Which Beatles albums are overrated/underrated

>Please Please Me
Overrated
>With the Beatles
Overrated
>A Hard Days Night
Overrated
>Beatles for Sale
Overrated
>Help
Overrated
>Rubber Soul
Overrated
>Revolver
Overrated
>Sergeant Pepper's
Overrated
>Magical Mystery Tour
Overrated
>White album
Overrated
>Yellow Submarine
Overrated
>Abbey Road
Overrated
>Let It Be
Overrated

Excellent question.
>College Dropout
Overrated
>Late Registration
Underrated
>Graduation
Overrated
>808s
Underrated
>Dark Fantasy
Overrated
>WTT
Underrated
>Yeezus
Underrated
>TLOP
Underrated
>Kid See Ghost
Neither
>Ye
Underrated

didn't bother reading any of your shit posts, just popping in to say this is a stupid thread, and a waste of the Beatles

>Pablo Honey
Underrated
>The Bends
Neither
>OK Computer
Overrated
>Kid A
Neither
>HTTF
Underrated
>In Rainbows
Neither
>TKOL
Underrated
>Moon Shaped Pool
Neither

Attached: 1565788721125.jpg (377x264, 23K)

Attached: bestbeatles.jpg (500x500, 72K)

Everything before Help! is underrated and everything after is overrated
Rubber Soul is especially overrated and AHDN is especially underrated, also Sgt Pepper is only overrated because it's a Beatles album, within their discography it's fairly rated

>the faggy tweenpop songs were better than the credible rock and roll songs!

Attached: 1432724756686s.jpg (250x241, 7K)

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

huh? what are you talking about?

I'm saying your contrarian opinion is retarded. Beatles pre-revolver is all bog standard pop music for teen girls.

>Abbey Road (1969), is a vaudeville-style operetta that combines every genre in a steady stream of melodies and structurally perfect arrangements. It is the summa encyclopaedica of their career. It is a series of self-mocking vignettes, mimicking now the circus worker (Maxwell's Silver Hammer), now the crooner (Oh Darling, a parody a la Bonzo Band), now the baby-sitter (Octopus's Garden, in the silly vein of Yellow Submarine), culminating in the overwhelming suite of side B. Starting with the primitive exuberance of You Never Give Me Your Money (a mini rock opera worthy of early Zappa) and Mean Mr Mustard, the suite comes in thick and fast with Polytheme Pam and She Came In Thru The Bathroom Window, and dies melancholically with yet another goliardic chorus, Carry That Weight (that reprises the motifs ofMoneyandI Want You). It is the apotheosis of the belated music hall entertainer in Paul McCartney. And it is, above all, a masterpiece of production, of sound, of sonic puzzles.

Uh, no. The harmonic content of their early material was far ahead of their time, hardly "bog standard". After Help! they became much more interesting in making "le wacky sound effects" than making compositionally interesting music. Ironically their later albums can be much more accurately called teen girl pop music because they all place style over substance, much like Billy Eyelash or any other mediocre contemporary musician.

Why don't you listen to some actual experimental and interesting music for once in your life? I'm embarrassed for you reading this.

>muh harmonies!!!
If that's all you care about choir music is a far superior genre

Are you implying later Beatles is experimental? Even the furthest "out there" stuff they ever did is pale imitations of the likes of Schaeffer or Shankar. Even within pop music, artists such as Zappa, TVU and Kaleidoscope imitated those artists better than the Beatles ever did.
I'm not sure what you mean by "choir music", but harmony and melody is the main point of interest of pop music and always has been. Praising popular music for being "experimental" is retarded because everything pop musicians "experiment" with has already been done within art music.

>I dont know what a choir is
Retard

the White Pepper is definitely their most underrated album.