I agree and you can add The Who as well. All three are rubbish
1 Like
I canât abide The Who. Utter rubbish. I donât mind The Stones and have a fair few Beatles LPs.
I loved the Stones and liked some of the Beatles stuff and it was of its time. The 60âs were fantastic and so was the music. Spain with Aftermath and Revolver epic
3 Likes
I donât think you can listen just to early Beatles and say they are over-rated, you have to take their entire output into hand. They were pretty much at the forefront of everything. Beat, power pop, Psychedelic rock, etc, etc. If you donât like them then fair doâs but actually throughout their entire catalogue and the many areas they covered they wrote songs that really hit emotionally and pretty much ALL their records have incredible atmosphere. Personally I think they were amazing and when I was teenage it was the era when it was important that you grew up hating them! 
6 Likes
I find it incredible how they started and where they finished musically.Such a massive change in just 7 years
Coldplay have managed to do more or less the same thing for 20 years
4 Likes
Spot on Stu, someone listening to the Red and Blue compilations without knowing the heritage would probably not believe that itâs the same band playing Love Me Do vs Come Together. Actually even the chasm between Love Me Do and Eleanor Rigby is massive, and thatâs just 4 years.
I donât think they were ever at the cutting edge of anything, but given that, they werenât ever very far behind, like the second blade on a Mach 3 razor, and their unprecedented popularity ensured that lots of stuff that might never have got an airing, did.
Theyâre very far from being my favourite band, but I reckon a few bands that are amongst my favourites might not have been around if the Beatles hadnât done their stuff.
3 Likes
I would go even further and contend that the Beatles wouldnât have been missed if they never existed or fizzled out in 1964.
There were plenty of artists around experimenting with the genre that I donât think we would have missed out on anything.
From this
To this
In 3 years!
Name another band who came anything like close to this kind of artistic development in 36 months or less.
4 Likes
IMUO - The Smiths were at the later level right from their debut.
The trouble is that the Beatles are of their time and have aged badly, as do a lot of the so called cutting edge bands.
Never been a fan, but their tunes can be catchy and some even have some meaning.
Much, much prefer the Who or the Hollies.
The Hollies stand the test of time better than the Beatles ?
5 Likes
That is not what I said, what I said was that the Beatles havenât aged well. The Hollies are obviously aged, but they have songs and meaningful lyrics unlike some bands I could name.
How many of you read the words� 99% will look at the⌠⌠spider.
1 Like
Mmm Kay
1 Like
Guffaw.
Radiohead?
2 Likes
Published todayâŚ
You need to compare the Beatles early music to the general shite that was being given radio time/in the charts in the period. They were a breath of fresh air.
4 Likes
Liked for Smithâs guffaw. 
2 Likes
I was listening to the White Album deluxe on Tidal yesterday and was blown away. Hadnât listened to The Beatles for a while.
Itâs the variety of music that impresses so much. The Beatles came from working class backgrounds and were self taught as far as I know. Their early work was simple rock and roll. After they got to Abbey Road and were given artistic freedom they just flew.
Radiohead are the only band for me to match them for progression and variety.
Other artists have progressed through other projects and bands like Damon Albarn.
1 Like
Thatâs LSD for you!