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 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.
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.
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
@@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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
You are right except for the live performances. They are acknowledged by the most accomplished musician RU-vidrs as one of the best live performers of all time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Actually, stick around RU-vid 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.
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 🎶🎵
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.
