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

[brundaddy]

Sorry daddy but they always gave credit to the american black artist and Elvis for inspiring them' date=' so that don't fly.[/quote']

 

You're not making any logical sense, or responding to my point that their 'rock and roll' was a 'lite' imitation. It's a lack of style in addition to the copycatting.

 

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............

 

Since when does anybody have to be a superstar to have a right to state their own opinions? You Beatlemaniacs just cannot swallow the fact that some people are aware that the Beatles suck dog balls. It has nothing to do with envy or insecurity or whatever it is you're bizarrely trying to project onto me.

[HellboundGreaser]

OK we got it in your first post.

 

You stated your case and thats cool but you keep coming back to prop up your reasons.

 

If you wanna have a debate about it, this is the right place to come.

 

If you're gonna wine after 40 post that your feelings are hurt, then you're in the wrong place.

Oh your good.

[cookieman15061]

You're not making any logical sense' date=' or responding to my point that their 'rock and roll' was a 'lite' imitation. It's a lack of style in addition to the copycatting.

 

 

 

Since when does anybody have to be a superstar to have a right to state their own opinions? You Beatlemaniacs just cannot swallow the fact that some people are aware that the Beatles suck dog balls. It has nothing to do with envy or insecurity or whatever it is you're bizarrely trying to project onto me. [/quote']

 

No your initial post stated they ripped off American artist and nothing about lite imitation.

 

Your favorite era of music didn't die it just got pushed into the background a little. Its not the end of the world.

I don't hold a grudge that any of the artist I like don't dominate the charts any more and appreciate the early rock influences as well as the Beatles and what came after.

 

Nobody said you had to be a superstar to have an opinion but clearly you're the dog ball expert of the forum.

and as far as your dreck is concerned we would love to hear it to determine what american artists you've ripped off.

[65 Casino]

LMAO, some things never change. You guys just love pushin them buttons.

 

I liked the Beatles, the first band to get my attention at 8 or 9 years old. Parents were into elevator music but mom had a Safari's album hidden and I got a hold of it one day. They caught me rockin out to Wipe Out. I loved the opening verse and the drums then the guitar hit me like a ton of bricks.

 

Paul pulled a John Lennon the other night. We all could say the same thing and get no comments at all. I respected his opinion and think the Bush admin sucked big time. Too early to tell on Obama IMO. He got more respect from me to have the balls to say what he thought. I would stick to music if I was him though. John said enough for all of them. RIP Beatles.

[EVOL!]

I also don't like the Grateful Dead. They make me feel like I've eaten a pound of Ex-Lax and Prunes.

 

Ha, I like that. Glad I am not the only one who thinks this worship of the Dead is like a big joke that those of us with taste were never let in on.

[djroge1]

Well in a very short time we've learned.....

 

He's hellbound

 

He hates hippy music

 

He's got opinions

 

He's a mixer

 

and oh yeah he's hellbound.

 

 

Sounds like a true Rock-n-Roll rebel to me.... whats not to like?

 

I may not agree with all of his views but we both play guitar and we both like RnR... I say welcome and Rock on HBGreaser

[milod]

Well... As the "old guy..."

 

When the Beatles came out, I was heavy into the folkie/bluezie thing. Very, very heavy into it. The Beatles, frankly, didn't fit. If I weren't thinking the folkie thing, it was Bluegrass.

 

And... given I was away from "home" from 16, I got kinda ornery and "independent," as a dedicated folkie/bluezie, I pretty much didn't listen to 'em until a girlfriend - a bluezie herself - kind bent my arm to take her to "Help."

 

In retrospect I don't think of the Beatles as a rock band at all. Yeah, they did covers of a lotta U.S. rock in their earlier days, but frankly given their ages which are pretty close to mine, I think the influence in a lotta ways was the "music hall" and a lotta 40s and 50s stuff other than rock.

 

The more they could "get away with" in terms of music, the farther they went from anything one really should call "rock." That's why, in a sense, the comment that they had "something for everybody" is correct in terms of the entire body of work of "the beatles." It just wasn't rock, it was pop and experimental music. That's not a "I hate them" comment, but more a comment of what really was there. Heck, the Rolling Stones "Their Satanic Majesties' Request" wasn't either.

 

Well, me too in terms of an older set of influences than most folks on this board. So I still consider late 50s music as "real classic rock 'n' roll" while most here look to the post Beatles '60s and '70s for that title.

 

I guess it's more a matter of semantics.

 

As for country... I dunno. It's not the fun it used to be, either. I don't wanna get into the "race" thing, but let's face it, black pre-blues and "popular" music played major roles in converting southern folk stuff into "country." Southern folk stuff and the "popular" music of the day changed black pre-blues into stuff we'd call blues nowadays. All of our musical styles really affect us in whatever style we think we're doing - whether we realize and/or admit it or not.

 

In a sense I think the new guy does have one point, though. When music isn't "dancible," it's now "art music" and should probably be in a different category regardless which set of roots it came from.

 

But Beatles as Bach and Mozart? No, I don't think so. My reasoning is that they were writing for a small format only - small pieces as opposed to full-blown creations. Whether they wanted to do more or not, they were constricted by the time element of a radio format which was constricted by the time element of the vinyl recording and set up on a commercial basis for "popular" stuff almost as soon as commercial radio began. Then "dance tunes" interspersed with commercials set the rules.

 

m

[charlie brown]

Well, sorry...The Beatles, were "Rock & Roll!" Whatever they morphed into, they started at "Rock & Roll!"

The 40's "show tune" thing, was more Paul's influence, both in influence on him, from his Dad and other sources,

AND his influence in that regard to his writing. Their strengths, "Genius" was the fact that they didn't "stay" static...

play just covers or even 50's influence "classic/roots" Rock & Roll," but used it as a springboard, and and a grounding

device, as well. Whatever else they did, they always incorporated some good old basic R&R, within all their albums.

So, to say they weren't really "Rock & Roll," to me...is silly. As to being Bach or Mozart? They ARE, for their times!

No one is comparing them, stylisitically, to real "Classical" music. They do use elements, of Classical, in some of their

works...due in large part, to George Martin's influence, as well as Paul's, again. And, with George Harrison's Indian

Classical music influence, thrown into the mix, what they really did, was create their OWN kind of catagory...

"Beatles Music!" Nothing bad, about that...IMHO.

 

Anyway, it's alway fun, and interesting, to get peoples ideas, and "takes," on "Beatles" music.

 

So..."Carry on!" ;>)

 

CB

[milod]

CB...

 

Actually I'd say they were rock 'n' roll when they did stuff to dance to; when it wasn't something to dance to, it stopped being rock almost by definition. In fact, one might make a case that "Rock" came to be to meet dance interests of the "youth market" that wasn't being met by pop music after the death of the big band for economic reasons. Jazz had gotten so experimental that except for such as Bobby Troup, it was to listen to rather than dance to - rather like a Bartok string quartet that may have been based on folk dance music, but wasn't any more. <grin>

 

As for "classical," I'd say nothing that's very "popular music" since the phonograph and then radio would qualify any more than "When You and I Were Young, Maggie" or "Grandfather's Clock," both of which survived some 150 years in various incarnations and are "classics."

 

My reasoning has more to do with longer form than with whether the stuff will remain popular for another century or more. Frankly I think a lot of Beatles stuff will be in a repertoire of many musicians for that century or so. In fact, I'm sure it will be listened to far more than Bach string quartets. But then again, it's not following the longer "classical" format but rather a "pop music" format. Even Ravel's "Bolero" isn't really "classical" but rather "program music" in that sense.

 

So I'm not badmouthing anything, but rather expressing concern on terminology. <chortle> Ah, well.

 

m

[charlie brown]

Well, Milrod...sorry, if I sounded like I was "challenging" you...or your views. Not so...I wasn't picking on you, or

your ideas. I'm totally fine, with it. But, I (often) hear, on this forum, how "Beatles" music ISN'T Rock & Roll.

That, I disagree with, even though I respect their right, to feel and express otherwise. That's all. As to "Classical,"

I've always thought of it, as being the "Pop" music, of it's time. And Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, the "Rock Stars"

of their time. Music...whatever style, will continue to morph, back and forth, using whatever means, and influences

past or present, available. The degree to which any of it "lasts," will be in it's structure, melody, and how it can

continue to inspire it's listeners...generation to generation. Lots of music goes very strong, for a time, falls a bit out

of favor, and then is "rediscovered," at a later date. The times, and societies themselves, often dictate or influence

those choices...at least on a broader scale. It's all GOOD! Even stuff I don't care for, I realize is something that other's

DO, and in some cases, even a LOT of other people like. RAP, being a perfect example, in that regard. Not my thing,

at all! BUT...to a lot of folks, it's essential, apparently? ;>)

 

Cheers,

CB

[HellboundGreaser]

Milod is correct. The beatles started out as a RnR band, then evolved into somthing else. Call it "Art Rock" Psychedelic Rock" "Folk rock" Revolution Rock" whatever, Just not Rock n Roll. When you take the beat and the whiskey out of "Rock n Roll" your left with just "Rock".

[milod]

Actually I'd say that there was "serious" music that began to get into rather longer sorts of "afternoon entertainment" mode in the pre-baroque era - but it was "art music" rather than "popular music" in the sense that one sat and listened as opposed to what one might dance to of an evening.

 

It's more a matter of definition. To me if it's something one might dance to of an evening, whether in a village square, a palace or a saloon, it's the pop music of an era that may have an additional style name added - such as "rock." If it's something one can't really dance to, and one sits and listens/watches as one watches a play, it's something different regardless of the time period/era. That's not a value judgment beyond a simple definition for categorization.

 

Much jazz of the past 60 years and other "small" art pieces also never were designed for dance, nor were they larger formal compositions. I think a lotta non-dancible Beatle stuff best fits there.

 

To me "rock" as played in saloons from the 50s to date, has more in common with "popular" music and performers from the U.S. Civil War era to date than it has with "art" music. You listened to, and could dance to, your friends sing/play "When You and I Were Young, Maggie," and knew that some famous musician had made it theirs.

 

Yeah, Mozart was something else in his day - but not entirely for his music. Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Wagner, Verdi, Haydn... in a sense they were famed professional craftsmen more than rock stars as we've know rock stars. I'd make the comparison more to some of the generals of the baroque era in ways - or until politics went to hades for him, Ben Franklin in England and Europe. Frank Lloyd Wright, Picasso... perhaps even Einstein or Edison, Flo Ziegfeld...

 

Stars, for sure, but not really like "rock stars."

 

Dance music always has been a bit different from "sit and watch" music, at least for much of the period from the English Tudors to date - and with constantly increasing sophistication as the tools of the trade improved - ditto theater, btw.

 

So... I dunno. It's more a matter of semantics, I guess, than anything.

 

HB... I do think you're looking at "rock" as a unique sort of thing. I'd say that as roughly an type of combo music meant to dance to, it's well in the mainstream of the past 150 years of American pop music. It's just louder and with somewhat different instrumentation thanks to amplification. I'll admit I didn't think that way so much 50 years ago <grin> but a wee bit of study and a large bit of "let's see if I can back out of 'today' and be objective,'" I do now.

 

m

[HellboundGreaser]

HB... I do think you're looking at "rock" as a unique sort of thing.

You are correct. "Rock n Roll" is it's own individual style that falls under that "Rock" umbrella. "Rock n Roll" is heavily rooted in late 40's-early 50's Jump Blues n RnB, and even 1920's-30's Boogie woogie. Usually it's a 12 barre format and and the songs clock in around 3 minute. It's music of a sexual nature and a heavy emphasis on rhythm. The wilder the better.

[FirstMeasure]

All this Jockeying for Sub Genre is starting to sound like a conversation about Death Metal.

 

Trying to define Rock and Roll so it only houses your personal taste? Not gonna happen. The Beatles are Rock and Roll, the Dead is Rock and Roll, the Stones are Rock and Roll, the Ramones are Rock and Roll, Twisted Sister is Rock and Roll, even the Red Hot Chilie Peppers are Rock and Roll (even though I don't like them).

 

HellboundGreaser seems to only like Rock-a-Billy, yet another sub genre of Rock and Roll, and Punk, just another Rock and Roll subgenre. Just like Blues Guys that don't want Stevie Ray Vaughan or Rory Gallagher to be Blues because it's not the Blues they like. Tough, it's the blues.

 

The Grateful Dead, The Beatles, Bill Haley, and Chuck Berry are Rock and Roll. Personal taste and Shoulder Chip not withstanding.

[HellboundGreaser]

The Beatles are Rock and Roll

Some of their stuff was

the Dead is Rock and Roll

Some was I guess, howver I use the term "Rock n Roll" loosley with them.

Twisted Sister is Rock and Roll,

Nope, Glam Metal rooted in Heavy Metal.

Red Hot Chilie Peppers are Rock and Roll

They are a "Rock" band rooted in funk, fusion and American hardcore.

HellboundGreaser seems to only like Rock-a-Billy

While Rockabilly is my main love, I also have affection for Western Swing, Delta Blues, Big Band Swing, Dixie Land Jazz, Bluegrass, Jump Blues, Depression era Folk Music, Cajun/Zydeco, Bakersfield Honky Tonk, Chicago Blues, Some early 60's Garage and classic Punk Rock. It's all relative. If you deviate from "Rock n Roll" too much it becomes something else all together. Thats not a bad thing. It just is what it is.

[FirstMeasure]

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

 

I didn't want to do this, but someone's gotta pull out Billy Joel. Genres are for Record Stores, musicians need open minds. Just my Opinion of course.

[HellboundGreaser]

I didn't want to do this, but someone's gotta pull out Billy Joel. Genres are for Record Stores, musicians need open minds. Just my Opinion of course.

I wish more record stores had material listed by proper genre, It would make stuff easier to find.

[charlie brown]

So, are "The Jonas Brothers" Rock & Roll. Were "The Mothers of Invention" Rock & Roll?

It seems to me, that the "lines" or "Boxes" if you like, are determined by who thinks what

is "Cool," at any one time. Self-appointed purveyors of "Taste and Style." And, since there

are many, constantly changing purveyors....Maybe, it's all (still) Rock & Roll, or NONE of it's

Rock & Roll, anymore. It's been morphed and/or sub-catagorized out of existance. ???

 

CB

[cookieman15061]

I hate em now just because of this stupid a$$ thread.

[FirstMeasure]

I wish more record stores had material listed by proper genre' date=' It would make stuff easier to find.

 

[/quote']

Just Alphabetize it, I can figure out what I like without a Corporate Tag, and maybe audiences would Listen a little more and Sport less if the plastic dividers were taken out of the CD bins.

[HellboundGreaser]

So, are "The Jonas Brothers" Rock & Roll

The Jonas Brothers are about as "Rock n Roll as Velveeta is cheese.

[HellboundGreaser]

Just Alphabetize it, I can figure out what I like without a Corporate Tag, and maybe audiences would Listen a little more and Sport less if the plastic dividers were taken out of the CD bins.

No thanks, I don't want to waste valuble time sifting though endless Grand Funk Railroad and Grateful dead Albums hunting for a particular Go-Getters, George Thorogood & the Destroyers, or Go-Cat Go record.

[charlie brown]

The Jonas Brothers are about as "Rock n Roll as Velveeta is cheese.

 

 

In Your Humble Opinion..... (Smile)

 

CB

[charlie brown]

I hate em now just because of this stupid a$$ thread.

 

 

 

Well, cookieman, what "Dead Horse," would YOU like to discuss? LOL! Everything,

near as I can tell, has been discussed ad nauseum, before. They just keep getting

regurgitated up, again, and again. So...why not this subject, too? ;>)

 

We could talk about pickups, or strings, or whose got the nicest "Burst," or what

year was the only "Real" Les Paul made? How about why SG's will never BE "Les

Pauls," no matter what they USED to say on them? Which is better, tube or Solid

State? Or, why/how Yoko ruined the genius of John Lennon, which broke up The

Beatles, and cause the downfall of "Rock & Roll," and the ultimate destruction of

Western Civilization, to be overrun by Muslim Extremists?

Some nice, light discussion, like that...maybe?

 

(And Please...Don't get upset, I'm only kidding...kinda.)

 

;>)

 

CB

[FirstMeasure]

No thanks' date=' I don't want to waste valuble time sifting though endless Grand Funk Railroad and Grateful dead Albums hunting for a particular Go-Getters, George Thorogood & the Destroyers, or Go-Cat Go record.

 

[/quote']

Thorogood had better be in T,

 

Go-Cat will be before Go-Getters which precedes Grand then Grate. That should do it for the sifting.