New topic
PrintableSandino said: NoVideo said: If anything, The Beatles are UNDERrated. There is very little pertaining to pop/rock music that they didn't directly or indirectly influence from a musical and business standpoint.
Their music is timeless, and it still sounds absolutely fantastic all these years later. yada yada yada, name some. Everyone that came after them. From a music or business standpoint, directly or indirectly - - everyone. The Beatles were like a nuclear bomb on what was pop music. They remade everything. They propelled a whole host of British bands into US and world consciousness. They broke the stranglehold of professional songwriters when they started using mostly their own material. What was always a singles-dominated industry morphed into an album-dominated industry. As they moved away from pop songs about love and love lost and into more experimental and introspective material while still maintaining mass appeal, legions of other bands and artists followed. All of their peers were directly inspired by them, and in turn inspired others. They changed the way the music industry worked, and upped the ante when it came to touring and playing in huge venues. They are the most covered band in history, and the most revered. It’s no accident that any list of “Best albums” created by songwriters, artists and others in the music industry are always dominated by The Beatles. In the nearly 40 years since they broke up, nobody else has come close to having the impact they did on the music industry as a whole - - nobody. Wanna talk specifics? The Beach Boys were trying to outdo the Beatles when they recorded their Pet Sounds LP. The Stones weakly emulated the Beatles psychedelic period in the wake of Sgt. Peppers. Hendrix was a huge Beatles fan and played some of their songs, as did Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding and others. Dylan plugged in and stepped away from his folk roots. See what Eric Clapton and other greats (all of whom went on to inspire their own legions of followers) have to say about the Beatles. They were 2nd to none. [Edited 6/29/09 15:43pm] * * *
Prince's Classic Finally Expanded The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/ | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Overrated maybe in the eyes of unrenenting neophytes, but the Lennon-McCartney song cataog is a goldmine to the Jackson estate. It will be a key factor is resolving his immense mountain of debt and still be an ongoing stream of income to Jackson's heirs. test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NoVideo said: Sandino said: yada yada yada, name some. Everyone that came after them. From a music or business standpoint, directly or indirectly - - everyone. The Beatles were like a nuclear bomb on what was pop music. They remade everything. They propelled a whole host of British bands into US and world consciousness. They broke the stranglehold of professional songwriters when they started using mostly their own material. What was always a singles-dominated industry morphed into an album-dominated industry. As they moved away from pop songs about love and love lost and into more experimental and introspective material while still maintaining mass appeal, legions of other bands and artists followed. All of their peers were directly inspired by them, and in turn inspired others. They changed the way the music industry worked, and upped the ante when it came to touring and playing in huge venues. They are the most covered band in history, and the most revered. It’s no accident that any list of “Best albums” created by songwriters, artists and others in the music industry are always dominated by The Beatles. In the nearly 40 years since they broke up, nobody else has come close to having the impact they did on the music industry as a whole - - nobody. Wanna talk specifics? The Beach Boys were trying to outdo the Beatles when they recorded their Pet Sounds LP. The Stones weakly emulated the Beatles psychedelic period in the wake of Sgt. Peppers. Hendrix was a huge Beatles fan and played some of their songs, as did Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding and others. Dylan plugged in and stepped away from his folk roots. See what Eric Clapton and other greats (all of whom went on to inspire their own legions of followers) have to say about the Beatles. They were 2nd to none. [Edited 6/29/09 15:43pm] 
I think Sandino's just being stubborn. If he don't get it, it means he just don't GET it. No point in trying to convince someone that doesn't WANT to get it! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Quotes about The Beatles – just a few. They are endless.
Bob Dylan: "John and the Beatles were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. Everybody else thought they were for the teeny boppers, that they were gonna pass right away. But it was obvious to me that they had staying power: I knew they were pointing in the direction where music had to go." Roger McGuinn, The Byrds: “But in my imagination this whole thing developed and I started mixing up old folk songs with the Beatles beat and taking them down to Greenwich Village and playing them for the people there.” Barry McGuire: “But times changed, and I changed, and I didn't feel that way anymore. The Beatles were happening. I think that was probably the main thing. The Beatles just changed the whole world of music.” Jackson Browne: “Also, right at that particular time in the music business, because of people like the Beatles, people began owning their own publishing. I'll just say this really quickly - they used to divide the money for the music that was written in two, just equal halves.” Pat Metheny: “From 1962 to 1965, the guitar became this icon of youth culture, thanks mostly to the Beatles.” Mick Taylor, The Stones: “I do remember actually learning chords to Beatles songs. I thought they were great songwriters.” Brian May, Queen: “I don't think anybody comes close to The Beatles,” Maurice Gibb, The BeeGees: I'll be honest. We copied everyone... the Beatles, the Bachelors. It was the only way people would even listen to you. Barry Gibb, The BeeGees: We were very influenced by The Beatles, no question. Elvis Costello: Obviously the people that I admired, like the Beatles, were really into rock'n'roll, but it was already a little past rock'n'roll when I started listening and making my own choices about music. Gregg Allman: “The Beatles had just come out, and everybody had a band. It was incredible competition out there.” Andy Partridge, XTC: You know, I was such a big Beatles fan, and when I'd buy a new album I'd invariably hate it the first time I heard it 'cause it was a mixture of absolute joy and absolute frustration. I couldn't grasp what they'd done, and I'd hate myself for that. Billy Corgan: You can't be greater than Elvis, change things as much as The Beatles, or be as original as Led Zeppelin. All you can do is rip them off. Lady Gaga: "I don't know if anyone knows this about me but when I wrote 'The Fame' I listened to The Beatles' 'Abbey Road' obsessively. I had it on repeat for probably about six months. It's so incredibly brilliant - an innate sense of joy - they really had that down. It's full of joy with a hat of tips to the melancholy." Without The Beatles I don't think women would be taking their cardigans off in hallways. They were responsible for the birth of the sexual revolution for women. Now we have the Jonas Brothers representing the return of the superfan." Little Richard: “Man, those Beatles are fabulous. If I hadn't seen them, I'd have never known they were white. They have a real authentic Negro sound.” Don Henley: Lennon's was one of the first voices I emulated when I began to sing. When we held tryouts in my pal's dad's living room for the singer in our band, I sang a Beatles song that Lennon sang. There is something about the timbre of his voice, something that it conveys, that still gets to me. The quality and the poetry of his lyrics. The wry sense of humor. And the boyishness, in the beginning. There are a great many things that touch me about him. Sinead O’Connor: Lennon had a sense of everybody's right to stir shit. He was very brave and vulnerable, and saw that it was brave to show one's vulnerability. He would probably love the rap movement. In a lot of ways, rap is where his voice can still be heard. Sting: “The Beatles were formative in my upbringing, my education. They came from a very similar background: the industrial towns in England, working class; they wrote their own songs, conquered the world. That was the blueprint for lots of other British kids to try to do the same. Sheryl Crow: The band that most influenced music and, moreover, culture, he represented the rock & roll attitude of rebellion, dissatisfaction and social consciousness - the idea that we as people can expand our minds, grow, live together and love in peace David Crosby: He and the other Beatles were all very kind to us when we came over to England as the Byrds. They kind of took us under their wing, and from that point forward, we saw each other a lot. Whenever they came to the United States, I would go to the gigs and hang out with them. For me, John Lennon's legacy is his songs - all those brilliant, beautiful, incredible pieces of work. John was a very fierce guy - he wasn't a shy little human being. He was a guy with strong opinions, and he had no problem expressing them. * * *
Prince's Classic Finally Expanded The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NoVideo said: Sandino said: yada yada yada, name some. Everyone that came after them. From a music or business standpoint, directly or indirectly - - everyone. The Beatles were like a nuclear bomb on what was pop music. They remade everything. They propelled a whole host of British bands into US and world consciousness. Eh, I think you could make a reasonable argument that it was inevitable that the British Invasion was going to happen with or without the Beatles. For sure, the Beatles were the spark that ignited the inferno but if not for them I still think it is likely that there would have been a British Invasion. It might have been different and had less impact but if you look at the UK circa the late '50s/early '60s there were tons of great bands. It is not as if the UK was bereft of musical talent until the Beatles came along. They broke the stranglehold of professional songwriters when they started using mostly their own material. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine but the Beatles were hardly the first to write their own material. Before they broke there were many others doing the same thing. Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Ray Charles, Fats Domino, Eddie Cochran, Roy Orbison, Sam Cooke, James Brown et cetera. It has always rankled me that the Beatles are given so much credit for being the first to write their own material. All of the artists I've listed were an influence on the Beatles and they were all writing original material before the Beatles. What was always a singles-dominated industry morphed into an album-dominated industry. What about people like Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald in the '50s? Both of them rarely released singles from their albums (during that era) and both of them can be given credit for pioneering the "concept" album a full decade before Sgt. Pepper. As they moved away from pop songs about love and love lost and into more experimental and introspective material while still maintaining mass appeal, legions of other bands and artists followed. Bob Dylan did it before the Beatles. All of their peers were directly inspired by them, and in turn inspired others. This I can't argue with but the reverse is also true. The Beatles' peers also directly inspired them. The Beatles were not solely responsible for every musical idea that occurred in the 1960s. They changed the way the music industry worked, and upped the ante when it came to touring and playing in huge venues. Really? The Beatles typically played very short sets just like most artists during their era. I don't see how the Beatles can be considered an innovative live act. Sure, they played huge venues, but they typically sounded and played terrible. By their ow admission their primary concern was bashing the songs out as quickly as possible and getting off stage. That's why most of the extant live recordings of them are much shorter than the studio versions. They are the most covered band in history, and the most revered. It’s no accident that any list of “Best albums” created by songwriters, artists and others in the music industry are always dominated by The Beatles. In the nearly 40 years since they broke up, nobody else has come close to having the impact they did on the music industry as a whole - - nobody. Can't argue with that. Wanna talk specifics? The Beach Boys were trying to outdo the Beatles when they recorded their Pet Sounds LP. And the Beatles were trying to outdo the Beach Boys when they recorded Rubber Soul. That cuts both ways. For example, "Helter Skelter" was Paul trying to outdo the Who's "I Can See For Miles." The Stones weakly emulated the Beatles psychedelic period in the wake of Sgt. Peppers. Hendrix was a huge Beatles fan and played some of their songs, as did Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding and others. True. But the Beatles played lots of Chuck Berry's songs too. They also covered a lot of American R & B. Dylan plugged in and stepped away from his folk roots. I can't say that the Beatles had no influence on Dylan going electric but it seems more likely that he was going for the rawer sound of the Rolling Stones rather than the Beatles. See what Eric Clapton and other greats (all of whom went on to inspire their own legions of followers) have to say about the Beatles. They were 2nd to none. [Edited 6/29/09 15:43pm] I'm a fan of the Beatles but I have to strongly disagree when folks claim they are the be all and end all of popular music. There was tons of great music before the Beatles and had they never existed there would still have been tons of great music made. Sure, they were hugely influential but they didn't appear out of thin air with all of their great music. The Beatles had their influences just like every artist does. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: I'm a fan of the Beatles but I have to strongly disagree when folks claim they are the be all and end all of popular music. There was tons of great music before the Beatles and had they never existed there would still have been tons of great music made. Sure, they were hugely influential but they didn't appear out of thin air with all of their great music. The Beatles had their influences just like every artist does. I never said the Beatles were the "be all and end all of popular music." My argument is that they are NOT overrated, which is the topic of this thread. And of course they had their influences - absolutely. To address a few of your points: I think it unlikely that the British Invasion would have happened - especially to the degree it did - without the Beatles ushering it in. Once they broke in America, record companies were hungry for any UK band with guitars and anything even remotely Beatlesque. They were at the center of that movement. Writing their own material - absolutely, there were some pioneers that wrote their own material, and Buddy Holly was obviously a huge influence on the Beatles, as were the others you mentioned. However it was still unusual particularly for groups, and typically professional songwriters provided most of the material heard on the Top 40. Notice that every artist you mentioned was a solo artist. Singles vs. Albums - as it pertains to pop/rock and Top 40 bands and artists, The Beatles and albums like Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Peppers revolutionized the format. Introspective material - - notice I said "mass appeal." Believe me, I am a HUGE Dylan fan and I don't belittle anything he did. And while The Beatles were directly influenced by Dylan, for sure, it was The Beatles and not Dylan that brought a more introspective, personal songwriting into the Top 40, and prompted widespread imitation. Peers inspiring them - - of course the Beatles tried to one-up their peers and remain "on top". But who started the ball rolling? And try though they might (especially with the Stones' ill-advised attempts at psychedelia) they could never match them. Read about how the Beach Boys reacted on hearing Sgt. Peppers for the first time. Yeah, don't get me wrong - the Beatles were not perfect. One of the things that bothers me about their early albums is that - when you listen to the live stuff and the BBC stuff - the edginess of their rock sound doesn't always seem to be captured in the studio. And they left tons of errors in alot of their early stuff, although I guess that says more about what was permissible in the recording studio back in those days. But my point is this: whether or not the Beatles are enjoyable or not to someone's particular taste is one thing, but nobody with knowledge of music history can dispute their absolutely immense influence on every aspect of the music industry. I never listened to Elvis, and don't really enjoy his stuff, but I'd never deny that he was a monumental force in the history of rock and roll. [Edited 6/29/09 17:01pm] * * *
Prince's Classic Finally Expanded The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NoVideo said: rialb said: I'm a fan of the Beatles but I have to strongly disagree when folks claim they are the be all and end all of popular music. There was tons of great music before the Beatles and had they never existed there would still have been tons of great music made. Sure, they were hugely influential but they didn't appear out of thin air with all of their great music. The Beatles had their influences just like every artist does. I never said the Beatles were the "be all and end all of popular music." My argument is that they are NOT overrated, which is the topic of this thread. And of course they had their influences - absolutely. To address a few of your points: I think it unlikely that the British Invasion would have happened - especially to the degree it did - without the Beatles ushering it in. Once they broke in America, record companies were hungry for any UK band with guitars and anything even remotely Beatlesque. They were at the center of that movement. Writing their own material - absolutely, there were some pioneers that wrote their own material, and Buddy Holly was obviously a huge influence on the Beatles, as were the others you mentioned. However it was still unusual particularly for groups, and typically professional songwriters provided most of the material heard on the Top 40. Notice that every artist you mentioned was a solo artist. Singles vs. Albums - as it pertains to pop/rock and Top 40 bands and artists, The Beatles and albums like Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Peppers revolutionized the format. Introspective material - - notice I said "mass appeal." Believe me, I am a HUGE Dylan fan and I don't belittle anything he did. And while The Beatles were directly influenced by Dylan, for sure, it was The Beatles and not Dylan that brought a more introspective, personal songwriting into the Top 40, and prompted widespread imitation. Peers inspiring them - - of course the Beatles tried to one-up their peers and remain "on top". But who started the ball rolling? And try though they might (especially with the Stones' ill-advised attempts at psychedelia) they could never match them. Read about how the Beach Boys reacted on hearing Sgt. Peppers for the first time. Yeah, don't get me wrong - the Beatles were not perfect. One of the things that bothers me about their early albums is that - when you listen to the live stuff and the BBC stuff - the edginess of their rock sound doesn't always seem to be captured in the studio. And they left tons of errors in alot of their early stuff, although I guess that says more about what was permissible in the recording studio back in those days. But my point is this: whether or not the Beatles are enjoyable or not to someone's particular taste is one thing, but nobody with knowledge of music history can dispute their absolutely immense influence on every aspect of the music industry. I never listened to Elvis, and don't really enjoy his stuff, but I'd never deny that he was a monumental force in the history of rock and roll. [Edited 6/29/09 17:01pm] We could go on arguing each other's points but I'll just say that yes, the Beatles were a huge influence on modern music but I don't think that any one artist, no matter how huge their influence may have been, should be given too much credit. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: We could go on arguing each other's points but I'll just say that yes, the Beatles were a huge influence on modern music but I don't think that any one artist, no matter how huge their influence may have been, should be given too much credit. fair enough  * * *
Prince's Classic Finally Expanded The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NoVideo said: If anything, The Beatles are UNDERrated. There is very little pertaining to pop/rock music that they didn't directly or indirectly influence from a musical and business standpoint. They changed pop culture forever and forever altered what was possible in popular pop/rock music. They opened doors. And their songs have been revered for decades, and will continue to be revered. Every snippet of music they ever put to tape is sought after by collectors. When a previously unheard long version of "Revolution" appeared recently, it caused a huge uproar of excitement.
Are they virtuoso musicians? Apart from Paul McCartney, no. But I've seen some virtuoso musicians put on some incredibly lame and boring shows and record some utterly useless music. McCartney and Lennon were perfect foils; Paul's breezy and versatile pop sensibilities melded with John's more edgy, sardonic rock. Just look at their solo work to see how they worked without the other - - Paul could be absolutely vapid, form over substance; whereas John could completely forget songcraft in the process of spewing out his inner thoughts. They were capable of occassional greatness alone, but they needed each other. Then you have George's dour compositions, giving yet another flavor, and Ringo backing them all up with great style - - - The Beatles were the definition of being greater than the sum of their parts. Their music is timeless, and it still sounds absolutely fantastic all these years later. 
And Alexde, exactly. That's the way they feel about "the pop icon trinity", lol. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: where the hell is Moonbeam
 
The Beatles are definitely overrated, in my opinion. They were hugely influential and important, to be sure, but the fact that there is nearly a unanimous notion that they simply are the best is what makes them overrated. I know that they deserve accolades and the like, but their acclaim has come at the cost of well-deserved praise for many other artists, ranging from those who influenced them, those who they in turn influenced, and those without a direct connection to the Fabs. Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moonbeam said: errant said: where the hell is Moonbeam
The Beatles are definitely overrated, in my opinion. They were hugely influential and important, to be sure, but the fact that there is nearly a unanimous notion that they simply are the best is what makes them overrated. I know that they deserve accolades and the like, but their acclaim has come at the cost of well-deserved praise for many other artists, ranging from those who influenced them, those who they in turn influenced, and those without a direct connection to the Fabs. I knew you was gonna show up. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: Moonbeam said:
The Beatles are definitely overrated, in my opinion. They were hugely influential and important, to be sure, but the fact that there is nearly a unanimous notion that they simply are the best is what makes them overrated. I know that they deserve accolades and the like, but their acclaim has come at the cost of well-deserved praise for many other artists, ranging from those who influenced them, those who they in turn influenced, and those without a direct connection to the Fabs. I knew you was gonna show up. I still loathe them like a plague, but denying their importance and influence is just absurd. Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moonbeam said: Timmy84 said: I knew you was gonna show up. I still loathe them like a plague, but denying their importance and influence is just absurd. I got you in denial being absurd, lol. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moonbeam said: errant said: where the hell is Moonbeam
The Beatles are definitely overrated, in my opinion. ah, this post couldn't have been more beautifully predictable if we'd stirred a heaping tablespoon of metamucil into this thread. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: Moonbeam said:
The Beatles are definitely overrated, in my opinion. ah, this post couldn't have been more beautifully predictable if we'd stirred a heaping tablespoon of metamucil into this thread. Indeed. My Beatles hate is as tried-and-true as the changing of the seasons. I'm quite happy for others to love them, though.Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: NDRU said: yeah, probably better musicians. More soulful as performers. The Beatles are pretty tame, with some exceptions It's pretty weird to see four guys in suits politely playing nice pop tunes literally causing mass hysteria That is why I've never understood the hype. Tame is about the right way 2 put it. [Edited 6/29/09 12:17pm] Have a listen to the tracks on Reply #65 & tell me if you still think they're tame & polite Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
COMPUTERBLUE1984 said: As a group, their music really matured in their last 3-4 years . Harrison in particular was starting to hit his stride as a songwriter and songs like "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" became pop music standards. It goes without saying that Lennon/McCartney were excellent songwriters without peer, so when you take Harrison + Lennon + McCartney (and Ringo's drumming), they truly are the "4 headed monster"as Jagger described them.
I personally think their imprint on pop/rock music of the era shaped how groups approached song writing in the subsequent years. Are they overrated? I used to think so, but the more I dug into their catalog, the more I realized these guys were REALLY good! As someone said, it doesn't have to be a Dylanesque in quality/content, but they were by far the giants of the rock music era for the style, songwriting, and studio experimentation with their albums. The shadow they cast musically still can not be escaped by any group since their breakup in 1970. I agree. I was just a kid but that's when the Beatles began to interest me as more than just a pop phenomenon. I was just becoming a fan when they broke up. I couldn't get enough of 'Come Together.' And the two songs you mentioned caught my attention at about 6 years old. lol I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Graycap23 said: NDRU said: there you go. I totally understand not liking their performance style, but damn they wrote a lot of good songs. Yes they did, I always give them credit but I don't understand the hype surrounding them. I thought the Rolling Stones were a better group. I have never liked either The Rolling Stones or Aerosmith. I like one Aerosmith song, 'Janie's Got A Gun.' I like a few Stones songs but can't say I've heard an entire album. I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
phunkdaddy said: Graycap23 said: Yes they did, I always give them credit but I don't understand the hype surrounding them. I thought the Rolling Stones were a better group. I agree. One of my co workers always talk about how great they were and how they influenced the stones and other artists. I like a few of their tunes but never have been tempted to buy any of their catalogue like i have the stones. My co worker act as though the Beatles invented music. I had to sit through him playing the Yellow Submarine album one day at work and it made me want to kill somebody. I remember watching the cartoon which came on at least annually during my childhood. There were some songs in there but after watching it three times, I was pretty much done. It hasn't aged well. I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Moonbeam said: Anxiety said: ah, this post couldn't have been more beautifully predictable if we'd stirred a heaping tablespoon of metamucil into this thread. Indeed. My Beatles hate is as tried-and-true as the changing of the seasons. I'm quite happy for others to love them, though.Can someone really just hate the Beatles? I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SUPRMAN said: Moonbeam said: Indeed. My Beatles hate is as tried-and-true as the changing of the seasons. I'm quite happy for others to love them, though.Can someone really just hate the Beatles? Hate is such a strong word. Can someone really be so proud to say that they "hate" something like the Beatles? And why? It's not like saying "I hate racism" or "I hate cancer", we're talking about a musical group. Doesn't that just make you a "hater"? Hating=jealousy. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No they are not overrated! The Beatles rock! A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SUPRMAN said: Moonbeam said: Indeed. My Beatles hate is as tried-and-true as the changing of the seasons. I'm quite happy for others to love them, though.Can someone really just hate the Beatles? I hate all of their songs that I've heard, and I don't like their personalities, aside from George.  Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dannyd5050 said: SUPRMAN said: Can someone really just hate the Beatles? Hate is such a strong word. Can someone really be so proud to say that they "hate" something like the Beatles? And why? It's not like saying "I hate racism" or "I hate cancer", we're talking about a musical group. Doesn't that just make you a "hater"? Hating=jealousy. I'm not proud of my Beatles hate, but I won't shy away from admitting it, either. Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dannyd5050 said: SUPRMAN said: Can someone really just hate the Beatles? Hate is such a strong word. Can someone really be so proud to say that they "hate" something like the Beatles? And why? It's not like saying "I hate racism" or "I hate cancer", we're talking about a musical group. Doesn't that just make you a "hater"? Hating=jealousy. And honestly, I'm not sure how the jealousy thing is even relevant. I'm not competing with them or anything. I just can't stand their songs, and think 3 out of 4 of them were kind of douchey people.  Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moonbeam said: dannyd5050 said: Hate is such a strong word. Can someone really be so proud to say that they "hate" something like the Beatles? And why? It's not like saying "I hate racism" or "I hate cancer", we're talking about a musical group. Doesn't that just make you a "hater"? Hating=jealousy. And honestly, I'm not sure how the jealousy thing is even relevant. I'm not competing with them or anything. I just can't stand their songs, and think 3 out of 4 of them were kind of douchey people. Most often when someone hates something it's out of jealousy or envy.There has to be a root to your hatefulness. And of course you can't compete with the Beatles which is why you are not competing with them. There has to be a reason that you hate them so much. If you think their songs suck as a whole then, my friend, you're the odd man out and you're way in the minority. If it makes you feel good to stand out and proclaim "The Beatles suck" then by all means shout if from the rooftops. Yes, you're different. Yes, you're being noticed. If for nothing else than being a douchey person yourself. Yes, it takes one to know one. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dannyd5050 said: Moonbeam said: And honestly, I'm not sure how the jealousy thing is even relevant. I'm not competing with them or anything. I just can't stand their songs, and think 3 out of 4 of them were kind of douchey people. Most often when someone hates something it's out of jealousy or envy.There has to be a root to your hatefulness. And of course you can't compete with the Beatles which is why you are not competing with them. There has to be a reason that you hate them so much. If you think their songs suck as a whole then, my friend, you're the odd man out and you're way in the minority. If it makes you feel good to stand out and proclaim "The Beatles suck" then by all means shout if from the rooftops. Yes, you're different. Yes, you're being noticed. If for nothing else than being a douchey person yourself. Yes, it takes one to know one. 
I'm being douchey by saying that I hate The Beatles? Now that is ridiculous. I never said they suck- only that I hate their songs and didn't like most of their personalities. That's the reason I hate them. How is that such a crime? I'm well aware that they are important, influential, and have been inspirational to a whole bunch of people. I don't have to share that same sentiment. Of course, some of their more annoying fans who look at those who don't like The Beatles as heretics don't help matters. Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
novabrkr said: Somewhere in London in the 60s:
"Obla-di obla-da, life goes ooooon...." "Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer!" "We all live in the Yellow Submarine!" (insert happy chord progression) Meanwhile in New York: Andy: "Lou, could you remove the sunglasses for a short movie this one time?" Lou: "No, fuck off, Andy." (The Velvets proceed to play 10 minutes of plain feedback while a video of a transvestite performing oral sex on another one plays in the background) What does it say about me that I'm a huge VU fan and detest The Beatles, then? Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dannyd5050 said: Moonbeam said: And honestly, I'm not sure how the jealousy thing is even relevant. I'm not competing with them or anything. I just can't stand their songs, and think 3 out of 4 of them were kind of douchey people. Most often when someone hates something it's out of jealousy or envy.There has to be a root to your hatefulness. And of course you can't compete with the Beatles which is why you are not competing with them. There has to be a reason that you hate them so much. If you think their songs suck as a whole then, my friend, you're the odd man out and you're way in the minority. If it makes you feel good to stand out and proclaim "The Beatles suck" then by all means shout if from the rooftops. Yes, you're different. Yes, you're being noticed. If for nothing else than being a douchey person yourself. Yes, it takes one to know one. He may be the odd man out and in the minority but he is also absolutely right. If he does not like the Beatles' music and thinks that it sucks then, at least in his opinion, their music sucks. He can't be wrong for not liking their music. I hold the opposite opinion and quite enjoy their music but that is just my opinion. It's no more valid than Moonbeam's. I think you may be overreacting a little bit. This is a thread asking if the Beatles are overrated. Moonbeam is just offering his opinion. I don't know Moonbeam, perhaps he is a douchey person, but it is certainly not fair to call him a douchey person just because he is not a fan of the Beatles. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rialb said: dannyd5050 said: Most often when someone hates something it's out of jealousy or envy.There has to be a root to your hatefulness. And of course you can't compete with the Beatles which is why you are not competing with them. There has to be a reason that you hate them so much. If you think their songs suck as a whole then, my friend, you're the odd man out and you're way in the minority. If it makes you feel good to stand out and proclaim "The Beatles suck" then by all means shout if from the rooftops. Yes, you're different. Yes, you're being noticed. If for nothing else than being a douchey person yourself. Yes, it takes one to know one. He may be the odd man out and in the minority but he is also absolutely right. If he does not like the Beatles' music and thinks that it sucks then, at least in his opinion, their music sucks. He can't be wrong for not liking their music. I hold the opposite opinion and quite enjoy their music but that is just my opinion. It's no more valid than Moonbeam's. I think you may be overreacting a little bit. This is a thread asking if the Beatles are overrated. Moonbeam is just offering his opinion. I don't know Moonbeam, perhaps he is a douchey person, but it is certainly not fair to call him a douchey person just because he is not a fan of the Beatles. I'd love to make this my sig!
Thanks for sticking up for me! Musical taste is entirely subjective. I'm not going to claim my taste is good, but only that it is mine. One of the great things about this forum is that so many artists get exposure here- the diversity is astounding. I've long ago gotten past finding musical kindred spirits based on overlap of the artists we appreciate and moved onto appreciating someone's perspective about music in general and seeing their own passion for music highlighted, no matter who the subject of such admiration may be. Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |