You have to look at the context. Their influence on future music was so pervasive it sounds like just pop songs today. That is not what pop songs sounded like at the time. Compare Revolver to 100 other albums from 1966 and will see what I mean (Sinatra, Jim Nabors Lawrence Welk, Herb Alpert, Dean Martin, Streisand, you heard a lot more of that shit than something like Eleanor Rigby). It was so different it created seismic changes.
Listen to the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" that was recorded between Januaty and April 1966 and released in May.. It was produced by Brian Wilson, the band member who died last month. Revolver was recorded between April and May of 1966 and released in August, produced by Sir George Martin, producer of the Beatles first tthree albums. The Beatles (and more importantly George Martin) were listening to tte Beach Boys, not Frank Sinatra.
Okay, I'll buy that. But take Britney Spears. Extremely good looking. Sound? 200% generic. So the popularity's in the looks. Nobody gives a fourth of a fuck what Beethoven looked like.
They weren't _that_ handsome, to be honest. They "just" made some innovative and catchy and EXTREMELY influential music both as a band and (most of them) on their own, had a bunch of charm and a winning style, and got some great marketing, at exactly the right moment.
Ah the oldest hot take in the book and there's always some twat who thinks they're being edgy and witty with it. I don't even like The Beatles yet i understand their influence.
One measure of greatness that sidesteps popularity is how a group influences their peers. How many other groups adopted their styles and covered their songs. You'd be hard pressed to find a group more influential. There are covers of their songs everywhere. According to this link, they are by far the most covered band in history: https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/12/08/most-covered-artists/
Well, they _were_ hot in the way that Austin Powers is a third generation parody of. Hip, stylish, clever, and confident rather than conventionally handsome.
I feel like when most people say the Beatles aren't great, they're usually saying it through the lens of having heard their music as the norm their whole lives, as well as decades of other artists and songs which were inspired by them, and then coming to the conclusion "eh, nothing special."
I dislike their music. But could I conclude they were or were not "great"? Depends upon what "great" means. They were popular, and to some that is greatness. They probably had musical skills that I just can't appreciate; maybe that qualifies.
If the songs you write are the second best version of that song as soon as just about anyone covers it... Yeah, maybe as a musician you aren't the best. But if everyone wants to cover your songs, you're a helluva song writer!
I think he just sucks at traditional music. There's like a 10 minute clip on youtube of him struggling to get his part down, and stevie wonder and quincy jones helping him out. It's kinda endearing, really.
aCheekyFingerUpTheBum
Actually as a group they were that great. They also had the advantage of being at the beginning of popular music
VictorDenn
You have to look at the context. Their influence on future music was so pervasive it sounds like just pop songs today. That is not what pop songs sounded like at the time. Compare Revolver to 100 other albums from 1966 and will see what I mean (Sinatra, Jim Nabors Lawrence Welk, Herb Alpert, Dean Martin, Streisand, you heard a lot more of that shit than something like Eleanor Rigby). It was so different it created seismic changes.
glovelyday
Listen to the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" that was recorded between Januaty and April 1966 and released in May.. It was produced by Brian Wilson, the band member who died last month. Revolver was recorded between April and May of 1966 and released in August, produced by Sir George Martin, producer of the Beatles first tthree albums. The Beatles (and more importantly George Martin) were listening to tte Beach Boys, not Frank Sinatra.
SilentSecretMan
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlZDFmaG55cWR2a2Z6NjczZ3F4MnN5NW05MjRyODI4ZXlsdzFqcnFyYSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/wtiHMLuT9afEho5UQ4/giphy.mp4
tinydog
Never particularly liked them. Or Elvis. Though both were before my time.
Omnimorph2112
I'm more of a kinks fan anyway. Beatles were influential as hell though.
[deleted]
[deleted]
nobodyspecial995
No, they were considered "to die for" at the time. Watch any interview from when they were charting. Women wanted them, men wanted to be them.
Lassannn
Okay, I'll buy that. But take Britney Spears. Extremely good looking. Sound? 200% generic. So the popularity's in the looks. Nobody gives a fourth of a fuck what Beethoven looked like.
Xenarion
So it's like "Video kills the radio stars", but opposite?
sometimesarobot
Great for their time, but uh.. time moves on.
Hexrowe
They weren't _that_ handsome, to be honest. They "just" made some innovative and catchy and EXTREMELY influential music both as a band and (most of them) on their own, had a bunch of charm and a winning style, and got some great marketing, at exactly the right moment.
cjpoet
From 1964 to 1971 I go with the Beach Boys as the best band.
TiredBanana
Ah the oldest hot take in the book and there's always some twat who thinks they're being edgy and witty with it.
I don't even like The Beatles yet i understand their influence.
ImAghast
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dHpsNjJrb3QxODh3ZTNzMXE0bG03ZXhmdWg5aDF0cGZxNTg0c3k3bCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/U1n5PmjIoNKV4CP3hN/200w.webp
ChickenChickenBurningBright
One measure of greatness that sidesteps popularity is how a group influences their peers. How many other groups adopted their styles and covered their songs. You'd be hard pressed to find a group more influential. There are covers of their songs everywhere. According to this link, they are by far the most covered band in history: https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/12/08/most-covered-artists/
Silkyninja1
Duh. Look at David Hasselhoff in Germany. https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1YXhqOXN1bHJyOW00aXkzM2oxN3Z6bzdyZzJ4eDFvYzd2b2N6N3F1ZiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/aVtdz7iNVPI1W/200w.webp
JayDeeDubs
I wouldn't say they were the greatest, but they were pretty talented, very prolific in a short period, and handsome at the right moment.
UpvoteBuddyJesus
Prolific counts. Many, many artists and bands produce very little. The really truly good ones produce for years.
JayDeeDubs
Yeah, I mean, the Beatles were active for 8 years and put out 12 studio albums, and a bunch of other stuff. Pretty crazy how fast they put out music
bhobby1212
When Billie Preston die in 2006 the radio station I listen to played all of their stuff back to back and went for 2 days.
RitzBitz25
I don't think they were actually considerably attractive, I just think it was the first decade where women were allowed to be horny
Hexrowe
Well, they _were_ hot in the way that Austin Powers is a third generation parody of. Hip, stylish, clever, and confident rather than conventionally handsome.
whyforetho
I feel like when most people say the Beatles aren't great, they're usually saying it through the lens of having heard their music as the norm their whole lives, as well as decades of other artists and songs which were inspired by them, and then coming to the conclusion "eh, nothing special."
wideshoulderedbeast
This was me. Only heard their singles. Then I was given their later albums and realised they were in fact bloody good
Corrodias
I dislike their music. But could I conclude they were or were not "great"? Depends upon what "great" means. They were popular, and to some that is greatness. They probably had musical skills that I just can't appreciate; maybe that qualifies.
J3lek
Their music is good, but it was overplayed so much during the 80's 90's and 00's that I just got burned out on it to the point of annoyance.
dtallen243
I feel the same way about Metallica
TiredBanana
Something being popular doesn't make it bad.
Goldmarble
I will forever wish that Bob Dylan was simply a song writer, because goddamn I hate his efforts to sing.
Omnimorph2112
If the songs you write are the second best version of that song as soon as just about anyone covers it... Yeah, maybe as a musician you aren't the best. But if everyone wants to cover your songs, you're a helluva song writer!
whyforetho
AtlantisTheLostEmpire
Drugs? Booze? Constipation? Diarrhoea? All the above?
whyforetho
I think he just sucks at traditional music. There's like a 10 minute clip on youtube of him struggling to get his part down, and stevie wonder and quincy jones helping him out. It's kinda endearing, really.
PoppyBee
Also it was like 3am after they were all at an awards show all night
way2slo