Page 2 of 2
#41
Quote by Sti Eci Tehpor
honestly, **** anyone who does not like the Beatles musicianship period

Seconded.


Paul is the reason I picked up bass. I heard the bass playing on Abbey Road and it was a calling.

They may not be the best knowledged musicians, but neither are 90% of the listenable bands are.


The jackoffs who know theory and live by everything taught to them make horribly emotionaless music. It's horrible.

The Beatles had some brilliant things in songs I'm sure they didn't realize they were doing, but they did it.


And it was good.
Whatever happened to sweet Jane?
#42
Every once in a while, I meet someone who just doesn't get the Beatles, or who doesn't even like them. I try to keep an open mind about this, since there are some groups that I simply don’t get, either. David Bowie? Yeah, I can understand that. Bob Dylan? Sure. But The Beatles? Come on.

During the week of April 4, 1964, The Beatles occupied the top five positions on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart (12 in the Hot 100), the top 2 positions on the albums chart, the no. 1 position in the British singles chart, the first two positions in the British albums chart and the no. 1 position in the British EP chart, – the most complete domination of the British and American charts in history. Today, you’re lucky to have one top 10 album and single at the same time.
#43
Quote by therealmuffin
Musicians who don't like the Beatles don't really like music. They're involved in music more or less to be cool or identify with a specific scene. It's kind of like being a gourmet chef and not liking French cooking. It just doesn't make sense.


OR...or, maybe they just don't like those poppy-sounding rock bands from the 60's? I know, totally off the wall to suggest something outrageous like that, right?

Quote by Resiliance
I'm more of a hermafrodite guy.


Quote by apocalypse13
Lolz

/ultimatesin = genius]

[/really super obvious]


Original creator of the Resi Signal(s)
Only old shred forum regs get it

Some MP3's from me.

My Videos

Click for awesomeness
#44
You're either a Beatles Guy, A Stones Guy, A Hendrix Guy, A Van Halen Guy, A Led Zepplin Guy, a mix, Or you're life is just sad
As for Me, I like the Beatles, and they are Great Musicians, But I am a Hardcore Stones and Van Halen Fan.
When I started to play guitar, I only thought about wanting to play Paint it Black, Y.C.A.G.W.Y.W, Hot For Teacher and Ain't Talkin Bout Love.
But don't get me wrong. The Beatles Rock!
Last edited by sovaso at May 17, 2013,
#45
Quote by sovaso
You're either a Beatles Guy, A Stones Guy, A Hendrix Guy, A Van Halen Guy, A Led Zepplin Guy, a mix, Or you're life is just sad
As for Me, I like the Beatles, and they are Great Musicians, But I am a Hardcore Stones and Van Halen Fan.
When I started to play guitar, I only thought about wanting to play Paint it Black, Y.C.A.G.W.Y.W, Hot For Teacher and Ain't Talkin Bout Love.
But don't get me wrong. The Beatles Rock!


I'm just full of all the sads.
#47
I hate it when people try to say that, "Oh the beatles topped the charts for x amount of weeks." Go onto billboard right now and I bet money that shitty artists; Nikki Minaj, Lil' Wayne, Skrillex etc. are on the charts for just as long. And if that's the reasoning between then being the best band ever, floyd would have them beat, I'm pretty sure Dark Side of the Moon was on there for years.

Second, no one in the band was revolutionary with their instruments, sorry but it's true. Without Martin, they would have never done things like discovered distortion. And half the time, Martin made them change their original songs to something he liked. In letters to oko, Lennon stated that he was angry with Martin for this but hey, the guy knew that your material was shit and changed it to something that the masses would like.

Third, how is that the rolling stones always push that Mcartney is one of the greats is beyond me. The guy was mediocre, at best. He could right a melody with the other players or make a nice hook but his guitar playing wasn't revolutionary. Jimmy Page's guitar was revolutionary, NOT Mcartney.

Fourth, the drugs. Songs like SFF or Lucy in the sky with diamonds etc... are obnoxious, so much that it makes me dislike the rest of the songs knowing that they wrote them. They are so over produced it's disgusting.

"They were so Revolutionary for music," this statement makes me laugh. So you mean to tell me that without the beatles, Zepplin wouldn't have done their thing? Or deep purple? As a matter of fact, Sabbath was forming a "Hard Blues Rock" band around the same time as the beatles. It makes no sense to say that the beatles had inspiration to deeper music rather than just bullshit, white noise you hear on the radio.

I like a few songs by them, but they were just a fad band. They were the first boy band out there so of course they would gain global recognition.
Last edited by BertNJ at May 20, 2013,
#48
Thoroughly agree, The Beatles themselves I dont have issue with, their music is mediocre teeny-bop . The problem is that they are massively overrated and not innovative at all. Other reasons for disliking them that may be worth considering :
How many law suits there were against them for copyright
They were dicks, Eric Clapton wasnt fond of any of them except paul
Its almost taboo to say you dont like them. It seems that their popularity stems from how much the media endorse them ( not that the media go on abput them because they are popular, theyre popular because the media go on about them) , perhaps to turn people away from musical innovations that would make people
question society.
They thought they were outrageous but the funny thing is that John lennon apologised to the southern states for saying the beatles were bigger than jesus - how rock n roll
they didnt use indian music in a respectful , tasteful way, only for commercial success, contrast this to artists who really got into indian culture and music such as john coltrane or john mclaughlin
there are more reasons of course , but could be here all day...
#49
How is tgat a good argument? As others have stated people like nicki minaj are in the charts for long periods of time and suprise suprise, other teenybopper boy bands like 1 direction. Does that mean they're good. Similarily , you have to assume that all these peoplw who vote or whatever know their shit to support the argument and truthfully ,most people dont
#50
Maybe you had to be around to know what music was like before the Beatles. I was. I was young but the I can still remember how crappy most of the songs on the radio were. In the US it was solo singers like Bobby Rydel, Connie Francis, Bobby Vinton, Fabian, Brenda Lee and not many bands. It was Herb Albert and the Tijuana Brass, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin who were still having hits. The real rock from the mid 50's had been eliminated by the record companies so the early pioneers of rock like Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Elvis and others were not being played on the radio and had long been pushed out of the market. It was the over produced sounds that the record companies were spoon feeding the public. Recording artists were recording songs written by other professional song writers (Brill Building types), produced by record company staff producers and backed up by pro session players (mostly from the jazz world).

In 1963 (1964 in the US) The Beatles emerged. They played their own instruments, wrote their own songs and created their own image, an image that did not conform to the way things had been done for a number of years. They deserve their reputation.

As far as recording: the first Beatles album (Please, Please Me) was recorded live in the studio in one day. It was done on a two track recorder; vocals on one track and all the instruments on the other track. Unlike today it didn't take years to record using an unlimited amount of available digital tracks then nit picked and punched in to fix every note. There was no auto tune, no digital tuners, no rack full of effects units, no sampled synth sounds...hell they didn't even have headphones for monitoring when recording their first few albums. From their 2nd album up until the "White Album" in 1968 they only access to 4 track recorders. In 1968 they started using an 8 track.

In the long run it's perfectly OK not to like any band. There are lots of bands with big reputations that I don't like at all. but it's like saying Henry Ford's original cars sucked because they only went 25 miles an hour or Thomas Edison's light bulb wasn't a big deal because it only gave off 1 watt of power. It's not fair to judge anyone or anything by todays standard especially if it's someone like the Beatles that shook up the music world. Just acknowledge their originality and contribution. That's all anyone could ask.
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Aug 18, 2016,
#52
Quote by Rickholly74
Just acknowledge their originality and contribution. That's all anyone could ask.


From your story it sounds like they completely ruined music.
*your ad here*
#53
I got into the Beatles REALLY late in the game, like in 2008....

My hang up with them originally was that I thought they were a commercial boy band from the sixties - which was due to the terrible press coverage I grew up seeing which always shows clips of screaming girls at their concerts with them playing some shite song on the Ed Sullivan show. Add the non stop playing of Hey Jude in shopping malls and there you have it...

Much to my surprise, the Beatles were compositional force of nature - they locked themselves in studios for years and created some of the most progressive music of the time, pushing everything forward. They pushed engineering forward, wrote crazy songs in odd time signatures etc. If all you're doing is listening to the radio hits, then you have no idea what you're talking about if you even state an opinion about the Beatles - you're quite literally talking out of your ass - so go listen and come back with an educated opinion.

The sheer volume, variety and quality of their songwriting and recordings is really unmatched by any band, even today.

It's a hard band to simply " dislike" since they have a countless number of songs in a bunch of different styles. It takes a really myopic musical taste to be unable find something in there that you can connect with.
#54
Although everyone's opinion is valid... it's all subjective. Either you like the Beatles or you don't.

Well okay, maybe not EVERYONE's opinion is valid, but... you know.
#55
Sometimes I enjoy the Beatles. I do not hold them in some legendary high regard. Nothing they did was jaw dropping. It was however important and influential - that is the respect I have for The Beatles. I think the point about them not being super technical or theoretical musicians is stupid. The fact that you put loads of thought into the theory behind a song doesn't make it any better necessrarily - it's about the feeling. But when crazy sounding people argue that it is The Smiths not The Beatles that were the greatest British band ever... I am inclined to agree. I see no great merit in the Beatles, they're just a historical event to me. There are a few Beatles songs I can get feeling out of... but many of them are just "oh, this is what people listened to in the 60s" - means nothing to me. These days, I rarely listen to The Beatles out of choice.
Last edited by SHACH at Sep 10, 2016,
Page 2 of 2