties, nineties, and 2000's! I own "Pet Sounds" and it is very 'overrated', especially the garbage 'mini opera' of Mike Love's on side two.
Great video. Although, I disagree with your reasoning for them being overrated performers based on having bad recordings. Taping playthroughs is part of the song writing process in many instances. Especially for the Beatles when you consider how much they innovated studio production. So the assumption that every taping was them attempting to perform the finished song isn't accurate
And I think the fact John didn't know the words to his songs performing live on the rooftop is more a comment on how good the performance level was. They were writing, jamming a recording the songs in quick succession. John didn't learn all the words to Don't Let Me Down, but the arrangement is NOT simple, they were pretty tight and in tune (no clicks, no headsets/earpieces) - and it looks like they just chucked on the first warm clothes to hand, as also it was the middle of winter on a rooftop. And it looks kinda effortless. And they'd done bugger all live performances for years. And the chemistry is there. They knocked out albums in weeks. I would dispute it took them a lot of takes. I'd say it's more that they were writing and jamming and arranging on the fly (mainly thinking of Rubber Soul here), and because they were the Beatles, they recorded everything and kept everything. Led Zeppelin II is one of my very favrourite albums. It's pretty safe to say the individual performances on that album show a level of virtuosity beyond the Beatles. But it really does lack the finesse or tightness of a Beatles album.
In conclusion, Beatles performances not being up to par, evidenced by the number of takes where they didn't get it right... I'm not sure I buy it.
People think “overpraised” and “overrated” are the same thing. The Beatles are overpraised by the media and fans, not overrated by music critics and certainly not by their peers.
I find that people who dislike The Beatles only know the half dozen songs that are usually played on the radio. I'll ask them how many songs they can name and they struggle to get three. Their dislike is usually based on ignorance. People I work with will play me some insipid and derivative singer (it's hardly ever a band) they claim to be profound or musically innovative, and without exception it's some dreary number with lyrics a 13-year-old could have written, or really on-the-nose themes which have zero nuance. No matter if the song is a ballad or more up-tempo, the singers perform each song in an almost identical manner. There's none of McCartney's or Lennon's vocal variety, and the instrumentation is dreary and predictable. Paul McCartney's bass lines alone are more interesting than 2020s pop. I find it hard to relate to people who don't at least admire The Beatles, even if they prefer other bands and singers. Plus, they're missing out massively.
I disagree that the Beach Boys were more influential as a pop band. They were excellent at their best, but their best stuff was often on albums hardly anyone bought (even Pet Sounds sold poorly in America on release), and after Pet Sounds they basically fell off a cliff in terms of commercial success. Plus, of course, the Beatles had far more number one albums and singles, and their music was covered by other acts exhaustively. Hardly any cover versions of Beach Boys hits had any kind of success, so clearly their pop hits weren't as influential as the Beatles'.
I disagree on one point you made, I agree they were clumsy performers but disagree they didn’t have chemistry while performing, the chemistry they have on stage is actually the good part of their performance, also they could improvise alright, there was one in particular instance where they were performing Help! And John fucked up the lyrics so when Paul and George had to come in with the backing verses they just repeated what John said even tho it was wrong to make it less noticeable, and they did this together on the spot. Another one was when John’s microphone was extremely loud compared to Paul and while singing he stepped back to allow Paul’s voice to be heard. I mean, I think the reason why some of their performances were shit is because first the equipment sucked, second the screaming, and they also unckowledged this they because of that they couldn’t hear themselves and they would suck, reason why they stopped touring, and also they were still relatively new to performing for large crowds, it was only a couple of years essentially, and they certainly had grown as musicians and you can tell in their last live performance on the roof.
Their last live performance on the roof was after they had 3 more years of practice in the studio. They didn't have much practice time during their touring years and they have admitted they weren't sounding good in their live performances in 1966.
If anything, The Beatles are underrated. Let's set music aside for a second. The cultural impact of the beatles is unmatched. The Beatles singlehandedly lifted the spirits of an entire nation, perhaps the world. Again, you need to understand the history. At the end November 1963, the United States, and the world, were in MOURNING over the assassination of JFK. Thanksgiving 1963 was dark socially. Christmas 1963, the holiday that gives us hope, failed to lift the spirits of a nation that was still talking about the assassination of JFK. Then February 1964 came, and Ed Sullivan introduced the nation to a band that lifted everyone spirits. The Beatles gave us something to shout about again. Who were these guys?? They were witty, charming, and played so well, and more importantly, they were YOUNG. We all wanted to be like them. On the night the beatles were introduced on Ed Sullivan, CRIME in America went down! That is just how captivating they were. Within a year, everyone had longer hair. Everyone was wearing Beatle "boots." More importantly, musicians began to write their own songs, and perform them, just because the beatles could do it. Elvis? Never wrote a song in his life. The Beatles made Elvis look like a hip Frank Sinatra or Pat Boone. Now, you had to do more than just "sing." You had to create, play, and sing.
@@michaellacross5266 Your comment reminds me of something Ozzy Osbourne said “the before and after The Beatles was like going to sleep in a black and white world, and wake up in a multicolor world”
You are right except for the live performances. They are acknowledged by the most accomplished musician RUclipsrs as one of the best live performers of all time.
Have you heard the Live At The BBC albums? Such great performances there, definitely done with little time for rehearsals due to their hectic schedule of 1963/1964 but still impressively solid.
Have you heard the Star-Club concerts from Hamburg 1962? The band chemistry over there is quite plain strong to my ears, as is on the rooftop concert
The Beatles are the absolute worst. They’re basically ripping off the Rutles who did it first and much better.
How do we feel about the Beach Boys being a more influential pop band?
I am all about the Beatles Love!
this is an argument I can't back down on. it's ok for anyone to not like the Beatles, but you can't call artists who changed the entire landscape of the medium they worked in overrated
@@saml302 100% agree
Actually the 69 roof top session was incredible. I suspect you are not a practising musician. Try playing the riff to I Dig a Pony by John and George''s incredibly tasty licks. Pretty challenging esp. in the cold. Of course Paul's bass and vocals were always other worldly.
What's not to like? Those that do dislike them should be considered as poseurs!
Creating great music demands much of one's time. Segovia was an incredible performer but did not compose, while Álvarez was a brilliant composer who did not perform.
Almost everyone will admit that they weren't the best musicians of all time. They were all professional level musicians but George was no Jeff Beck or Jimi Hendrix. The Beatles never did any improvising in live performances, as far as I know. We can't really rate them with respect to metal, punk, new wave, grunge, emo or hip hop, because they were too early to participate in those genres, so young listeners may rate them unfairly in that respect. So, what is their real claim to fame. It's their songwriting. Lennon & McCartney was the greatest songwriting team of their generation, and I haven't heard of anyone better than them as of 2024. I have aspired to be a good songwriter since I got my first guitar in 1964, and the Beatles have always been my personal benchmark when rating my own efforts.
The Beatles were also no Taylor Swift. JK.
@@ktcarl Talor Swift is talented,but not to the same extent as the Beatles. She has @ a dozen songwriters helping her write her songs, and they aren't anywhere near as creative as Lennon & McCartney.
I find most of the people who are “anti-Beatles” where late Boomers born in the late 50s/early 60s who because they were born during those years grew up when the Beatles where active but simply too young to appreciate the music that came out and only when they broke up that generation began to appreciate music of the 70s there was a growing resentment having to listen to the early boomer generation born in the late 40s/early 50s saying how great the band was and it caused a reaction no doubt intensified with the outbreak of late 70s Punk & New Wave that was entirely divorced from the 60s/early 70s music artists.
@@stormhawk3319 Yesss! There’s also my generation who have heard the usual Beatlemania records but don’t know about the second half of their discography (their best)
The Beatles are the result of when you put 3 of the best musicians of all time and Ringo in a band
Try playing on a rooftop in January in the UK and see how many mistakes you make.
Awesome video Luna have a great day also happy Halloween and I don't dislike The Beatles to be honest ❤😊
@@aminahmed2220 good to know that my friend!
Red era is always the best
I recently attended the 9 oct love fest for Lennon and the Beatles at central park in NYC. This is the 39 th year this has occurred. What other band gets this adulation?
@@gtrdoc911 i know!!!!
There are people that hate the Beatles? 🤔
Beatles and Albert Einstein, so much energy from a few jealous people trying to disprove the obvious.
Overrated? Compared to whom?
You always get met with silence then.
I'm one of "them", I'm afraid. I genuinely don't understand the godlike reverence the Beatles have always received. They had only two or three OK tracks, their best was released posthumously (so-to-speak - "Free as a Bird"); they couldn't dance, they had stupid hair, and their later material was straight-up _gibberish_ . "You had to be there" my parents say. Thank goodness I wasn't, is what I say.
😂 It's all about personal taste, of course, and obviously, you don't have any. 😂
Only 3 good tracks? I'm sure most of your favorite songs are derivative of beatles tunes
All you need is ears. (& George Martin) to know better.
The haters are fools.
The Beatles ARE overrated. Massively .Just as trees - flowers -and food are.And its really cool to say how overrated they are in comment sections.
..come to think of it..the boys never had a flop album..in all of that 7 years..and still sells today..
@@Workoutdad 100%
Hello friend, how are you? I want to join your channel as a member, how can I do it?
7:18 Led Zeppelin have little to no influence in folk music. Have you heard a little song called stairway to heaven?
I dont think that song was influential on folk music. Only metal and rock.
Someone made a comment that the Beatles were a boy band !! No they were not.
They were, and forever will be a group of musical geniuses who came together and brought some of the best music the world has ever seen. They will be played forever like Mozart and Bach. There is no problem if there are people who dislike them - not everyone has reached a level of maturity and can understand the higher spiritual level of their music 🎶🎵
Actually, stick around RUclips long enough, most people, places & things have haters. I just shrug. Your life views end at the tip of my nose. Beatles did fine before, they’ll do fine after whatever.
Beatles (beat-Les) beat- less beat less beat less why it’s not November yet
I think Beatles are overrated because the popular songs that came out before the Beatles like Stand by me Rock around the Clock or Be my Baby have more rhythm and better vocals than The Beatles music they sound like folk or indie music to me
I kind of agree that their early material can be very simplistic with its sound, but I think that anything past Rubber Soul was very cool. It's when they truly started revolutionizing rock music and other genres
IDK, I thought The Beatles RnR covers were better than the original artists. They 'rocked them up' better.
Rock around the clock is a snooze fest next to Sgt pepper
The Beatles were great however calling them "geniuses" is ridiculous. Without question, the Beatles are the most
overrated musical group in history. John Lennon was right on target when he referred to much of Paul M.'s songs
as granny music.
Trump 2024
Boff 2024
John Lennon 2024
George Martin 2024
The Beatles are okay. They dont come close to The Black Eyed Peas, though.
Lmaaaa000😂😂
Wrong, a 10 ton cow will be dropping in your location in approximately 10 minutes.
Check the who, the doors, the yardbirds, jeff beck, hendrix, rolling stones. Musically the beatles are not a breakthrough they didn't do anything different.
They are the face if the 60s because they were really good, but they get glorified like they invented music. I'm not critisicing the beatles, I've got mad respect for them. I'm saying that everyone should listen to more music and be objective.
I don't see armies of people defending black sabbath for practically creating metal. But whenever the beatles are questioned its like you don't know shit. That's called being a stan, not liking music.
"Musically the beatles are not a breakthrough they didn't do anything different. "
Lennon & McCartney were the best songwriting team of their generation. They were adept at using counterpoint, changing keys and consistently writing melody hooks in their songs. I would rate them along with the great composers in history, up there with Clair de Luna & Moonlight Sonata. My opinion of course.
I don't agree with anything you typed. How old were you in 1964 thru 1966?
The Beatles are definitely overrated, there’s lots of Beatle fans that discount many artist because of how high of a pedestal the beatles are given. Some fans treat the beatles with such high regard, and forget many other artists were just as innovative in the 60s (Jimi Hendrix, The Beach Boys, Rolling Stones) especially with more contemporary 60s movements. The Beatles were a dynasty in popularity with their airplay, and I think some Beatles fans are quick to dismiss other bands or artist. Their legacy will never be forgotten and people already know how big they are. There’s no shortage of Beatle fans. With that being said though, they are my favorite band and deserve the respect as best band in the world lol
I personally don't disregard the other artists, but it is a fact that when you try to listen to the full discography of the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys, there are certain songs or albums that are very forgettable because of how much they have released from the 1960s until the modern day. I'm not saying that any Beach Boys material past the 60s is bad for instance, but it is simply less memorable or there are less gems. Then, bands like Jimi Hendrix Experience and CCR are iconic, but they did not last for long (only releasing a few albums in a couple of years). For me, the magic of the Beatles is that they only lasted through the 60s, and the truly progressed from 1962-1969 when they stopped recording new music. They didn't last too long for them to become irrelevant, and their releases are mostly perfectly well-rounded (when listening to their albums, there are barely any songs that I would skip over). Their evolution is what makes me appreciate them just as much as other bands, and the fact that they covered a lot of ground in terms of genres and innovative production techniques. I understand they can't be everyone's cup of tea, but they definitely deserve a high pedestal alongside other musicians
okay maybe you should listen to: Magma, os mutantes, the millennium, suicide, throbbing gristle, yes, king crimson, ELP or Return to Forever
Try N.W.A
I only listened to the rock n roll radio stations in 1963 thru 1965 and there was just no one better than The Beatles. They couldn't be touched. The 'overrated' argument is very puzzling and mostly thrown out there by people not born in the '60's.
They were good when they were a boy band and had professional song writers. After Paul died and Billy came on they went off the rails
🤣
Thank you!!!!!!
The most incredible thing about the Beatles is their range. And I think ironically this is a major reason for the haters. Truth be told, this even bothered John. He always made fun of Paul's "granny songs" but that generated their broad sppeal. The rockers love Zep, Sabbath, Priest and consider the Beatles wimpy because of Honey Pie, etc. Yet what rocks more than Skelter and Yer Blues? And the "granny songs" had much more complex chord structure than any heavy metal song.