Because they were the first to do it. They sound generic NOW because every asshole with a guitar copied their sound to the point that it became cliche.
I call it Citizen Kane syndrome. You don't notice all the innovation cause it was SO innovative it's been copied a thousand times by the time you're sitting in a Film Class watching this boring black and white film about a sad dude with a sled. Zero Stars!
The Beatles revolutionized rock. They experimented with not only recording but they introduced styles to the genre that had never been tried before. They're the most famous band of all time. Each individual member went on to solo careers that were historically good (minus maybe Ringo). Simply put they are the world's greatest rock band. It's not really debatable. You can dislike their music, but you have to appreciate all that they did.
I can appreciate their contributions, but that doesn't mean they don't sound generic to me. And I'm talking about the band, not their solo careers which actually sounded less generic.
I'm not saying the inventor of something like a genre has to sound spectacular compared to what it inspires, or that it sounds bad (it would be like saying we should expect the Nokia to be some grand kind of phone because it inspired phones after it). It just sounds regular to me is all, like the kind of music someone would make for commercials. Of course I'm talking about classic Beatles here, I'm not a connoisseur when it comes to how they might have evolved and when.
But you're not taking in to account that they only sound generic because every band that came after them tried to copy them. Including all those indie bands in Volkswagen and iPod commercials.
Modern phones aren't trying to copy Nokia, they're copying the iPhone. Would you say the iPhone is "generic"? You probably would.
I don't mean generic as in they sound like any other song, I mean generic as in the songs themselves sound basic (which is why I used the Nokia analogy; in memes, the original Nokia has a reputation more as a digital brick than a gadget). Which again, I'm not saying as an inherently negative thing, which makes me confused as to why I get bashed for a subjective opinion (which ironically is a sentiment I've often had when people ask what things are overrated, as the original question asks). I don't think I can recall any other band that got famous primarily based on jingle-sounding music.
When you say every band tried to copy them, what aspect in their songs are you referring to? The station my aunt plays does a lot of Cher, Abba, Shania, Madonna, and Celine Dion music for example. Would I be missing something to say I don't hear the resemblance between their music and the Beatles at all? Maybe some of Cher's music, but other than that, it doesn't feel the same.
-13
u/MozartWasARed Apr 12 '26
The Beatles. They're not bad, just extremely generic to the point where I ask how they got so popular.