I've heard seven Beatles albums and I can tell you there's nothing wrong with them. I do, however, believe they are extremely overrated but a good band. Not great. There are five major overrated bands, and the Beatles is one of them. The other four:
Bob Dylan, only loved for his lyrivs when his rhythms are only decent and his voice is bad.
Radiohead. They have a good lead singer and they hsd some good and great stuff, but I can't stand albums like Kid A.
Nirvana: the most overrated band ever, no questions asked!
Rolling Stones. They have talent, but not one of the ten greatest bands ever based on what I've heard. That opinion may change at some point, but I'm not sure.
Being critical of the Beatles seems to be considered the thing to do in some circles now. I think that is an overreaction and revisionist. The fact remains that the Beatles were a musical phenomenon, the most important band in history whether someone likes them or not. They were also very much a product of their times. Viewing them outside the historical context is only going to bring confusion and misunderstanding. The Lennon-McCartney songwriting team was incredibly successful. The melodies, the harmonies, the unique songs that were written, all of that is noteworthy. George Harrison, considered the third best singer and songwriter in the band was still better at those things that many lead singers/songwriters in other bands. I don't much listen to the Beatles. I prefer more hard rock sounds from that era such as Hendrix and Cream. But to ignore or deny their importance is just not being realistic, in my opinion. Their influence on other artists is probably immeasurable. The Beatles were so popular for many good and logical reasons. It wasn't a mistake. People weren't deluded or manipulated by hype. They chose to listen to and love the Beatles' music on their own.
Bob Dylan was a great creative force who had a tremendous impact on the 60s. His influence on other artists was also very great, too, in some ways similar to the Beatles. He might not have had a great voice, but he did what he did in spite of that. He may be the closest thing we've had to a great modern poet. Once again, I don't personally care about listening to him very much, but this isn't just about my own taste in music. I feel when discussions about things like this come about, that's one of the main problems. People get too hung up on their own taste in music. So, in other words, I'm just trying to be objective.
Radiohead is one of those bands that I've been unable to relate to at all. I just don't like their music and I'm baffled by it. I've watched one of their concerts on TV, or at least part of it, trying to understand what was happening. But I was unsuccessful. I've also listened to several of their songs and they have little or no effect on me for some reason.
I've never been much interested in Nirvana. But that was another very influential band, like them or not. As time has gone on, I have been able to appreciate their music more, although it's doubtful I'll ever become a fan. Once again, though, their place in music history marked a turning point. Nirvana was an important band. Their music was a reaction to the glam rock that had been dominating the music scene for so long. Nirvana's grunge music was different; it changed the way a lot of people felt about music. In many respects, this was original music. People liked it and related to it. Once again, it never appealed to me very much, but many others did like it. I can accept that and even understand it.
The Rolling Stones, another band that has gone through many phases due to their longevity. In the 60s, they become the Beatles most serious rival. They came out with some unique songs which fit that time period very well. In my opinion, they unraveled on a creative level fairly quickly. But the importance they had for a few years should be noted. Now, they may not be too impressive. But a distinction does have to be made at the role they played in the 60s and the role they play now. Now they're almost like a classic rock tribute band of themselves. Needless to say, it wasn't always that way. There was a time when the Rolling Stones were shining, vibrant, and relevant.
I've had to repeat myself some; I realize that. But my main point, obviously, is that I think bands should be viewed in an objective manner. I suppose my pet peeve now is seeing all these comments on the Internet in which people are trying to chide an entire generation because they were fans of the Beatles. That's just a personal opinion, often based on viewing things from a completely different historical context. History itself is at stake as far as I'm concerned. This is just music history and may not be as important as other types of history. But if we're going to have historical revisionism in which people, whether intentional or not, try to slant the perspective on what really happened, then I kind of have a problem with that. If people want to look at the past through the lens of the present, they might want to wipe off some of the subjectivity and try to accurately grasp reality. It's fine, of course, for someone to say that he dislikes a band. I've done that here myself by saying I don't like Radiohead. But to say that people who do like Radiohead are wrong, mistaken or whatever might be carrying it too far. Yet I see things like that happening all the time. Maybe not so much here, but that sort of thing seems to be fairly common now for some reason. I see people quite frequently now, especially on some music boards, who seem to think their taste in music should be established as some kind of definitive law obeyed by the masses, something that should become universal and observed along the lines of Kant's categorical imperative.