I am probably the only person left on the whole entire planet that has actually never seen the Movie "
CITIZEN KANE
".
I really need to check that Movie out at some point, I have heard a ton of Great things about it.

lol, I was going to say old and boring but ya beat me.
(Before the hate comes, I've never seen Citizen Kane, and I think the Beatles are all right. I even have a few of their songs in my digital music library.)

They are basically the same. Both are old and suck.
My password is password

No, it is not.
I can listen to Beatles songs all day and never get bored with them.
There is no way I could watch this movie every day and not get bored with it.
What a dumb comparison.
One has more variety and the other does not.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

You can put me down for "The Beatles aren't overrated", too.

thats not how it works you cant pick and choose only early or certain parts of a band when considering how great a band is. you have to take into consideration every part of their career. the only exception is a band like pink floyd where they made music after the main songwriter and creative influence left which wasnt anywhere near as great as with the member.
so its not like steve martin, say where you can only think of his great movies and forget about his bad movies.
lukejbarnett

How so? Even assuming they'd have done nothing but crap since 1970 (and a cursory glance of their solo careers shows they wouldn't have), it still wouldn't erase the brilliance of their 60's work.

I think if The Beatles had remained together (& alive) & kept touring for money through the 00's we could say overrated.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

Sure they claim this. You can say that many bands are/were better on instruments than The Beatles. Led Zeppelin had a a great guitar player and drummer, but you can easily find bands that were better than Led Zeppelin (Dream Theater for example), but Led Zeppelin makes in my opinion better music than Dream Theater, even though Dream Theater is better technically. And The Beatles easily tops all of them even though George Harrison didn't show off like Jimmy Page, his sound was spectacular.
When it comes to playing live The Beatles quit long before they became any serious live band (Beatlemania concerts shouldn't be counted as real musicianship), while The Stones developed thorughout the years, and never gave up performing. Seeing the Beatles playing live on the rooftop in 1969 is in my opinion better than anything the Stones ever did. And the stones is easily beaten by other great live bands, like The Who. In the end it is not about who is best at individual things, it is about the music and the band as a whole. The Beatles as a whole is not overrated. Roy Orbison has some fantastic songs that he wrote and sang, but he is nowhere near The Beatles. No other band is anywhere near them.

Nah, I've seen people that manage to overrate the Beatles, by claiming they were better at their instruments than Led Zeppelin, better live performers than the Rolling Stones or better singers than Roy Orbison.

Only problem with this analogy is that The Beatles is not overrated. You can't praise them enough.

I agree with the comparison of
Citizen Kane
to the Kinks' music. I think Ray Davies of the Kinks was a better and more insightful lyricist than any of the Beatles. Like
Citizen Kane
, the Kinks' songs often dealt with human flaws, disillusionment, and the emptiness of materialism.

Fair point. I didn't even think about commercial success when making that comparison.

Actually, it'd probably be more like the Kinks or the post "Pet Sounds" Beach Boys of cinema. Innovative and influential, highly acclaimed by insiders, but not a commercial success.