Anyone not like The Beatles?

Stained Class

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I'm arguing, they simply weren't.

Okay, lets hear more about your 'arguement'..............?

7sr2z3fely84g5

I get me coat....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcBofzIYVNY

Dravokivich

Biggins wrote: »

Moody Blues:

...And I was born before the 70's.

Ah I see... didn't know you were referring to a band.

Badgermonkey

It's so subjective the whole argument is a nonsense tbh.

Personally, I do think Side 2 of Abbey Road is amazing and George Harrison was a practitioner of non-flashy but perfectly judged playing.

Owen

Can't stand them. I sub with a lot of bands in Cork, and the three rules I have if I'm to stand in with a band are no Beatles, no Irish Country and Western, and no Boyband stuff.

The King of Moo

JohnathanM wrote: »

Lads, you're all doing it wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFIMWRXWY90

As the man himself said, on The Beatles:

"I didn't hate them. I actually like two or three of their songs. I just thought they were ridiculous. What was so disgusting was the way they were consumed and merchandised. No music has succeeded in America unless it was accompanied by something to wear, something to dance or a hairdo. A phenomenon is not going to occur unless you can dress up to it."

In other words, a boy band.

That's certainly a fair point to make about them in their early years, though they did move beyond the pop sound and suit and mop of hair look.

orourkeda

As musicians they are really very ordinary and it is difficult to understand why they are such a revered musical outfit (for me at least)

Biggins

Dravokivich wrote: »

Ah I see... didn't know you were referring to a band.

Thats ok - your young.
I'm older.

Paparazzo

squod wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o

Anyone who likes this kind of rubbish needs their head examined removed.

Show me to the guillotine then.


And not forgetting they released everything over a 7 year period. Dont think any band can come close to the impact the beatles had over such a short period.

Badgermonkey

Stained Class wrote: »

Okay, lets hear more about your 'arguement'..............?

Well one quite comparable 'mainstream' unit preceding the Beatles were the Beach Boys, who only later moved to recording with session guys.

bnt

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

They released 13 albums, and their best stuff was most definitely at the end. Abbey road (their last recorded album) was their best imo.

You won't be able to name another band who has done that. Everyone else runs out of ideas after far less than 13 albums.

Not only is there such a band, they're at the O2 in Dublin on Thursday night: 37 years since their first of 19 studio albums, and yet they're only now playing their first ever concert in Ireland. Who? Rush.

But I still like the Beatles too - mostly their middle period, from Rubber Soul to Sgt. Pepper's.

orourkeda

Jackasaurus rex wrote: »

I know a couple people that say they dont like them. but I think its just they are trying to rock the boat.

There are people who dislike them for perfectly good reasons.

Stained Class

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Well one quite comparable 'mainstream' unit preceding the Beatles were the Beach Boys, who only later moved to recording with session guys.

Yer dead right there!

The Beach Boys did it just before the Beatles in the US alright.

Thing is, is that after Pet Sounds in '66, I think, the Beach Boys were a spent force.

The great Brian Wilson was so overwhelmed by the responsibility of carrying so many talentless hangers-on, he just simply imploded under the pressure of it all.

By '67/'68, the poor man was a mere shell of his former self & spent most of the '70s in bed with what most would call something akin to clinical deperession.:(

cruiser178

The King of Moo wrote: »

When I was young I never got any of their albums just to be contrarian, cos it seemed such an obvious thing to do, and lots of people said they were the best band ever just because everyone else did. Though I still liked all the songs I knew by them.
Then when I got a little older and a little less immature I started to buy their albums here and there, and came to the conclusion that they are indeed fantastic. I'm no expert on music, but I can instinctively tell that their best stuff is in another class. I think.

But I know a lot of people still say they're the best band ever just because most people do. It's very rare to hear someone say they don't like them.

So, does anyone hear not like them, and if not, do you have a reason?

sorry op couldn't get passed the first 4 words of your post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQfjIw3mivc now i cant get it out of my head fs

Badgermonkey

orourkeda wrote: »

There are people who dislike them for perfectly good reasons.

Like this one?

orourkeda wrote: »

As musicians they are really very ordinary and it is difficult to understand why they are such a revered musical outfit (for me at least)

Why are they held in such esteem by such a broad range of highly accomplished musicians across virtually all genres from jazz to rock to classical?

For primarily self taught guys, they are considered to have been abundantly blessed with a musical sensibility and literacy light years ahead of their contemporaries (Brian Wilson excepted) in terms of compositional structure, chord progression and use of rhythm and harmony.

Stained Class

orourkeda wrote: »

There are people who dislike them for perfectly good reasons.

Why?

Because they don't like them or............they're a bit mad!

lalee17

Never really got into them... I think they were good but it's just not for me.

orourkeda

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Like this one?



Why are they held in such esteem by such a broad range of highly accomplished musicians across virtually all genres from jazz to rock to classical?

For primarily self taught guys, they are considered to have been abundantly blessed with a musical sensibility and literacy light years ahead of their contemporaries (Brian Wilson excepted) in terms of compositional structure, chord progression and use of rhythm and harmony.

They are by no means the only group who are influential across a great number of genres. Whilst this may be true of the beatles it is by no means a unique achievement.

While they may have been ahead of the contemporaries,there have been several high profile self taught musicians who have had an impact and exerted influence over a host of subsequents artists. Again nothing unique.

To my mind the beatles have had the distinction of being in the right place at the right time rather than being particularly adept musicians.

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

Why?

Because they don't like them or............they're a bit mad!

I can only speak for myself but I've never understood their appeal. There is little to my mind that sets them apart from a lot of other musicals outfits.

Better songwriters, musicians and performers have come and gone.

Stained Class

lalee17 wrote: »

Never really got into them... I think they were good but it's just not for me.

Each to their own & all that.

My fave band is The Who, cos their music suits my mindset.

Having said that, I acknowledge The Beatles role in musical culture & their influence on the bands other posters here eulegise about...

Stained Class

orourkeda wrote: »

Better songwriters, musicians and performers have come and gone.

Not all in one unit though.

They were very revolutionary for their time.

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

Each to their own & all that.

My fave band is The Who, cos their music suits my mindset.

Having said that, I acknowledge The Beatles role in musical culture & their influence on the bands other posters here eulegise about...

Influence does not necessarily equate to musical excellence and vice versa

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

Not all in one unit though.

They were very revolutionary for their time.

There have been but that would be just my own opinion

Stained Class

orourkeda wrote: »

Influence does not necessarily equate to musical excellence and vice versa

Plenty of bands exhibited more musical virtuosity in future years than the Beatles.

Think Boston, ELP, Yes, ELO, Genesis..........most of the Prog Rock acts of the '70s .

Look, The Beatles wrote songs that were/are more memorable to the 'musical virtusos' above.

They were the perfect overall package & that's why they're rememberd so fondly by so many people.

Glassheart

They were an oak tree in a garden of weeds.Nobody can touch them.

Boxoffrogs

Can't really see the big fuss about them. I lived in Liverpool for a decade and you might think the Beatles worshiping that exists there would be infectious but it wasn't for me.

The Chinese seem to adore them. I worked in the Albert Dock where you can enjoy the 'Beatles Experience' and busloads of them would turn up only in their John Lennon T-shirts. I'm sure they were suckered into buying lots of cheap tat marketed as Beatles 'memorabilia'.

Saying that, the Beatles minus Paul McCartney may just have been tolerable...

On the other hand, the Beatles Festival is class.

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

Plenty of bands exhibited more musical virtuosity in future years than the Beatles.

Think Boston, ELP, Yes, ELO, Genesis..........most of the Prog Rock acts of the '70s .

Look, The Beatles wrote songs that were/are more memorable to the 'musical virtusos' above.

They were the perfect overall package & that's why they're rememberd so fondly by so many people.

More memorable perhaps. The "perfect overall package" doesnt exist. They just sold more records.

Pauleta

I dont get them. I think they are pants. Nowhere near the level of a band like Queen.

Stained Class

orourkeda wrote: »

More memorable perhaps. The "perfect overall package" doesnt exist. They just sold more records.

The Beatles remain as close to the perfect package as has been seen in the music business so far.

They just sold more records? Really! Why's that then?

EVERYBODY LIKES GOOD MUSIC!

bodhrandude

Have always liked the hard driving Tomorrow Never Knows probably one of their finest and rocking tracks, along with the Whos I Can See For Miles period and Pink Floyds Piper at the Gates of Dawn, amphetamine psychedelic rock.

Pauleta

Paparazzo wrote: »

Show me to the guillotine then.


And not forgetting they released everything over a 7 year period. Dont think any band can come close to the impact the beatles had over such a short period.

Guns n Roses

DaveDaRave

The Beatles pander to the mainstream masses. The only good bands are underground less heard-of bands that only intelligent and informed people such as myself listen to.

Badgermonkey

orourkeda wrote: »

They are by no means the only group who are influential across a great number of genres. Whilst this may be true of the beatles it is by no means a unique achievement.

Of course not, no, though the breadth and constancy of that influence on the collective cultural consciousness is simply unmatched in modern popular music.

That's not to say it lends the Beatles any more legitimacy than some obscure 1920's delta-blues guitar picker or some such, it's merely a matter of scale.

orourkeda wrote: »

While they may have been ahead of the contemporaries,there have been several high profile self taught musicians who have had an impact and exerted influence over a host of subsequents artists. Again nothing unique.

Yep.

orourkeda wrote: »

To my mind the beatles have had the distinction of being in the right place at the right time rather than being particularly adept musicians.

OK, you qualified that, there were no virtuosos, Ringo wasn't John Bonham, George wasn't Clapton, musically they were more than the sum of their parts. A 'right place, right time' argument is far too foggy and ethereal to get into tbh.

Stained Class

Pauleta wrote: »

I dont get them. I think they are pants. Nowhere near the level of a band like Queen.

Queen are a great band too!

Saw them at Slane in '86.

Have most of their albums too,but like the Stones Kinks, et all , they would'nt have existed without the influence of The Beatles.:cool:

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

The Beatles remain as close to the perfect package as has been seen in the music business so far.

They just sold more records? Really! Why's that then?

EVERYBODY LIKES GOOD MUSIC!

No idea

orourkeda

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Of course not, no, though the breadth and constancy of that influence on the collective cultural consciousness is simply unmatched in modern popular music.

That's not to say it lends the Beatles any more legitimacy than some obscure 1920's delta-blues guitar picker or some such, it's merely a matter of scale.



Yep.



OK, you qualified that, there were no virtuosos, Ringo wasn't John Bonham, George wasn't Clapton, musically they were more than the sum of their parts. A 'right place, right time' argument is far too foggy and ethereal to get into tbh.

Why?

GLaDOS

Have some fantastic songs and some really ****e ones, but the good definitely outweigh the bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn3YqoRDTQo

Stained Class

orourkeda wrote: »

Why?

Orourkeda, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I'm not a mod, but I wish I was was one now, just to ban your ass from this thread.:pac:

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

Orourkeda, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I'm not a mod, but I wish I was was one now, just to ban your ass from this thread.:pac:

Is this the attitude you take to everyone who doesnt like the beatles

Stained Class

orourkeda wrote: »

Is this the attitude you take to everyone who doesnt like the beatles

You haven't , so far given a legitimate reason for their Non-Role in modern culture other than 'your dislike'*
















Like it matters'.

seanybiker

A couple of ok songs but in my opinion they are the most overrated band ever.

Badgermonkey

orourkeda wrote: »

Why?

Firstly, it'd be boring.

Secondly, unless we agreed parameters (see, I'm boring myself already), it'd involve putting the Beatles in a broader context musically and socio-politically from as early as '55 to 1970.

To carry it off without bluff and counter bluff would require an encyclopedic knowledge of everything from life in post-war Liverpool to bloody skiffle music.

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

You haven't , so far given a legitimate reason for their Non-Role in modern culture other than 'your dislike'*
















Like it matters'.

I think their music is overrated. I think they are overrated as musicians and are overated as an act.

I never stated that have a "non role". Ive acknowledged their influence. I just happen to think their music is nothing special and I cant quite comprehend what their attraction to people is.

You can get all snide if you wish and poo poo my opinion because I happen to disagree with you.

Stained Class

orourkeda wrote: »

I think their music is overrated. I think they are overrated as musicians and are overated as an act.

I never stated that have a "non role". Ive acknowledged their influence. I just happen to think their music is nothing special and I cant quite comprehend what their attraction to people is.

You can get all snide if you wish and poo poo my opinion because I happen to disagree with you.

Poo poo you.

You did'nt give a good agument other than your own personal dislike..

That's just not good enough, when arguing something on this scale..

orourkeda

Stained Class wrote: »

Poo poo you.

You did'nt give a good agument other than your own personal dislike..

That's just not good enough, when arguing something on this scale..

What is it you want to hear exactly?

Xivilai

I did like them, but I got sick of them quickly:)

Constantly bloody hearing them everywhere

cock robin

Ah The Beatles the band that influenced every band since the 60s. Boyzone,Westlife etc. The Beatles are sh1te, a band for young girls and insecure men to scream and throw their knickers at. Love Love me do, what a load of bollox.

Buceph

Lots of people in this thread who have no idea about what the state of the music scene was around the time when the Beatles came on the scene, and what they did to it over the next few years. As an earlier poster said, their best period was between Rubber Soul (Norweigian Wood... A ****ING SITAR? WHAT THE **** IS THAT, AND WHY IS HE SINGING ABOUT ARSON?!?) and Sgt Peppers. Also, a lot of people who can't really listen to a song without a "hook" or some edge to it. The Beatles are pop music, and probably the greatest pop music of all time. They tried to get away from that with some songs, some with success (Tomorrow Never Knows, put that on in a club and watch the reaction) and some with modest success but nothing outstanding (Helter Skelter, they couldn't do "hard" songs, they were pop.) And sometimes they literally wiped the floor of everything in front of them (A Day in the Life)

But to get an idea of what was going on with the Beatles you need to look at who else was around during their peak, and these are guys who can find a much better modern audience because they're more niche;

Beach Boys (Brian Wilson is said to have cried when he heard Sgt Peppers, and he's the guy who wrote Pet Sounds. Although I'd imagine 90% of AH would say they're just like Westlife because they have vocal harmonies. Get the **** out.)
Cream (Some of the best musicians of the century, in the best supergroup and who laid the way for Led Zeppelin)
Janis Joplin (Although I haven't listened to her much)
Jefferson Airplane (Ever watch Fear and Loathing?)
Jethro Tull (Folk and Rock, who the **** woulda thunk it?)
Jimi Hendrix (If you want to know what it's like to be the greatest guitar player of all time why don't you ask Rory Gallagher (I know he didn't actually say this))
The Rolling Stones
Leonard Cohen (Possibly wrote the sexiest songs of all time)
Pink Floyd (A completely different Pink Floyd to what most people know)
Syd Barrett (More of a sad case than Brian Wilson, but far greater than Wilson on the singer songwriter front)
The Kinks (Ray Davies, probably the greatest lyricist of all time)
The Who


Seriously, all from the 60's and all would give credence to the Beatles. That was a time for music that will never again be repeated or bested, ever. I'd give my left and right nut to be able to go back and experience it all.

frag420

Similar to Bob Dylans singing ability, the Irish soccer team, U2 and Arsenal the Beatles were and are the most overrated pile of muck ever!

This is my honest opinion and not something to rock the boat although if I could rock a boat with the above mentioned in it in the vain hope it may capsize then ROCK ON!!

frAg

Mr Benevolent

I never liked the Beatles. Way overplayed.