The Instigator
ceballin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlazingRodent
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

do you think The Beatles are overrated?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
BlazingRodent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2015 Category: Music
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 84280
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

ceballin

Pro

simply put, i think there were more influential bands that were far more talented than The Beatles during that time period. i will not deny them as a staple in the history and development of rock n' roll, but i do not think they should be held as highly as they are being held.
BlazingRodent

Con

I accept. I am arguing for the side of The Beatles not being an overrated band.
Debate Round No. 1
ceballin

Pro

my thanks to con for accepting the challenge and for patience as I figure out the etiquette, technique and procedure of debating.

I want to clarify one last time that I am arguing that The Beatles are an overrated band. which is to say that I think they are held higher in music than they should be. I am not saying they were a bad band.

I think a majority of the reasons why people say they were a big deal is of course the numbers they've put up with their music (talking about record sales, concert sales, hits on charts... etc). I do not think this sufficient enough evidence to use as a reason to say they are one of the greatest bands of all time.

the main reason for my stance is that there are many bands that aren't being held as highly as they should be. The Yardbirds being one of them. aside from producing 3 of the (arguably) biggest guitar gods in music history, they have been pioneers in rock music. their music was more influential to rock than the Beatles. The Yardbirds and their blues-based rock was clearly different from the more mainstream pop music The Beatles played.
BlazingRodent

Con

Thanks to my opponent, ceballin for posting an argument.

Since this is a 3 round debate, we shall follow this structure.
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: Pro's Case, Con's Case.
Round 3: Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's case.

For my argument, I will be arguing that the Beatles are a great and influential band as a whole and that they are not overrated when referred to as a fantastic band. I will not argue that they are the best band ever, or are more influential than the Yardbirds, but that they deserve to be considered a fantastic band that influenced Rock n' Roll greatly.

Case: The Beatles have invented many ways of playing Rock n' Roll and made certain features popular

The Beatles first of all, were the first band to release a singular hit that featured distortion in their recording.

Secondly, they were the first band to release a live music video according to http://www.pri.org...

Music videos are highly influential among bands and singers nowadays. Playing music live on TV influenced and inspired many bands to start playing music live.

The bottom line, is that the Beatles have invented or made more popular certain techniques that have influenced lots of rock bands today. Their creativity to experiment with certain features and invent features shows just how great of a band that they are. Especially being the first band to be in a live music video, and that has greatly influenced bands.

Because of the Beatles, they have influenced tons of great bands like The BeeGees, The Beach Boys, AC/DC, and even Oasis, where they claim that 75% of their songs were influenced by the Beatles themselves.

Thus, I can conclude that due to the Beatles' inventions, experimentation, and influence on many great bands, they are a great band (since they are creative) and are highly influential to Rock n' Roll.

Sources:

1] http://community.digitalmediaacademy.org...
2] http://www.pri.org...
3] http://www.signaturehotelliverpool.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 2
ceballin

Pro

Being the first band to release a track with distortion is precisely why The Beatles are overrated. First of all, not only was the distortion discovered accidentally, but it wasn't the band that had much to do with it besides stumbling upon it. Their producer, George Martin, should be credited with making the sound what it was. [1] Secondly, distortion was being used way before The Beatles put it on record. The Who and The Kinks are just a couple of bands whose entire sound, as well as live performances, revolve around distortion. [2]

Although they were the first band to release a live music video, it was more of a business and marketing move than a musical impact to the group. The Beatles were simply at the right place at the right time. It makes sense that would have been the next step for every band regardless of The Beatles doing it first. With the television still new to American society, not much was possible before then due to lack of technology. My point is, even if The Beatles would not have made the music videos, other bands would have, simply because of the way technology was changing. There is not much different from a live television performance and a live recorded music video, which many bands were already doing. [3]

In conclusion, although The Beatles were influential to many bands, I credit that fame to their use of the television to market their music (right place at the right time), and to their producer who actually made the sound they're famous for.

The Beatles, influential, staple in the history of music and still overrated.

http://www.timelines.ws...
[1] http://community.digitalmediaacademy.org...
[2] https://www.ultimate-guitar.com...
[3] http://www.timelines.ws...
BlazingRodent

Con

"Being the first band to release a track with distortion is precisely why The Beatles are overrated. First of all, not only was the distortion discovered accidentally, but it wasn't the band that had much to do with it besides stumbling upon it. Their producer, George Martin, should be credited with making the sound what it was. [1] Secondly, distortion was being used way before The Beatles put it on record. The Who and The Kinks are just a couple of bands whose entire sound, as well as live performances, revolve around distortion. [2]"

George Martin was indeed a member of the Beatles, which influenced the rest of the Beatles and then influenced other bands.

"Although they were the first band to release a live music video, it was more of a business and marketing move than a musical impact to the group. The Beatles were simply at the right place at the right time. It makes sense that would have been the next step for every band regardless of The Beatles doing it first. With the television still new to American society, not much was possible before then due to lack of technology. My point is, even if The Beatles would not have made the music videos, other bands would have, simply because of the way technology was changing. There is not much different from a live television performance and a live recorded music video, which many bands were already doing. [3]"

But the Beatles were still the first band to do it, and other bands might've not had the idea to play live until the Beatles started doing it.

"In conclusion, although The Beatles were influential to many bands,"

My entire argument was to prove that the Beatles in order to not be overrated had to be influential. Also, my case on how many bands they have influenced stands since it remains unrefuted.

Early Rebuttals

"I think a majority of the reasons why people say they were a big deal is of course the numbers they've put up with their music (talking about record sales, concert sales, hits on charts... etc). I do not think this sufficient enough evidence to use as a reason to say they are one of the greatest bands of all time."

Why exactly don't you think sales are sufficient as evidence? This is unexplained.

"the main reason for my stance is that there are many bands that aren't being held as highly as they should be. The Yardbirds being one of them. aside from producing 3 of the (arguably) biggest guitar gods in music history, they have been pioneers in rock music. their music was more influential to rock than the Beatles. The Yardbirds and their blues-based rock was clearly different from the more mainstream pop music The Beatles played."

First of all, you don't give any reasoning to why they have the biggest guitar gods, and you claiming that their type of rock being different than the mainstream pop music The Beatles played is only a matter of opinion, and is left unexplained.

In conclusion, my opponent didn't go into enough depth in his arguments, and conceded that the Beatles were influential, as I had to argue.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BlazingRodent 1 year ago
BlazingRodent
I apologize if my case was a bit weak.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
ceballinBlazingRodentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm voting based on Pro's inability to meet his burdens. In order to show that The Beatles are overrated, the debater has to present where The Beatles are currently rated, and why that rating should be reduced. Merely pointing out that hey don't deserve all of the accolades they get doesn't meet that burden, especially since ratings are dependent on other musical groups and their comparisons to them. Pro provides a grand total of one band to compare them to, The Yardbirds. It's not clear that even if The Yardbirds are underrated, that The Beatles are overrated, so all I can do is just wonder why the example matters and be left without much reason to believe that the resolution is true. At best, Pro proved that The Beatles shouldn't be as highly regarded as they are, but that does not prove that they should be treated as lesser than other bands that are currently lower rated.
Vote Placed by TheResistance 1 year ago
TheResistance
ceballinBlazingRodentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded in the beginning, by saying that the B's were great. He provided no evidence that really suggested that the B's were overrated. Con was able to rebut and had his case standing in the end.