What the critics wrote about the Beatles in 1964

[Scootaloo]

55. Well... the Beatles just weren't that good.

Critiquing them on their hair is ludicrous of course, but in terms of their product... Yeah, not much to talk about. They broke very little new ground, their sound was drab and often repetitive and always formulaic, and there were bands both before and after who were just better all-around. The Beatles were an early group in modern rock, and that's notable I suppose, in the same way the Sex Pistols are with Punk and Nirvana with alternative. But "early" doesn't mean "excellent" and it certainly doesn't mean keystone.

The thing is that the Beatles were well-promoted. They were they were the first real "brand name" band, with advertising, packaging, and sales pitches. Since the industry then - as now - equates sales with artistic quality, you get results of music industry-affiliated media consistently ranking the Beatles as #1 artistically, because of their sales... Which fuels more sales, and you see how this goes.

I'm not saying he Beatles are bad. They're not; there are very popular musicians who are bad, like the Eagles or Nickelback, and the Beatles surely outclass them. But the Beatles just aren't that good, either. even for their time - The Rolling Stones outclassed them artistically and the Beach Boys - yes, the Beach Boys - had more collected musical talent (except for the songwriting part, I'll grant.)

Nor am i knocking you if you like the Beatles and own all their albums fresh from the day they were pressed or whatever. I certainly have no room to do so (unless you're a fan of Creed or something, fuck you guys, seriously) and your music is your stuff. I'm just saying that from an artistic standpoint, the Beatles are far from all the hyping htye continue to receive. Good, but not great - just early risers who caught a leg up thanks to heavy promotion.