I HATE The (F...ing) Beatles, and why!

[FirstMeasure]

Good Song Writers, but i can't stand their voices. George Harrison was a pretty good singer and good guitar player, but I could never get into Lennon or McCartney's voices or playing. And Ringo was kind of a Joke, but entertaining.

[Murph]

But hey Macca' date=' SHUT UP AND SING!

 

I agree.

 

Paul lost a helluva lotta points with me the other night. I've never in my life dissed his Queen.

 

Hell, I even gave Fergie a pass.

 

Actually, hey Paul.......

 

Just shut up and play bass.

[Big Bill]

Like most of us, I grew up listening to The Beatles. They are the only band that I haven't grown tired of listening to. They are a rock n roll institution. I have been getting into their side B stuff lately.

[DAS44]

Gotta love the Beatles IMO, great stuff.

 

I never liked floyd either.

[DeVeeWee]

My life story began with the Beatles, it'll end that way too...

[EVOL!]

I love the Beatles, but could do without Paul's granny music songs (obladi oblada? wtf is that crap?). I always liked Lennon's later songs more because they had more grit and attitude. Love that he wanted to move beyond the beautiful, orchestrated magic of St. Peppers and do something different. Could do without his infantile, spoiled brat personality.

 

Harrison will always be my favorite Beatle, even though he did not come into his own until late in their career.

[EVOL!]

The Stones (up until Brian Jones died) were right up there with the Beatles.

 

You're speaking my language, brother. The Stones never appreciated what a talent and visionary they had in Jones. He saved them from being another boring blues rock English band. Everything they did after he died is over rated and boring. Mick is terrible singer too. I don't care if he is one of the most successful singers of all time.

[brundaddy]

Ok I'll take the bait. I think the Beatles suck because their material people think of as rock and roll is phony and rips off real American rock and roll ... then their other material is easy listening dreck.

 

...In a nutshell.

[cookieman15061]

Ok I'll take the bait. I think the Beatles suck because their material people think of as rock and roll is phony and rips off real American rock and roll ... then their other material is easy listening dreck.

 

...In a nutshell.

 

 

Sorry daddy but they always gave credit to the american black artist and Elvis for inspiring them, so that don't fly.

 

Unlike the Zep boys who stole from others and tried to call it their own.

 

I'd be interested in hearing some of your enormously successful high quality dreck. Post away brother......

 

I'll be waiting............

[bloom59]

Wow, it took 2 pages for the first person to actually say something negative and then gets killed for it. This is what happens when people think everybody should think like them. I am still learning to play and can offer no technique or musically sophistacated wisdom, but I have been a lover of music long enough to know what good music is according to my musical tastes; and I don't think anything else matters other than what your personal prefernces are. I don't like most of the Beatles stuff, and there is no magic reason why other than personal preference. But if people had their lives changed by them that's cool too.

 

For what it's worth, Dylan is the most important musician/band in the last 100 years. And anybody that disagrees must not have a brain[biggrin]

[charlie brown]

So, besides Dylan....who DO you consider to have made, or that still makes "Great Music?"

 

CB

[bloom59]

I wouldn't argue that the Beatles didn't make great music, hundreds of millions of people for 45 years probably are not wrong. I just don't care for it. I think the important part of your question has to do with 'people making music.' There aren't enough people writing their own songs and actually playing instruments without digital help these days.

 

For me, I am an unapologetic fan of many of the big names: Zeppelin, Floyd, Allman Bros., Tom Petty, Neil Young, classic country, etc. Most blues or blues-based stuff. The list would be incredibly long.

 

Today, Derek Trucks, White Stripes, JJ Grey, Black Keys, Sharon Jones. There are others ofcourse, but the list would not be nearly as long. Again, just because a person doesn't like something does not mean it isn't good. That's the difference between saying, " I can't stand (Beatles, Dylan, whoever)," and saying, "The Beatles, Dylan or whoever sucks!

 

Opinions are just opinions, not facts.

[HellboundGreaser]

I never liked the Beatles. I do respect that they were creative musicians however their stuff is way too Self-indulgent and Hippie-ish for my liking. But then again I cant stand most of the Rock n Roll that came out of the 60's, cept' for the first couple of Stones records and the Sonics which were a killer band.

[charlie brown]

And today's "Rock," ISN'T "Self-indulgent????!" The Stones (as much as I love them) were then,

and arguably still are, a "British Blues Band!" I think ALL music, is self-indulgent, to an extent. It's

made by people, who by their very natures, are self-indulgent. The '60's music, though drawing

(heavily, at times) on previous incarnations, and styles, was a time of real creativity. It's true, that

it was "allowed," and even encouraged...as the times, were pretty experimental, anyway.

But, I really don't think the '60's or ANY of the bands, back then, were any more "self-indulgent," and

quite a bit more creative, than most of what you hear, today. I'm NOT saying, that there aren't great

new artists, and music around. But the "mainstream" variety...which of course "The Beatles" were part

of back then, is far less creative...IMHO, than almost any of the '60's "Rock" was. '60's Pop, was even

better, than most of what you hear now....or, certainly no worse. But, that's just my opinion, and you

know what they say, about "opinions!" (Smile)

 

CB

[S t e v e]

the beatles do not appeal to me at all, and as for the wannbe's OASIS...i'd rather siht on my own head than listen to that crap

[charlie brown]

You know...it's funny...I actually go through periods, where I can't listen to "Rock," anymore.

I have to listen to Jazz, Blues, or Classical, during those times. I guess (maybe it's "age?") I

get "burnt out," on "Rock!" Even the rock I grew up on...at times. A lot of that youthful sensibility

has changed, now. So, those songs, as great as they are, don't "relate" to where I am, now.

So, I just about HAVE to listen to other types of music, even Opera, to be able to get back into "rock,"

again...and appreciate it, for JUST what it IS. It's kind of a vicious cyle, that way, with me. LOL!

A lot of what younger folks consider "creative" or progressive, is really just re-hash, and repackaging,

of everything that's gone before. But, that's the nature of "Rock," IMHO...it's always been that way,

to a certain degree. Probably always will be, too. ;>)

 

CB

[HellboundGreaser]

And today's "Rock' date='" ISN'T "Self-indulgent????!" The Stones (as much as I love them) were then,

and arguably still are, a "British Blues Band!" I think ALL music, is self-indulgent, to an extent. It's

made by people, who by their very natures, are self-indulgent. The '60's music, though drawing

(heavily, at times) on previous incarnations, and styles, was a time of real creativity. It's true, that

it was "allowed," and even encouraged...as the times, were pretty experimental, anyway.

But, I really don't think the '60's or ANY of the bands, back then, were any more "self-indulgent," and

quite a bit more creative, than most of what you hear, today. I'm NOT saying, that there aren't great

new artists, and music around. But the "mainstream" variety...which of course "The Beatles" were part

of back then, is far less creative...IMHO, than almost any of the '60's "Rock" was. '60's Pop, was even

better, than most of what you hear now....or, certainly no worse. But, that's just my opinion, and you

know what they say, about "opinions!" (Smile)

 

CB[/quote']

Eh, The Beatles "self indulgence" was coming from a different place. They were cool when they still had Pomps(Those German campus boy haircuts were gay) Could they have made it doing Carl Perkins covers? not at all. They did eventually do their own thing. But what they did was boring IMO. I prefer music that makes you want to stomp your feet, grab your gal and a beer. Gimmie Bo Diddley, Howlin Wolf, Elmore James, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash or Jerry Lee Lewis any day. There's no pretention in that music.

[charlie brown]

Well...to each his/her own. I would argue (if I was prone to that), that Carl, Johnny, Jerry Lee, even Elvis,

were just "white boying" up, black music...As much as they loved it, themselves. So, how "honest," is that?

It's Cool...and really FUN. And, in fact, it helped the black artists recieve the much deserved recognition, they

needed. But, "The Beatles," did the same thing, with their cover material, early on...and wrote some of

their early material, with those artists you mentioned, in mind...for a "style" or way they'd perform them,

themselves. So, We/They ALL borrow,"Steal" each other's licks and style. Doesn't make it "dishonest," nor particularly "honest," either. It just IS, or happens.

 

CB

[HellboundGreaser]

You know...it's funny...I actually go through periods' date=' where I can't listen to "Rock," anymore.

I have to listen to Jazz, Blues, or Classical, during those times. I guess (maybe it's "age?") I

get "burnt out," on "Rock!" Even the rock I grew up on...at times. A lot of that youthful sensibility

has changed, now. So, those songs, as great as they are, don't "relate" to where I am, now.

So, I just about HAVE to listen to other types of music, even Opera, to be able to get back into "rock,"

again...and appreciate it, for JUST what it IS. It's kind of a vicious cyle, that way, with me. LOL!

A lot of what younger folks consider "creative" or progressive, is really just re-hash, and repackaging,

of everything that's gone before. But, that's the nature of "Rock," IMHO...it's always been that way,

to a certain degree. Probably always will be, too. ;>)

 

CB[/quote']Some of the greatest contemporary music is many of the roots revivial acts that are keeping out musical heritage alive. People seem to relate to tried and true styles(Jump Blues, Rockabilly, Delta Blues, Bakersfield Honky-Tonk) because that stuff speaks directly to the common man in a non-pretentious way. I could never relate to the Beatles like I can relate to Johnny Cash or contemporary Artists like Nick Curran or Wayne Hancock.

[HellboundGreaser]

Well...to each his/her own. I would argue (if I was prone to that)' date=' that Carl, Johnny, Jerry Lee, even Elvis,

were just "white boying" up, black music...As much as they loved it, themselves. So, how "honest," is that?

It's Cool...and really FUN. And, in fact, it helped the black artists recieve the much deserved recognition, they

needed. But, "The Beatles," did the same thing, with their cover material, early on...and wrote some of

their early material, with those artists you mentioned, in mind...for a "style" or way they'd perform them,

themselves. So, We/They ALL borrow,"Steal" each other's licks and style. Doesn't make it "dishonest," nor particularly "honest," either. It just IS, or happens.

 

CB[/quote']

That's alot of Hooey. Music has no color barrier. Yeah the industry did screw over many black artists(Just like they screw over artists of every race and ethnicity today) But all Elvis did was bring RnB to a broader audience by being himself. Whats ironic is that Alan Freed took the fall for the "Payola scandal" (**** Clark walked free) while paying for play is common practice today. Jerry Lee, Carl Perkins and Elvis were raised on and influenced by Black RnB and they always proudly spoke of that.

[charlie brown]

Some of the greatest contemporary music is many of the roots revivial acts that are keeping out musical heritage alive. People seem to relate to tried and true styles(Jump Blues' date=' Rockabilly, Delta Blues, Bakersfield Honky-Tonk) because that stuff speaks directly to the common man in a non-pretentious way. I could never relate to the Beatles like I can relate to Johnny Cash or contemporary Artists like Nick Curran or Wayne Hancock.[/quote']

 

 

Well, as always...it's only as important, as anyone makes it. We all "love what we love, and don't what we don't!"

I would never argue that point, at all. And, I like/love the fact, that others are picking up the traditional, or "roots"

music and doing it! Even if they put their own "spin" on it.

 

As to the "common man," thing...what IS that? Aren't we all "common" men, and women? That feels like a marketing catagory, or "box" to put someone in, so it's easier (for some) to identify with, or feel comfortable in. Sure, there will be exceptional people, doing exceptional things, within our commonality.

 

But, I guess I get (really) tired of "lables," as they tend to push us appart, rather than bring us together. Music is music!

Styles may differ, and have "lables/names," but...when we use things like "the common man," or "the Elite," it really

drives wedges, between us...even if subconsiously. Well, again...just my personal opinion. ;>b

 

CB

[HellboundGreaser]

I just like music that comes from the soil. When you listen to listen to a Hank Williams record you can hear every shot of Whiskey and every drop of nicotine that he inhaled in those songs. When you listen to Elmore James you can hear the Bottles flying in whatever Southside Chicago Tavern he recorded in. Simple and raw is what sticks around for the long haul, and thats what people relate to even if they dont know it, It's deep down in there.

[charlie brown]

That's alot of Hooey. Music has no color barrier. Yeah the industry did screw over many black artists(Just like they screw over artists of every race and ethnicity today) But all Elvis did was bring RnB to a broader audience by being himself. Whats ironic is that Alan Freed took the fall for the "Payola scandal" (**** Clark walked free) while paying for play is common practice today. Jerry Lee' date=' Carl Perkins and Elvis were raised on and influenced by Black RnB and they always proudly spoke of that. [/quote']

 

Oh you think not?! Musical notes may not have any color barrier, and even styles have less so,

than they used to. But, they are still there. The important thing, is how we deal with them,

and ignoring them is NOT dealing with them.

 

As to what Elvis and the other white acts, did...in the Fifties...no one is arguing, their influences!

Or, the fact that they payed homage to their influences. Thankfully, they did do that.

But, they made "black" or (Race Music) as it was called back then, a lot more acceptable, to

white audiences. But, even so...for a long time, you had Pat Boone types, doing sugary re-

arrangements, of old Blues and Gospel standards! So, don't tell me, there isn't or wasn't any

"Color" barriers, that needed and were broken. We still have a LONG way to go, that way, too...

both musically and socially. On both/all sides! There is a surface "tolerance," but as long as we

see each other's skin color, religion, or national origin First, or "different,"...there will never be any

real "equality." I DO hope, someday...we will all be treated equally, without predudice to color,

religion, or nationalality. But, I fear that's still a LONG way off! Right now, it seems further away,

than ever, in some ways.

 

CB

[cookieman15061]

Ok we get it they had no effect on you but for many of us they did. Not saying ones wrong or ones right we all have influences.

 

I have lots of interviews were the Beatles gave credit to the artist that came before them so why the sh!t stirring.

 

Oh and Johnny Cash and Paul Mccartney used to vacation together in Jamaica. Probably trying to steal from Bob Marley.

[cookieman15061]

He's just a newb with a chip on his boulder CB. He just wants an argument.