RagingLeonard t1_iy46bp3 wrote
What a surprise, a thread asking for people to explain their criticism of the Beatles dominated by Beatles lovers arguing their virtues. Boring.
I am someone who thinks the Beatles are overrated so I'll actually answer OP's question.
The Beatles are often credited with things they didn't do. For example, The Mothers of Invention and the Beach Boys both released rock concept albums before the Beatles did.
Charlie Christian used feedback long before Harrison and Lennon did, although I've actually heard people say that the Beatles invented using feedback as a way to add sonic color to music.
The Beatles were a decent bar band that evolved into a somewhat interesting original rock band. They were lucky enough to have great management and PR and arrive at a time when the rock world was exploding. They were able to build on Elvis and Pat Boone, and take the challenging African-American rock and roll and sell it to white, suburban kids. They took the "threat" out of rock and roll for millions of scared, white parents. Unfortunately, in the process, they helped to further racially polarize rock and roll. Something that is still felt to this day.
That is not something to be proud of.
Now I don't blame the Beatles for this, they're a victim of circumstance. But it's something to consider.
Another thing to consider is that its simply boring to slather over the Beatles when there are far more interesting, challenging, talented, creative, and entertaining bands than the ones your boomer parents listened to the first time they smoked a joint in their dorm at Michigan.
Guitarmanran t1_iy48gt8 wrote
I can see that for sure. I think what you’re reaching for can be looked at like movies. Beatles are the blockbusters and some other artists seem to have the Oscar winning pictures. Every once in a while though, the blockbusters win the Oscars. So it is possible to do both. A Number one hit like “Eleanor Rigby” is a great example. Both popular but also able to be looked at as art for the sake of art.
RagingLeonard t1_iy4aa2e wrote
That's a good analogy.
Donnyboy_Soprano t1_iy5fvky wrote
That’s what I don’t like Reddit for the most part. Everyone conforms to the consensus view on all topics and anyone that has their own opinion gets blasted. Lmao I agree with what you said about them being credited for things they didn’t do. The entire musical movement of the 60’s is credited to them and they were a boy band until the hippie culture was born in height Ashbury. I like some of their songs and honestly think Harrison was really talented but the Beatles contributions are blown out of proportion due to their popularity
Youcantbeserious420 t1_iy4bukr wrote
Most of this is fair but it doesn’t change the fact that the Beatles wrote plenty of incredible music
Huguirur OP t1_iy4cxqs wrote
Interesting, i havent considered the perspective of whites stealing blacks music, since they arent american and for the most part british bands havent been accused of that, even if the whole rock scene of british invasion was constructed around blues music.
RagingLeonard t1_iy4gmxa wrote
There is a compelling argument that the British Invasion bands, led by the Beatles, further segregated rock and roll, leading to separate top 40 lists for non-white artists.
cdmat76 t1_iy4ld36 wrote
That’s just nonsensical BS. Even an inversion of the reality. Race records existed long before British Invasion and segregated audiences were the norm up until the 60s. Artists like Elvis in the 50s, British Invasion bands and British blues boom bands in the 60s contributed to bring this music to a white audience that in a vast majority was not listening to black artists. They all contributed to make things change to that regards in the direction of a more mixed audience in term of music listening habits. Many white guys were introduced and discovered black artists thanks to the covers or artists like The Beatles, the Stones, Clapton, Mayall…
RagingLeonard t1_iy4nfoe wrote
There's a difference between covering the music of black artists and pushing black artists out of the way. There is a solid argument that the rise of the British Invasion pushed black music out of the mainstream. It's a fact that Billboard resurrected the R&B chart a year after the Beatles' US debut.
I agree that a lot of white kids discovered the blues through UK rock bands, but it's not like John Lee Hooker was selling records anywhere near the levels of the Beatles, Stones, or Animals.
cdmat76 t1_iy58zbn wrote
Where did you see they did “put black artists out of the way” …? There were much more back artists in the pop charts in the late 60s and 70s compared to the 50s and early 60s. And the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Clapton, Mayall and all greatly helped in that direction by introducing that music to a larger audience and helped break the barriers between segregated audiences.
Regarding the R&B charts it was stopped late 63 because there was a disconnection with its initial target (yes mostly black people at the time): there were too many white artists in it due to the way music was labeled R&B (this was BEFORE British Invasion and Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show) and Billboard decided to stop it and revived it only early 65 with a revised formula intended to target more black artists. Beatles chart success had nothing to do with it from what I’ve read. And artists could be present on BOTH pop and R&B charts.
Seems to me you are rewriting history to support your argumentation. 🤔
[deleted] t1_iy4gwx5 wrote
[removed]
rev-jp-rinehart t1_iy9srqm wrote
That is factually inaccurate, the 60s British rock bands are well known to have stolen Black American music. Here's the basic story: late at night AM radio signals travel much farther and British teens would listen to Black American blues/roots/rock music and started imitating it. Eric Clapton & Jimmy Page are the worst offenders, as far as actual theft, but the influence was wide spread. The fact that white critics and audiences didn't account for this in their mythology concerning the British bands is a big sticking point for a lot of folks.
Efficient-Value9955 t1_iy4l85m wrote
Racially polarize rock and roll? They refused to play segregated shows, Blackbird is about the civil rights movement, and they played with numerous black artists. Do you have anything to back that up besides, “I don’t like them because I don’t like my boomer parents.”
RagingLeonard t1_iy4mekq wrote
Have you read "How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll by Elijah Wald? He explains it pretty well.
Efficient-Value9955 t1_iy4pccb wrote
No, but a quick google of the synopsis says the Beatles abandoned their African American influences in later albums, which separated rock music from its all inclusive rock and roll roots, thus dividing racial lines. Is there more to it than that? I’d read it if there is but it sounds contrarian for the point of being contrarian.
RagingLeonard t1_iy51j7n wrote
It's a good history of popular music and how it has changed over the years. It's not contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, but it helps to go into it with an open mind.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments