Most Overrated Music Artist (1 Viewer)

[Jimmy Nugent]

Wait... I've had an epiphany- Limp Bizkit is bigger than the Beatles. BRING ON THE SUPERMODELS!!!!

 

[MikeAW]

Thank you, Theo, for the correction. My apologies to the Forum, thank you.

 

[Rain]

Rubber Soul through Abbey Road, excluding the White Album, comprise the prime Beatles output...

Well, I certainly can't agree about excluding the white album.
Certainly, as we all know, the Beatles didn't work together as much of a unit on that album, but they still managed to make some incredibly innovative music.
The white album is absolutely essential listening if you are into the Beatles' later music.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Yeah, I've gotten into more arguments over the White Album than I can count. What can I say? I just don't like it.

Roccy Racoon *shudder*

 

[RicP]

The innovating for the Beatles came much later in their career, and with the assistance of various psychedelics into their lives. Unfortunately at this point, they were followers

So what were they? Innovators or followers? You can't be both right?
The Beatles essentially invented the "Flanger", an effect that exploded onto the Rock scene and is still in heavy use today.
They also pioneered "direct injection" of the bass into the mixing board rather than attempting to use a mic to capture the bass frequencies. They were the first to use it, and today you be hard pressed to find one band out of 50 that doesn't use "direct inject" when recording a bass.
The Beatles also pioneered the concept of "close-miking", a recording technique that is probably more popular today than it has even been. Geoff Emerick along with the band were the first to utilize this concept and bring it to the masses, even going so far as to close-mike the Orchestra that was brought in for "A Day In The Life", something that had never been done before.
The Beatles also pioneered the use of guitar distortion on a pop/rock record. Ken Townsend, one of the engineers at Abbey Road worked with John Lennon to create one of the first distortion devices ever used in popular music.
Today, if any guitarist wants to distort his sound, he can walk into a music store and buy one of a thousand distortion pedals. Back in the 60's, "fuzz boxes" were not so common or readily available. On a number of occasions (such as the "Think for Yourself" session of November 8th, 1965), Townsend had been called upon to build a distortion device from scratch. For the recording of "Revolution," however, the Beatles tried something different--a trick that few studio owners would ever allow, then or now.
"John wanted that sound," recalls Phil McDonald, the tape operator for the session. "A really distorted sound. The guitars were put through the recording console, which was technically not the thing to do. It completely overloaded the channel and produced the fuzz sound. Fortunately the technical people didn't find out. They didn't approve of 'abuse of equipment.' "
The Beatles also pioneered -- along with George Martin -- the use of time coding tapes. In this way any number of multitrack recorders can by linked together and any number of tracks can be utilized at the discretion of the producer. Back in the '60s, the synchronization of tape machines was far from reality. Nonetheless, the Beatles and George Martin managed to make inroads into unexplored territory.
The ability to pitch-shift two different recordings to make a final master is trivial with today's digital effects processors, but then it was unheard of. Yet, that's exactly what The Beatles and George Martin did with the 2 very different takes of "Strawberry Fields Forever" that were pitch-shifted and spliced to create the final master.
The Beatles, along with George Martin, were in the unique and enviable position of being able to get whatever they wanted in the studio. Many of these innovations, which were jury-rigged on the spur of the moment by geniuses like Townsend, Emrick, and The Beatles, have become standard gear in almost all recording studios throughout the world. No other recording artists have ever had this kind of influence and impact upon the entertainment industry. We would do well to remember this the next time we casually put on Revolver or Sgt. Pepper or the "White Album" for a spin.
Once again Mike, you are so far off the mark it's laughable.

 

[MikeAW]

RicP, maybe you should give credit where credit is due.

They lucked out BIG TIME by meeting George Martin and the other staff engineers at Abbey Road. The Beatles didn't know "diddley" about recording or ANYTHING when they walked into the studio, and probably had actually, very little to do with these technological innovations, until they had all those years with Sir George and his staff, in the studio, and could do it on their own...so to speak.

In fact, if you really read up on your group like you claim, you will be disappointed at the actual involvement they even wanted to, in the recording process. It essentially came down to them wanting "this" and "that"...

some contribution to the recording process, it's NOT!

How they got there was by George Martin, Geoff Emmerick and a few other engineers that don't get the credit OR the publicity that the aforementioned do. I've already mentioned in the mega-Beatle thread a book you can pick up...if you want to.

 

[RicP]

I've already mentioned in the mega-Beatle thread a book you can pick up...if you want to.

Gee Thanks Mike...I don't where I'd be without you. Oh look! there it is on my bookshelf with 80 others! and Look! there's over 200 hours of studio and unreleased work! WOW! Guess I'd better get cracking eh? :rolleyes

 

[MikeAW]

It's interesting to explore the very sacrosanct thing that was/is "The Beatles". That in itself, to me, makes it a candidate for being overrated. I appreciate the personal nature of Music and musical choices that people have...

but...it's a little creepy to me. How about you ?

One thing all the boys felt and shared was being put off by the rabidness by which fans latched onto them as some sort of Saviors, of sorts...when the boys couldn't even save themselves! Ironic.

No other music group or Artist, that I've seen, engenders these strong feelings...one way or another about a band.

Like I said, it's interesting to examine The Animal that it is.

 

[RicP]

I appreciate the personal nature of Music and musical choices that people have...

Now that's funny!

 

[Jeff_A]

Ric, your knowledge of the Beatles and their music truly astounds me. Having been a longtime fan, I had always assumed that I knew something about them and their craft. I now realize I know NOTHING!
That's okay, however, because I am going to my grave saying that I prefer their output from (1962-1966) more than any other. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps you could tell me?

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Eine Kleine Nachtmusick? More like Eine Kleine Nutsack!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That's okay, however, because I am going to my grave saying that I prefer their output from (1962-1966) more than any other.

Jeff, perhaps you and I should start our own little club! I certainly like the 1967-70 material, but as I implied earlier, I'm fonder of the first few years output. There's a greater fire and hunger to the earlier work; it's tighter and less bogged down with indulgence. Experimentation and innovation don't automatically make something GOOD. Of course, despite the claims of SOME - especially one who makes me SNORE - their early work was quite fresh and forward-looking as well. I never have understood why so many disregard the early years - it seems to have become hip to dismiss virtually perfect pop songs like "She Loves You" or "I Want to Hold Your Hand", but that doesn't make them less terrific...

 

[RicP]

I am going to my grave saying that I prefer their output from (1962-1966) more than any other. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps you could tell me

In fact I will tell you.
Because it's damn good music that's why.
My preference is easy...1962-1970
That's if you don't count all the solo work either.

 

[TheoGB]

Phaser? Flanger? Blah! They both sound almost identical anyway! :b
(Cheers RicP)

 

[Brian O]

Being born in '61, I was listening to The Beatles at an early age. I liked the simplicity of the lyrics and the tone of their harmonies from their early stuff and the sheer fun and experimentation on their later material.

My favorite album is Abbey Road. I love every song on it. A very diversified, polished swan song. It is mythic to me that the final song on their last recorded album is The End. What a perfect way to go out. Also, it's my favorite album cover being very natural showing their distinct personalities. In '69, for an 8 year old kid, they were the ultimate in cool with that cover.

Probably the most amazing thing to me about The Beatles is the diversity of music they put out in 8 years riding the crest of major technological advances.

And...not only the diversity, but the sum total of music they put out during that time.

It is absolutely amazing, only 8 short years!!!

 

[MikeAW]

It seems we're only discussing the Beatles here...how about other groups...the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, seem not to

have the same...what is the word, maniacal effect on Music Lovers ?????

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It seems we're only discussing the Beatles here...how about other groups...the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, seem not to

have the same...what is the word, maniacal effect on Music Lovers ?????

I'm sure they do, but since you haven't compared them to 'N Sync and Aaron Carter, respectively, yet, the thread hasn't had to go that way...

 

[Mike Broadman]

Bob Dylan commands as rabid and loyal a fan base as do the Beatles. Love him or not, one can see how he can draw listeners in.

Until very recently, I had a distant respect for Dylan- I always felt his music just wasn't my thing. However, my tastes change faster than a baby's diaper, and I've been snapping up a lot of Dylan's back catalogue. My favorite Dylan material is the stuff he did right after he began using a back-up band: Bringing It Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde, John Wesley Harding. I also like the new album a lot.

I don't think Dylan is overrated. He got slammed critically and commercially in the 80s, so there are plenty of people who look at his music objectively.

As much as I like the Beatles, I have said before that they are overrated simply because they are often not looked at objectively. I'm not referring to anyone here, but the general population of listeners.

I would say the Rolling Stones have a very inconsistent output of music, but I don't think they are really overrated. Their impact was huge when they first hit the scene, and at their best, they were able to improve their music by writing some great original material. If I had been around in the 60s, I imagine I would have been a big Stones fan.

 

[MikeAW]

Thank you very much, Mike, for your comments. I especially liked your comments about the Stones.

While we always have something to say about The Big Ones...it seems to me, The Others usually enjoy a relationship that can be best described as...you either like them or not, and if you do, you are a loyal fan follower of their music. There are no deep philosophical questions or emotional feelings that run as deep and personal as with The Big Ones.

I'm talking about groups like Deep Purple, who seem to not take their fans for granted, they cultivate a loyal, and strong fan base, and in this dot.com age, have provided for the Fan as much customer service as they can think of.

I'm aware there are other groups like this, and it's good to see some exchange with the Fan other than ponying up to the counter with your coin to purchase Product. There is some exchange on another level with the Fan's, that an A&R person could accomplish, no matter how savvy he or she is to sell the Next Album. Groups like the Grateful Dead always did, Wilco, Uncle Tupelo, Pearl Jam, R.E.M. and now the Who, for example, really value a strong personal relationship and "touch", with their fan base, that in the not so olden days was missing from the business.

Some of these old farts just don't get it yet, but you do see a change, and see them starting to jump on board.

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

The bands you,list are interesting, MikeAW. Many of those guys have really matured as songwriters over the years (example: Townshend progressing from "Hop I die before I get old" to later ruminations on growing old). Maybe that has something to do with their connection with the audience; a more mature perspective on their lives and the business in general, which causes them to appreciate the place of the fans in the whole music transaction.