Page 1 of 2
#1
The Beatles are one of those bands idolised by people on global scale. They had more number one hits than visits to the barbers in 7 years. They were initially loved by teen girls and boys, then slowly changed to inspire drug-taking young men over their years. At present, multiple younger generations of people -mainly men- adore the Beatles and all the band's indulges. Sadly, I wasn't alive to experience the Beatles, and wasn't brought up listening to their music. This makes my opinion completely unbiased; I haven't been conditioned to like the Beatles or dislike them. Here are the reasons I don't like them:


1. Lack of musicianship and/or theory

Technically, the Beatles don't seem skilled on their instruments to me. especially the basic strumming at the beginning of A Day In The Life. However, you don't have to be a good guitarist to write a good song. I've even heard Beatles fans say the drummer can't drum. also, I personally think Lennon and McCartney sound high pitched and feminine when they sing at times.

Theoretically, when i listen to the guitar played in yesterday it sounds like a singer/guitarist without any knowledge of theory. He could just be coming up with guitar chords linked with fret patterns to the next chord. Then all you have to do is keep singing random notes 'til the melody fits. I think amateur guitarists were "innovating" this technique long before the Beatles. I like Yesterday, the lyrics are sound, and the melody is nice. I dislike the method behind creating that melody, and how people idolise them FOR that method. In their later songs, their theory and song writing doesn't seem to improve. Only lyrical content improves. - Apart from that Lennon song which repeats "mommy and daddy come home" until he's squealing like a pig.


2. Their impact on recording

I hear a lot about how they revolutionised the recording industry, but I'm not aware that they actually invented the technology used in their recordings. Surely the inventors should be equally credited? for one, Les Paul was much more influential in his time with multitrack recording. Most Beatles fans can tell you all about how the Beatles revolutionised recording but have no idea Les Paul influenced most of the technology they used. George Martin is worthy of praise, however.

People love to say the Beatles changed music forever, but the same can be said with any widely distributed music. If Beethoven had never existed or his music created, the Beatles would probably have a completely different sound. I'm sorry to say Take That will also influence music forever.


3. Yes, they were successful

I'm not denying them of the right to fame or that they shouldn't be liked. I'm denying the right of people born after the Beatles' reign who've been conditioned by society to think the Beatles are good and no-one should think otherwise. If this statement offends you, It's likely to be true. You can talk about the influence they had on society, how they changed the world, but they never directly influenced you and you never saw that change. All of my grandparents saw that change and were slightly influenced. They all say the Beatles were 'good'. It's strange to see them influence young men more from the dead than they did alive.


There are my reasons for disliking the Beatles and their 'after-breakup' fans. Obviously I'm no Beatles fan or historian, so all of this is my opinion. I actually WANT to be converted to liking the Beatles, so I'm not looked down on by other musicians. so discredit my points please!

- And let's keep our arguments mature
#3
Guess I'll take a swing at it:


Quote by ioAK47oi


1. Lack of musicianship and/or theory

Technically, the Beatles don't seem skilled on their instruments to me. especially the basic strumming at the beginning of A Day In The Life. However, you don't have to be a good guitarist to write a good song. I've even heard Beatles fans say the drummer can't drum. also, I personally think Lennon and McCartney sound high pitched and feminine when they sing at times.


I bolded the right answer. You don't have to be a good guitarist to write a good song. You have to be a good songwriter to write a good song. Now I agree that they weren't virtuosos on their respected instruments. They could damn sure write a song though. I wouldn't describe either McCartney's or Lennon's voice as feminine. McCartney's can be a bit light a feathery at times, but the contrast of Lennon's and McCartney's vocals is quite nice.


Quote by ioAK47oi
Theoretically, when i listen to the guitar played in yesterday it sounds like a singer/guitarist without any knowledge of theory. He could just be coming up with guitar chords linked with fret patterns to the next chord. Then all you have to do is keep singing random notes 'til the melody fits. I think amateur guitarists were "innovating" this technique long before the Beatles. I like Yesterday, the lyrics are sound, and the melody is nice. I dislike the method behind creating that melody, and how people idolise them FOR that method.


Amateur guitarists weren't writing memorable songs now were they? And since when is the being unknowledgeable in music theory a reason to dislike music? The list of people who no either no theory or very little is massive. Hendrix, Page, Clapton? None of them no music theory that it would play a significant role in their songs. Do you think Hendrix knew that he was playing a E7♯9? The fact that you may not like the aforementioned is of no importance.
I believe that theory is descriptive and not conductive. Theory is a way of telling why this sounds the way it does. Be it good or bad. In the end knowing theory or not isn't important. What it comes down to is the song that you write.


Quote by ioAK47oi
2. Their impact on recording

I hear a lot about how they revolutionised the recording industry, but I'm not aware that they actually invented the technology used in their recordings. Surely the inventors should be equally credited? for one, Les Paul was much more influential in his time with multitrack recording. Most Beatles fans can tell you all about how the Beatles revolutionised recording but have no idea Les Paul influenced most of the technology they used. George Martin is worthy of praise, however.


Les Paul and others indeed did invent a lot of things the Beatles used in studio recordings. The Beatles however brought the techniques into the mainstream. I'm sure The Beatles were very grateful of Les Paul and his inventions.

Quote by ioAK47oi
People love to say the Beatles changed music forever, but the same can be said with any widely distributed music. If Beethoven had never existed or his music created, the Beatles would probably have a completely different sound. I'm sorry to say Take That will also influence music forever.


They say that, because the Beatles did change music forever. Most musicians who came after the fab four will cite them as an influence.


Quote by ioAK47oi
3. Yes, they were successful

I'm not denying them of the right to fame or that they shouldn't be liked. I'm denying the right of people born after the Beatles' reign who've been conditioned by society to think the Beatles are good and no-one should think otherwise. If this statement offends you, It's likely to be true. You can talk about the influence they had on society, how they changed the world, but they never directly influenced you and you never saw that change. All of my grandparents saw that change and were slightly influenced. They all say the Beatles were 'good'. It's strange to see them influence young men more from the dead than they did alive.


I'm quite sure that they've influenced me. I took a liking to them at a young age and they are one of the reasons I myself picked up a guitar. They are also the reasons why I like a lot of Motown. Lennon had a lot of old Motown music amongst his record collection. I started looking up artists from that period as a response to that. I found Booker T. and the MGs.


If you don't like the Beatles thats fine. If you like them thats fine too. I personally find your reasons for disliking them slightly bizarre. But an opinion is an opinion and at the end of it all both of us are entitled to our own.
#4
1. Who cares about theory and musicianship? The songs are good. There's a reason why people like The Beatles over Steve Vai and Joe Satriani.

2. Recording techniques are different than recording technology.

3. Nobody is forcing you to like the Beatles. I know a bunch of people who don't like them.
#6
OP is full of subjectivity and just obvious lack of research.

Even if you don't like the music the impact they had on how bands functioned was huge.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
#7
They had such a massive influence on pop music that you can sometimes still hear today. For that alone, they deserve something from OP I think

Something is a really well-written piece of music as well.

Quote by FryingNemo
I saw Satan one day
He looked kinda gay
The bible hates gays
So Satan I shall slay
Amen.
#8
Thanks for the comments.. I was hoping for one of those Beatles nuts to read this and help me out but sadly they didn't.

Hendrix, Page, Clapton? None of them no music theory that it would play a significant role in their songs


at least they're playing was catchy, original and required a certain skill. Writing a good song is being a good 'song writer'. Writing good music is being a 'musician'. The Beatles write good songs, I said that. Their lyrics sound like they've had a lot of thought. But their later music is lacking in groove, rhythm and memorability. Are there any songs other than the well-known songs like Hey Jude, Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby that are good as both songs AND music?

I'm quite sure that they've influenced me.

I'm quite sure too, but if you didn't live to witness or experience the Beatles during the hype, they couldn't have directly influenced you. If someone didn't experience them during the 60's, were they not influenced indirectly?
Last edited by ioAK47oi at Jan 9, 2013,
#9
Quote by ioAK47oi
1. Lack of musicianship and/or theory
Seriously? Their lack of knowledge of theory is a contributing factor to why you don't like The Beatles? Musicianship I can understand, but I'd be more inclined to accept that as a reason if we were talking about a band that focuses on that aspect in their music. The Beatles were about the songs, not the musicians. Whether or not they knew their music theory or whether or not they were good musicians they wrote good songs in my opinion. Really, really good songs. In the case of The Beatles that's all that matters, at least in my mind.

Quote by ioAK47oi
2. Their impact on recording
I don't think you'll find anyone willing to discredit Les Paul's impact on recording, but that doesn't mean The Beatles didn't have a major impact either. Either way, why does their impact on recording affect whether or not you like their music?

Quote by ioAK47oi
3. Yes, they were successful

You can talk about the influence they had on society, how they changed the world, but they never directly influenced you and you never saw that change.
Now this is ridiculous. Why would someone have to have "experienced them during the 60s" for the band to have a direct influence on that person? On a more general scale, are you telling me that if I wasn't around to witness a band when they were big I'm not allowed to say that they directly influenced me?

If you don't like The Beatles that's fine, but your reasons are not very good ones in my opinion. What it all comes down to is, in the words of Frank Zappa, "if it sounds good to you, it's bitchin'. If it sounds bad to you, it's shitty."
How to achieve Frank Zappa's guitar tone:
Quote by Thefallofman
Step 1: Buy a Gibson SG
Step 2: Insert Green Ringer, EQ, 3 dead squirrels and a microwave into said SG
Step 3: Plug in and freak the **** out.
#10
Quote by ioAK47oi



at least they're playing was catchy, original and required a certain skill.


Now that is merely an opinion. But as you're implying that the Beatles' music is easy. Could I please have a demonstration of your sitar skills? George Harrison was quite good at it. Ravi Shankar himself said that Harrison was one of the best western sitar players he'd heard of.


Quote by ioAK47oi
Writing a good song is being a good 'song writer'. Writing good music is being a 'musician'.


I'm not quite sure what the difference is. Please enlighten me? I always thought that a song comprised of music. Unless you mean in terms of instrumental virtuosity, in which case the Beatles were hardly virtuosos on their instruments. But a wicked guitar solo was never what they were about. It was about likeable songs.


Quote by ioAK47oi
The Beatles write good songs, I said that. Their lyrics sound like they've had a lot of thought. But their later music is lacking in groove, rhythm and memorability. Are there any songs other than the well-known songs like Hey Jude, Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby that are good as both songs AND music?



Have you tried Rubber soul and Revolver albums? Both of them have quite a heavy Motown influence. 'The Word' especially grooves like nobody's business.


Quote by ioAK47oi
I'm quite sure too, but if you didn't live to witness or experience the Beatles during the hype, they couldn't have directly influenced you. If someone didn't experience them during the 60's, were they not influenced indirectly?


Does my age have to do with whether they influenced me directly or not? Again I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that I've actually have had to have met John Lennon in order to be influenced by him? If so, then yes, they did influence me indirectly. It was via their music and a speaker system.
#11
Cheers all :P To be more clear, when I referred to 'musician', I meant as in melody, chord progressions etc. I do like Yesterday for that reason. The chords move with the lyrics. The music can tell a story in its self. I understand liking them for their lyrics, i admitted I do too. Also, to clear the recording thing, I meant that I don't think it was completely their idea, but rather their producer's.
And about experiencing the 60's to be influenced.. I love jazz standards and Gerschwin, but I can't say I feel the same about that music compared to say, musicians of the 1920's. We live in a different society now. I suppose what I'm trying to say is, imagine if Dubstep was revered in year 2050 because of it's social and cultural background, and it's change to the recording industry. I personally believe that can only happen over time, when imagination and history become more real than the reality.
#12
You guys are picking way too hard on him, like you're butt-hurt one person doesn't enjoy the Beatles. Stop being so angry and realise he's actually trying to like them!
"We are a metal band. Metal is brutal, metal vocals are brutal. I want some coffee."
#14
Here's my reasons for the disliking The Beatles:

The general sound of the band has always sounded sloppy, which may be due to them being in the 60's, and the instruments don't sound tight at all.

The songwriting isn't interested to me. It feels like I've heard it all before, and I know that that could be because later musicians took a lot from The Beatles, but it seems like something that was around before them. I could be wrong, though.

A very strange reason I don't like the album Revolver is that I can't listen to it without developing a headache. It's the only album I've ever heard that has done that to me, I don't know why though.
#15
Quote by NickBech
You guys are picking way too hard on him, like you're butt-hurt one person doesn't enjoy the Beatles. Stop being so angry and realise he's actually trying to like them!
He wanted an argument, so that's what he's getting. No one is being hard on anyone.
How to achieve Frank Zappa's guitar tone:
Quote by Thefallofman
Step 1: Buy a Gibson SG
Step 2: Insert Green Ringer, EQ, 3 dead squirrels and a microwave into said SG
Step 3: Plug in and freak the **** out.
#16
I don't like them either, mostly not in a fanatic way like a lot of people i know. I recognize their influence and historical value/legacy that gave us amazing music genders.
But still they're not in my mp3 player, i just don't like their music, even though they're better than today modern groups out there with rather poorly songwritting/theorical skills, it's just a matter of taste.
(In that case i'd rather listen to the beatles instead, they're not that bad neither that awesome)
Last edited by PacificOcean at Jan 17, 2013,
#17
Quote by NickBech
You guys are picking way too hard on him, like you're butt-hurt one person doesn't enjoy the Beatles. Stop being so angry and realise he's actually trying to like them!



LOL .... that made me laugh ...but for the record I don't really like the Beatles either. They have some very good songs but I just dont get into them all like that
#18
So now Paul McCartney isn't a skilled bassist? This place....
Call me old fashioned but I prefer 'rock music' that has electric guitars.
#19
Quote by beer bear
Guess I'll take a swing at it:


I bolded the right answer. You don't have to be a good guitarist to write a good song. You have to be a good songwriter to write a good song. Now I agree that they weren't virtuosos on their respected instruments. They could damn sure write a song though. I wouldn't describe either McCartney's or Lennon's voice as feminine. McCartney's can be a bit light a feathery at times, but the contrast of Lennon's and McCartney's vocals is quite nice.


Amateur guitarists weren't writing memorable songs now were they? And since when is the being unknowledgeable in music theory a reason to dislike music? The list of people who no either no theory or very little is massive. Hendrix, Page, Clapton? None of them no music theory that it would play a significant role in their songs. Do you think Hendrix knew that he was playing a E7♯9? The fact that you may not like the aforementioned is of no importance.
I believe that theory is descriptive and not conductive. Theory is a way of telling why this sounds the way it does. Be it good or bad. In the end knowing theory or not isn't important. What it comes down to is the song that you write.


Les Paul and others indeed did invent a lot of things the Beatles used in studio recordings. The Beatles however brought the techniques into the mainstream. I'm sure The Beatles were very grateful of Les Paul and his inventions.


They say that, because the Beatles did change music forever. Most musicians who came after the fab four will cite them as an influence.


I'm quite sure that they've influenced me. I took a liking to them at a young age and they are one of the reasons I myself picked up a guitar. They are also the reasons why I like a lot of Motown. Lennon had a lot of old Motown music amongst his record collection. I started looking up artists from that period as a response to that. I found Booker T. and the MGs.


If you don't like the Beatles thats fine. If you like them thats fine too. I personally find your reasons for disliking them slightly bizarre. But an opinion is an opinion and at the end of it all both of us are entitled to our own.


They directly influenced me so much that I'm about to blow $400 to see Paul in detroit.
#20
Quote by ioAK47oi


1. Lack of musicianship and/or theory

Technically, the Beatles don't seem skilled on their instruments to me. especially the basic strumming at the beginning of A Day In The Life. However, you don't have to be a good guitarist to write a good song. I've even heard Beatles fans say the drummer can't drum. also, I personally think Lennon and McCartney sound high pitched and feminine when they sing at times.

Theoretically, when i listen to the guitar played in yesterday it sounds like a singer/guitarist without any knowledge of theory. He could just be coming up with guitar chords linked with fret patterns to the next chord. Then all you have to do is keep singing random notes 'til the melody fits. I think amateur guitarists were "innovating" this technique long before the Beatles. I like Yesterday, the lyrics are sound, and the melody is nice. I dislike the method behind creating that melody, and how people idolise them FOR that method. In their later songs, their theory and song writing doesn't seem to improve. Only lyrical content improves. - Apart from that Lennon song which repeats "mommy and daddy come home" until he's squealing like a pig.



I think that you have got confused. When you say musicianship/theory, what do you mean? They may be technically not too advanced, but their harmonic content is fantastic. Their knowledge of harmonic function and general theory is very good. Making complex guitar parts doesn't mean you're theoretically any good. Look at bands such as slipknot, they are technically quite good, but harmonically they are very basic. But that is only one side, now lets discuss melodic content. The Beatles are by far one of the most melodic bands. Their melody and harmony relationships are just fantastic. Instrumental virtuosity can easily weaken melodic content - shred and metal music is a good example. You are viewing music in the wrong way. Music is not mechanical, and should not be technically approached mathematical. Even though music is theoretically just demanding as anything else such as physics, engineering etc it should still be viewed as an art. The real skill in music is firstly melodic content, secondly harmonic content, then lastly technical ability.
#21
Quote by TANG0DOWN21
They directly influenced me so much that I'm about to blow $400 to see Paul in detroit.


You lucky bastard.
I saw him in december 2011 and he's still got it. Thank god I got the tickets as a present from a relative. Now I'm starting to think how much the tickets actually cost. $400 is a bit steep. Mind you, the guy's still an absolute legend so it's kind of worth it.
#22
Nobody can blame you for not liking the Beatles, but...

I think you haven't listened to them enough, and haven't read enough about them.

I know i'm a bit of a fan myself, though i don't listen them more than once a month maybe, but i can remember some impressive facts that i find amazing, for example:

1) They made the first video clip in history, maybe they invented MTV
2) Incorporated feedback in one of their songs (i feel fine) really early, i haven't heard someone before who did it
3)Used reversed tapes too
4)Made the first stadium gig ever
5)Have 27 no. 1 hits!
6)Made one of the first concept albums with sgt. peppers
7)Used fade-out endings (i don't remember records before doing them also, not sure they are the first)
8)Made a double album (also not sure if they are the first)
9)Yesterday is the most covered song in history (though i hate the song)
10)They made the first world satellite TV show with all you need is love and recorded it live
11)Their first record was recorded entirely on one day!
12)They incorporated eastern instruments on their songs such as sitar
13)Made one of the first heavy songs, with helter skelter

These are only to name a few of the facts why so many new generations love them. They were amazingly creative, funny, and innovative. Every artist remembers them as an influence.

For their skills and sound, i agree they sound bad but, it was the 60's, they sounded the best they could.

For their skills i don't know what the hell you mean with them being unskilled. There are hundreds of instruments played on their songs, and many are played by themselves, including piano, keyboards, sitar, ukelele, flutes, violin, trumpets, who knows what else.

And for their rhythm and groove, you really should check Paul's solo album "Run Devil Run" with old covers. Beast of an album.

Felt like writing. Sorry LOL!
#23
Quote by beer bear
You lucky bastard.
I saw him in december 2011 and he's still got it. Thank god I got the tickets as a present from a relative. Now I'm starting to think how much the tickets actually cost. $400 is a bit steep. Mind you, the guy's still an absolute legend so it's kind of worth it.



I think that it is terrible for man of such wealth to charge all that money.
#24
One thing that always strikes me about the Beatles is that they were only a band for 10 years. At their genesis they were a poppy rock band that sang love songs in little clubs. Remember though, in 1960 music was nowhere near where it would be 1970. Their influences from the 50's were bands like Chuck Berry, Elvis, Buddy Holly, blues bands etc.

Originally, there was a charm to their music and personalities that escalated them to world wide fame rather quickly. If they had never changed their musical style they would be remembered as a good 60's pop band. The magical thing about the Beatles is in the early-mid 60's their musical style began to change quite a bit and would continue to do so until their end in 1970. The album Help! was probably the first big step toward what they would become and introduced a more melancholy and deep side to them.

In my opinion the next few albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sergent Pepper's are probably their greatest works (also a big fan of Magical Mystery Tour) and are some of the greatest gifts music has ever given me. Like I said opinion. The range in styles contained in these albums are enormous. Songs can range from deep emotional ballads (In My Life, Elanor Rigby, A Day in the Life) to catchy rock classics (The Word, With a Little Help From my Friends, Drive my Car) to great folksy tunes (Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood) all the way to probably my favorite type, full blown psychedelia (Love You Too, She Said She Said, Tomorrow Never Knows, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, I Am the Walrus). Yes, their songs are technically not too difficult, but as many others have mentioned technicality does not imply genius (also see Nirvana). However, they are harmonically, lyrically, and stylistically genius.

The thing that makes the Beatles awesome is they do all these genres so well. They use so many interesting instruments in their songs. Did you hear any sitars and tamburas in Western Rock and Roll before this? If anybody is a big Beatles fan and has not seen the Beatles Anthology Documentary Series I highly recommend it.

So back to your original post. If you don't like the Beatles then you don't like the Beatles, but I think there is something that is just so unique and beautiful about them. They grew and changed so quickly and were caught up in the midst of one of the most defining eras of all time. I am not sure how much of the Beatles you have listened to, but I would recommend giving some of the songs and albums listed above a listen. And when you're down there's a few lines that always seem to cheer you up:

"Oh I get by with a little help from my friends,
Mm get high with a little help from my friends,
Mm gonna try with a little help from my friends"
#25
The Beatles are fine.
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard Feynman
Last edited by pavan at Dec 4, 2013,
#26
I think a lot of is their versatility as phunkyfrets said. They innovated a lot but made it seem so simple.

Quote by FryingNemo
I saw Satan one day
He looked kinda gay
The bible hates gays
So Satan I shall slay
Amen.
#27
I don't care for them much either, don't know why. I've listened to a bunch of their catalog, but for whatever reason they never seemed to click with me. It is what it is. I love the British progressive bands of the late 60s/early 70s like Floyd, Yes, ELP, Genesis, etc, and I don't think they would've gotten the exposure they did if The Beatles didn't "pave the way" so to speak. If there was one record from The Beatles that I care for it's Sgt. Pepper's, I think that record really opened the door for those progressive bands I listed. Very creative and innovative album.
#28
dude., i absolutely understand you , i mean we've got our own tastes on music, right? so i hope you'd understand me on how i hate you for not liking The Beatles and for giving your foolish reasons. =D peace.
#29
You stated,
"...I'm denying the right of people born after the Beatles' reign who've been conditioned by society to think the Beatles are good and no-one should think otherwise. If this statement offends you, It's likely to be true."

I am not angered BUT rather mystified by this statement.
You speak of "...denying the right" and then say that those people ARE "Conditioned."
Is the psychosocial state of "Conditioning" a RIGHT?

Last edited by Tor_Hershman at Feb 8, 2013,
#30
Quote by TANG0DOWN21
They directly influenced me so much that I'm about to blow $400 to see Paul in detroit.

Damn. I wouldn't pay that much to see a band I -did- like. I've got no argument with the OP. I don't like the Beatles either. No discredit to any of the members of the group, but their sound just never appealed to me. As I was born in -59, I can't say I was really old enough to have participated in any of the hysteria. I did have an Apple 45 by them with Hey Jude on one side and Revolution on the other, and at some point I had a red vinyl album with I Wanna Hold Your Hand on it, but they were never that big a deal to me at all. Just wasn't into their sound. But to call the OPs' arguments idiotic and offer no other reason for such a reply is the equivalent of saying 'yo momma'. Jut my two cents.
#31
Obligatory.

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.
The B-52 Bombers Group!
Own a B-52 amp? Join the club!

Quote by nashawa
He may be a troll, but he's an incredibly successful troll. So kudos on that.
#32
I don't know who wrote that piece above but it smacks of NME style, preening, needlessly racially apologetic, 'just out of Uni' drivel.

Nice name-check of Tim Buckley there, I was also expecting an honourable mention of 'Forever Changes' by Love, and Nick Drake for good measure (I'm actually fond of all of these, but I hope some of you will get the point)

As for the Beatles robbing rock n'roll of 'black music', I'm tempted not to even go here but----deep breath....Why should four lads from the North of England have even thought about (and I doubt they did, at all) keeping the 'black' spirit of rock and roll? They struck out on their own and came up with original material, if they'd have stayed playing Chuck Berry and Little Richard covers, they wouldn't have got very far.

Ray Davies a better songwriter? Evidence please? The lasting legacy of the Kinks (even after the London 2012 Waterloo Sunset resurgence) has been influencing quirky British, lorks-a-lawdy-love-a-duck shite like Blur's Parklife. The Beatles influenced EVERYBODY, (from Ozzy to Wes Montgomery to Paul Gilbert to Oasis to Metallica, Jimi Hendrix etc etc)

The Stones are better musicians? Tell me that 'Keef' is a better guitar player than George Harrison-please!

Pete Townsend a better composer? No, just no.

Anyone who doubts the harmonic complexity of the Beatles music should pick up a great book called 'Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles'--seriously, it's a fascinating read and hammers home the fact that the Beatles were really quite advanced musically, they just delivered it in such a subtle way.
Thank God im an atheist
Last edited by wil at Feb 20, 2013,
#33
I dont know about what and who they have influenced really. And i really done care but the Beatles are awesome. I mostly listen to Metal and the Beatles. Its not always about shredding up and down the neck. Their music is good for any mood you may be in, always put me in a good mood.
#34
Some of their later stuff is genius, you don't write music like that without being exceptionally musically talented. They banged out a lot of stuff, some of it better than others but you have to understand that a lot of it was litterally jamming.

Les Paul was very responsable for advances in recording but that doesn't take away from what the Beatles achieved. I personally don't like their earlier stuff, but from 1965 onwards they had some amazing songs, and a few not so great too but the good stuff is what makes them.

Were they top musicians playing wise? They weren't no concert virtuoso's thats for sure but they could play well enough to perform the music they wrote. Paul is still at it today, that song he recently recorded with the rest of Nirvana where they basically just jammed it out live in a studio and then recorded it down, it wasn't anything complicated it was just an energy filled jamming session with a bunch of musicians playing some good heavy rock and enjoying themselves, an in the moment recording and that is something that the Beatles were about.

Not everyone is going to like them, I didn't get them myself for many years. But I gave them a chance a few years back by suggestion of my bands other guitarist (who has been a big beatles fan since he was a child) and I learned to appreciate them, but to do that you really have to (in my eyes) forget the early stuff and move on to the later.


And lets not forget that they technically invented metal with Helter Skelter and She's So Heavy.
Cornford Hellcat
Peavey 5150
Marshall 1960A
1994 Ibanez Jem 7V
Fender Stratocaster x3 (2 of them built from bits and pieces!)
Last edited by Bigbazz at Apr 16, 2013,
#35
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.
Last edited by therealmuffin at May 2, 2013,
#37
Quote by Bigbazz


And lets not forget that they technically invented metal with Helter Skelter and She's So Heavy.


Paul McCartney wrote Helter Skelter because he saw in a interview that in Pete Townsend said that I can see for miles was "loudest, rawest, dirtiest song the Who had ever recorded."

McCartney then "wrote 'Helter Skelter' to be the most raucous vocal, the loudest drums, et cetera" and said he was "using the symbol of a helter skelter as a ride from the top to the bottom; the rise and fall of the Roman Empire—and this was the fall, the demise."


On 20 November 1968, two days before the release of The Beatles, McCartney gave Radio Luxembourg an exclusive interview, in which he commented on several of the album’s songs. Speaking of "Helter Skelter", he said: "Umm, that came about just 'cause I'd read a review of a record which said, 'and this group really got us wild, there's echo on everything, they're screaming their heads off.'

And I just remember thinking, 'Oh, it'd be great to do one. Pity they've done it. Must be great — really screaming record.' And then I heard their record and it was quite straight, and it was very sort of sophisticated. It wasn't rough and screaming and tape echo at all. So I thought, 'Oh well, we'll do one like that, then.' And I had this song called "Helter Skelter," which is just a ridiculous song. So we did it like that, 'cuz I like noise."

McCartney has used this song as a response to critics who accuse him of only writing ballads.
Quote by KingDime666
It's dubstep minor in E.


Quote by steve_muse
I bet I'm gunna love Revolt #plottwist
Last edited by manualex at May 3, 2013,
#39
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.

no there are plenty of people who love music but don't like the beatles.

And they are overrated. Like another poster stated, they did not create heavy metal. The idea of writing "Helter skelter" came from listening to Pete townsend/the who. Heavy metal would exist, with or without the beatles. They did not create rock either, even though many of their fans believe that they did.

And the beatles certainly had some good songs. But they had quite a bit of filler even on their best records. I have heard Beatles fans say "well a Beatles filler song would be a highlight for most groups". This is the kind of blind praise that irritates many people. No band would be proud of Yellow Submarine, Octopus Garden, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Honey Pie, the story of bungalow bill. These are not even average songs, let alone great. And its true that practically every band has some bad songs, but with the beatles its musical blashphemy to say so. The above however are weak songs and would not be highlights for most bands.

Yes they have good stuff like In my life, Michelle, Dear Prudence etc. But their work is far from flawless.
#40
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.


got any proof for that statement? sense when is The Beatles a prerequisite for being a true musician? IMO the Beatles were made famous for their boyish looks and poppy songs, other than that they are overrated trash! Paul was great at picking the bass but other than that...ya Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da...IMO the worst of beatles songs...I'm glad they are NOT an influence!
Page 1 of 2