UFGN wrote:The Beatles, overall, were not overrated. There was the crazy Beatlemania thing of course, but you have to see the context. They were coming over here and putting out tunes the likes many people had never heard before. They were coming back from Hamburg, able to play five hours of live blues and rock'n'roll straight off the bat. No-one had seen that before. The early Beatlemania was actually Rock'n'roll mania. And the Beatles had done their homework and earned their stripes the hard way.
They are seen by me and most people I know as the greatest band ever, but one who also put out a lot of shite. And I think that is a fair reflection. The Beatles gave us everything we have of them in nine years. Just nine. If you consider the scale of their workload and the amount of music produced, even they can be excused a few stinkers.
To be fair, it was BRITISH rock'n'roll mania. America had probably been experiencing it for 5-10 years earlier. But what the Beatles and bands of that era did well was mix things like skiffle etc in with r'n'r.
I'm sorry, but I still don't agree. I'm not suggesting they weren't a talented band, nor am I saying that they didn't write some very good songs. I just (personally) don't believe what they released was as good as that released by others. In my opinion, the stuff put out by the Stones, the Who and the Kinks.
At the end of the day, this is just a matter of personal taste/opinion. I'm not suggesting the Beatles didn't deserve to be successful, simply that I don't personally think the level of success they achieved was entirely down to their innate natural talent.