The White Album #A0000001 for sale anybody here super rich ?

[michaelmanfredi]

fuck puppies man, they're too old

[mitchard]

It makes you look like you want a medal for not loving something universally beloved and it's kinda obnoxious. 

 

You know... some people just don't love The Beatles. 

[sjb2k1]

chocolate chip cookies dude, my grandma had this secret recipe

 

i think she got it from a frenchman

[TooManyHumans.....]

I used to not like The Beatles...when I was sixteen. Then I connected the lineage of rock & roll. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another thing to not respect an artists work solely because it's universally loved...or because you like another band more from that time.

 

It's just music.

[Buffbloom]

Wow. This thread.

It's one thing to have bad taste. But must you shove your bad taste in everyone's face while you clap yourself on the back? It makes you look like you want a medal for not loving something universally beloved and it's kinda obnoxious.

I haven't read a single good reason why anyone doesn't like The Beatles. "I don't like it" is the closest, and if that's honestly true (and you've honestly given them a chance, fine) but I suspect people who say "I don't like it" haven't really tried to listen to them because of preconceived notions, like "they're old," or "they're bubblegum nonsense" or "ewww pop music" or "they're not threatening enough!" As if good music has to be "threatening." What the hell does that mean? Do some fans of music not really appreciate good hooks? Clever lyrics? Catchy choruses? Sweeping musical evolution? Is your cool card going to be revoked if you happen to listen to music with pop music trappings?

The thing that really drives me crazy is the whole "before my time" bullshit argument. You know what? Everything worth a damn is before your time. Chocolate chip cookies are before your time. Ice cream, puppies, Shakespeare? All before your time. There's a reason why people still love all that stuff.

You've got it backwards... You get a cool card for liking the Beatles, not for disliking them.

[idreamofpunk]

Wow. This thread.

It's one thing to have bad taste. But must you shove your bad taste in everyone's face while you clap yourself on the back? It makes you look like you want a medal for not loving something universally beloved and it's kinda obnoxious. 

I haven't read a single good reason why anyone doesn't like The Beatles. "I don't like it" is the closest, and if that's honestly true (and you've honestly given them a chance, fine) but I suspect people who say "I don't like it" haven't really tried to listen to them because of preconceived notions, like "they're old," or "they're bubblegum nonsense" or "ewww pop music" or "they're not threatening enough!" As if good music has to be "threatening." What the hell does that mean? Do some fans of music not really appreciate good hooks? Clever lyrics? Catchy choruses? Sweeping musical evolution? Is your cool card going to be revoked if you happen to listen to music with pop music trappings?

The thing that really drives me crazy is the whole "before my time" bullshit argument. You know what? Everything worth a damn is before your time. Chocolate chip cookies are before your time. Ice cream, puppies, Shakespeare? All before your time. There's a reason why people still love all that stuff. 

 

"bubblegum nonsense" is actually a direct quote from my dad, who grew up when Beatlemania was at it's peak. I don't agree with him on a lot musically, but this is one thing we intersect on.

 

You cannot tell me that "I Want To Hold Your Hand" isn't total bubblegum pop. You can't tell me that "Love Me Do" isn't bubblegum pop. It's on the better end of that, but come on. The difference is it's well-crafted bubblegum pop. It's actually memorable. It's there the difference between the Beatles and the rather forgettable 60s acts lie.

 

However, you go to songs like "Yes it Is," and you've got a hell of a song. You go to "help!" and it's a fine song. But until they hit Rubber Soul, in my opinion, the full collection of songs is lacking something. That's when they started making albums instead of singles collections.

 

Some people just don't connect with "I Want To Hold Your Hand." So sorry.

[Parker]

You've got it backwards... You get a cool card for liking the Beatles, not for disliking them.

 

The Beatles are a lot of things, but they haven't been "cool" since 1968. 

[habbazoot]

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.

[Guest]

so what i'm gathering is that people who DON'T LIKE THE BEATLES started with their first two albums, and then wrote off every single song/album/solo venture that followed.

 

yeah, makes a ton of sense.

[jerseypride]

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.

Way to attribute your source bro. I'm sure you had these same ideas too. 

 

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

[Guest]

OH SNAP

[TheEnigmyst]

Way to attribute your source bro. I'm sure you had these same ideas too. 

 

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

LOL

[castaway]

I like Nickelback. Is that cool?

[Parker]

Wow, I don't know what's worse, the guy ripping off that idiotic screed to prove a point or the guy who wrote it in the first place.

 

I love Tim Buckley and the Beatles. Why do you have to draw a line between what sold and what doesn't? It's true that hype and popularity are often bad signs of artistic merit. That's all the more reason to celebrate the rare artists who can achieve both.

 

Also, anyone who makes the argument that "fill in the blank" band had better musicians in it than the members of The Beatles is missing the point. Do you think anyone is sitting around making the argument that Ringo Starr is rock's greatest drummer? Bands aren't supposed to be like some stupid fucking all-star team. They have their own personalities that define them and their music, and no band in history has a clearer personality, outstanding personal narrative or incredible sense of musical evolution as The Beatles. 

 

And again, people are allowed not to like them if they have their reasons. Sure, taste is subjective. You can trash pop music as if whatever you listen to is "above" it (even though most common musical styles have at least some strong roots in pop music). But you're not allowed to not like them if you haven't listened to them and don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's like people who hate that Citizen Kane is regarded as one of the best films ever made but refuse to watch it because it's old, black and white and presumably "boring." 

[hipsterasfolk]

One of the ladies I work with says the Beatles were nothing more than a mere boy band. She saw their first show in the states

 

She said it was nothing but screaming 16yr old girls going ba nay nayzzz

[debyrne82]

hahahaha people on the internet arguing about the beatles... hahaha. Thanks guys for making me feel not so lame.

[somethingvinyl]

Ha. The Kinks were better songwriters and Rolling Stones better players!

[sjb2k1]

holy wall of text batman

[scottyrobotty]

The Beatles are not "universally beloved" and I like people who don't like the Beatles. I will clap you on the back and buy you a beer if I meet you.

[darkeyelids]

 I like people who don't like the Beatles

 

oh my god so indie 

[searos]

I respect the Beatles and even like some of their songs. Not big enough of a fan to defend them to the end of the world and not as stupid as music listeners who just write then off. I just don't listen to them much but with as much music there is in the world that's fair. I get into different swings for different genres and what not.

[Tommy]

oh my god so indie

Nailed it

[mr. sincere]

total bubblegum pop.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILruoBR6ZRU

[habbazoot]

what are you talking about I wrote that dude those are my words

[somethingvinyl]

what are you talking about I wrote that dude those are my words

 

HA.