[Savage Clone]

They have a few songs I like, a lot of songs that bug the shit out of me (I'm looking glaringly in your direction, Sir Paul) and a lot of songs I am indifferent to.
I am not a big Beatles fan. The only Beatles-related album I have ever sought out to purchase in my adult life is George's Wonderwall album, and aside from that all I have is a copy of Magical Mystery Tour that I have had since I was 5. I will not diminish their contribution to music, but I also think people shouldn't really be criticized when they say that the music of The Beatles simply doesn't speak to them in any meaningful way. This is the camp I fall into. They are valid and they achieved something significant, but the fact is that their music just doesn't DO IT for me about 90% of the time. I'm sorry. It does not speak to me and even if it did, the overexposure one gets to their music in general society just by simple cultural osmosis is more than enough for me, and I do not ever feel the need to listen to this stuff at home for pleasure. Not ever.
The thing that bugs me is the whole "sacred cow" status they have gotten, where you aren't allowed to criticize them for writing a horrible, annoyingly catchy or overly sappy song like "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" or "Hey Jude" because they were so "significant to the development of the rock idiom."
I know they were significant. BB King was significant too, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy can't play any chords, can't sing and play at the same time, and his music simply doesn't do anything for me on any level. I am simply not into it. To put it simply, one does not NEED to be a Beatles fan or to enjoy their music in order to be a well-informed person with valid aesthetic opinions and a wide range of knowledge regarding Rock Music. When someone says they are not a Beatles fan, it is no different than not being a Pixies fan or a Dino Jr fan or any other band. It just means they don't get into that music. The Beatles have gotten to be like Jesus Christ is to Christians or Darwin is to scientists; you're not allowed to criticize their so-called "perfect vision" for fear of being labelled a myopic rube who has no clue about the "foundations of all the modern music you hear today."

It is perfectly OK not to dig the Beatles. It doesn't diminish what they did in any way, it just means that maybe you know what you like, and that doesn't happen to be this particular band's output.

[jonathan]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

the Beatles deserve any and all praise they get. calling them the greatest band ever is not a stretch. it is nearly impossible to OVERRATE the Beatles.

they made rock n roll, a musical idiom mainly for kids, into ART and showed the world and all other musicians what could truly be done with this "rock n roll" format.

take any kid who is interested in writing music and songs, and play them the beatles catalogue over and over again. it is an education in and of itself.

the same cannot be said for anyone else.

hell-fucking-yes! this is it!

I had a discussion about this recently, and to further your point (and make it my own ) The Beatles achieved absolute perfection with some of their songs/releases.

The guy in the article underestimates the power of turning white-suburban kids on to rock and roll. It changed my life; I'm sure most of you can say the same.

Nirvana is overrated. You should all listen to the Beatles, they're much more fulfilling.

[Malachi_Constant]

I just registered here for the sole purpose (beyond, obviously, being a huge Sonic Youth fan) of saying this... if you're gonna go and talk shit about The Beatles (let alone Floyd or Hendrix), then you really have NO business listening to or, God forbid, making music. Go crank whatever bullshit trendy white noise garbage you'd prefer to whatever frequency it needs to hit to make your head explode. You can't fuck with the Fab Four. End of story.

[Savage Clone]

See?
Sacred cow.
People get so testy when people blaspheme their gods.
Not everybody likes every band in the world, even the ones with so-called "universal appeal."

[Malachi_Constant]

I've got no problem with the sacred cow status. Hell, for the longest time I've been recommending everyone I meet just smoke a fat joint and listen to Abbey Road every sunday morning rather than go to church. Does the same thing.

And I can understand where most of you are coming from. When I was 14, I said I hated The Beatles and Zeppelin, too. It had to be new, mean, dissonant enough for my approval. Then, I grew up.

[Rob Instigator]

who is treating it like a sacred cow?
feel free to not like them

feel free to disparage them, but I am going to support them for they are , behind sonic youth, the single most meaningful music group for me ever.

and to the poster that said Ob la Di Ob La Da is a dumb pop song, read the lyrics.

and REMEMBER that all this music came out about 20 years before you were BORN

compare it to the music of it;s time, the mamas and the appas, the beach boys, the jefferson airplane, and all that stupid ass shit.

[Savage Clone]

I'm 36 and I know what I like.
Just not a huge fan. I'm sorry.
Not everyone will like every band.
It has nothing to do with "being contrarian" either; it has to do with whether or not something resonates with me, which the vast majority of The Beatles' output does not.
I do think "Flying" and "Blue Jay Way" are pretty cool though, I guess.


To Rob:
Atari certainly treats them like a sacred cow, and so do many others.
And Ob La Di....is an incredibly annoying song, sentimental and "meaningful" lyrical content notwithstanding.
There are also plenty of bands that were doing music at the same time that I personally find to be more interesting or at the very least more personally enjoyable. Plus it wasn't that far before my birth. Like a couple of years.

[Rob Instigator]

savage, that age thing was directed at haydensache!

yer blues is one of my faves
come together too
everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey kicks assss

[Savage Clone]

I think "Rain" is a pretty fine tune as well, now that I think of it.
I don't like their so-called "psychedelic" phase though (because tubas and string sections don't really say "psychedelic" to me), which is odd because lord knows I love me some psychedelia.
I like the sort of inbetween phase where they still sounded like a 4-piece rock band, but were moving into more interesting territory. Most of the later stuff just sounds overproduced to me.

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by Savage Cape

They have a few songs I like, a lot of songs that bug the shit out of me (I'm looking glaringly in your direction, Sir Paul) and a lot of songs I am indifferent to. (first sentence ended with a preposition)
I am not a big Beatles fan. The only Beatles-related album I have ever sought out to purchase in my adult life is George's Wonderwall album, and aside from that all I have is a copy of Magical Mystery Tour that I have had since I was 5. (technically, (haha) "5" should be spelled out as "five") I will not diminish their contribution to music, but I also think people shouldn't really be criticized when they say that the music of The Beatles simply doesn't speak to them in any meaningful way. (hyperbole...use of the modifier is not parallel with previous statement) This is the camp I fall into. (second sentence ended with a preposition) They are valid and they achieved something significant, but the fact is that their music just doesn't DO IT for me about 90% of the time. I'm sorry. It does not speak to me and even if it did, the overexposure one gets to their music in general society just by simple cultural osmosis is more than enough for me, and I do not ever feel the need to listen to this stuff at home for pleasure. Not ever.
The thing that bugs me is the whole "sacred cow" status they have gotten, where you aren't allowed to criticize them for writing a horrible, annoyingly catchy or overly sappy song like "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" or "Hey Jude" because they were so "significant to the development of the rock idiom."
I know they were significant. BB King was significant too, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy can't play any chords, can't sing and play at the same time, and his music simply doesn't do anything for me on any level. I am simply not into it. To put it simply, one does not NEED to be a Beatles fan or to enjoy their music in order to be a well-informed person with valid aesthetic opinions and a wide range of knowledge regarding Rock Music. When someone says they are not a Beatles fan, it is no different than not being a Pixies fan or a Dino Jr fan or any other band. It just means they don't get into that music. The Beatles have gotten to be like Jesus Christ is to Christians or Darwin is to scientists; you're not allowed to criticize their so-called "perfect vision" for fear of being labelled a myopic rube who has no clue about the "foundations of all the modern music you hear today."

It is perfectly OK not to dig the Beatles. It doesn't diminish what they did in any way, it just means that maybe you know what you like, and that doesn't happen to be this particular band's output.

I love how he craftily keeps returning to the point that The Beatles are "significant" (the word is used four times). He repeatedly alludes that it's no big deal if you like them or do not like them. At the same time, however, he reaffirms over and over his distaste for The Beatles. If it's no big deal whether you like them or not, then why all the posts? Why the posts every damn time this fool topic is raised? Why all the recurring threads about this very absurd topic? Please note that these are rhetorical questions (I'm taking into account who I'm dealing with here, after all) and that I neither expect or desire a reply back.

Thank heavens for people like Malachi_Constant* who tell it like it is.

Originally Posted by M.C. droppin' the hammer on these clowns

I just registered here for the sole purpose (beyond, obviously, being a huge Sonic Youth fan) of saying this... if you're gonna go and talk shit about The Beatles (let alone Floyd or Hendrix), then you really have NO business listening to or, God forbid, making music. Go crank whatever bullshit trendy white noise garbage you'd prefer to whatever frequency it needs to hit to make your head explode. You can't fuck with the Fab Four. End of story.

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I think "Rain" is a pretty fine tune as well, now that I think of it.
I don't like their so-called "psychedelic" phase though (because tubas and string sections don't really say "psychedelic" to me), which is odd because lord knows I love me some psychedelia.
I like the sort of inbetween phase where they still sounded like a 4-piece rock band, but were moving into more interesting territory. Most of the later stuff just sounds overproduced to me.

Thanks for sketching out a little bit about why you have the opinions that you do. If someone is going to air their criticism of The Beatles, then they should be respectful about it just like you are in this last post.

When one reads between the lines of what you just wrote, however, a more definitive light is shed on your opinions and I will address that now.
I knew that your position originated precisely in the gauging of what is considred good "psychedelic" music. I knew that you felt that the garage rock, early Krautrock, and other psychedelia of the '60s by more marginal bands is better music than a lot of The Beatles and that this was the wellspring of your agenda. This position does not even warrant a reply because it's so easily identifiable as simply a misguded notion by someone that just wants to try and be different. The art of much of the Beatles' recorded output outshines all of that collected crud put together. One doesn't have to be brainwashed into believing in sacred cows to know this, but it certainly does take a fool to readily not know this is true.

I can say though that I (too) am not totally in love with everything they ever recorded. While I do like "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da," I am not the biggest fan of "Hey Jude" myself either. The thing is though, as you get into naming ones you like, and other songs you do not, you immediately open the door to the felt weights and measures of their entire body of their work, so to speak; and when you open that door, that's when your true motives to intentionally disparage The Beatles are revealed.
Because, you see, even some of the crappiest Beatles tunes are so much better than a preponderance of the garbage that people here like. I include what I have read of Savage Clone's musical tastes in the assessment.

[jonathan]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I'm 36 and I know what I like.
Just not a huge fan. I'm sorry.
Not everyone will like every band.
It has nothing to do with "being contrarian" either; it has to do with whether or not something resonates with me, which the vast majority of The Beatles' output does not.
I do think "Flying" and "Blue Jay Way" are pretty cool though, I guess.


To Rob:
Atari certainly treats them like a sacred cow, and so do many others.
And Ob La Di....is an incredibly annoying song, sentimental and "meaningful" lyrical content notwithstanding.
There are also plenty of bands that were doing music at the same time that I personally find to be more interesting or at the very least more personally enjoyable. Plus it wasn't that far before my birth. Like a couple of years.

You have yet to mention anything off of Abbey Road. You should definitely listen to that before you make any real judgement calls. I'll send it to you if you've never heard it.

Not trying to push any bands on people, you like what you like. But not being at least somewhat familiar with Abbey Road and writing off the Beatles seems a little ridiculous.

You may write them off only after you've heard that record.

[luxinterior]

The Beatles have never been able to hold my interest for long. Most of their music grates on my nerves. I can't really say why. When I was 13 my uncle gave me Sgt. Pepper's because I was into other classic rock type things at the time, but that album didn't do anything for me. Not long after, one of my mom's friends gave me the White Album, and it was a little better than Sgt. Pepper's, but I rarely had the urge to listen to it. When I think back to that point in time, I guess I was in the 7th or 8th grade? Anyway, there were a few of us in my grade who had started playing instruments because of our newfound interest in rock & roll music. And basically, if you weren't a huge Beatles fan, you were probably really into Led Zeppelin, was how it worked as I recall. My favorite band at that time was T. Rex, but I had more Led Zeppelin albums than I did T. Rex. And I still couldn't get into the Beatles. I think that if I had totally bypassed Led Zeppelin, I would probably not be able to appreciate them if I were just starting to listen to them now. When I was 13, they were a totally new thing to me. I had nothing to compare them to, other than whatever pop radio was like 5 years ago. But yeah, they may as well have been the only classic rock band ever for all I knew. And I do still love them, but I have since found things more suited to my tastes. The Beatles are like that, only worse, since I never really cared for them. I have found that I do like some of their songs, just not when they are being sung by the Beatles. I like it when Ike & Tina do "Come Together", or when Robyn Hitchcock sings "A Day in the Life."

I think what I'm saying is that The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are bands of the sort that sound their best when you have little to compare them to, then they seem like the best thing ever, and I think their fanbases are both largely made up of people who experienced rock & roll music for the first time through either one of those bands.

[Savage Clone]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

I love how he craftily keeps returning to the point that the Beatles are "significant" (the word is used four times), and claiming that it's no big deal if you like them or do not like them while at the same time reaffirming over and over his distaste for The Beatles. If it's no big deal whether you like them or not, then why the posts? Why all the reccurring threads about this very absurd topic? Please note that this is a rhetorical question and that I neither expect or desire a reply back.

Well, a reply you will get. So sorry.
All I was saying is that it is not necessary to bow down to their majesty or even to enjoy their output in order to recognize their contribution to the general musical landscape. That is called "history." Jeez. That's the whole reason I made the BB King comment in relation to this.
Yeah, most of their songs bug me or do nothing for me whatsoever, but naturally there are a few that I like. Not suprising considering they made a lot of recordings in quite a few styles. All I was saying is that it is perfectly valid not to be a big fan and that doesn't make the rest of your musical opinions or enjoyment automatically null and void.
The fact that I do not deny them their achievements while simultaneously stating that the vast majority of their actual music does nothing for me is simply being honest about my own likes or dislikes while attempting to have a somewhat well-informed view of music history.
Fucking A.

[CHOUT]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Ob La Di....is an incredibly annoying song, sentimental and "meaningful" lyrical content notwithstanding.

Any appreciation of that song (which wasn't much) was obliterated when it was the theme to 'Life Goes On'.

[Savage Clone]

Originally Posted by jonathan

You have yet to mention anything off of Abbey Road. You should definitely listen to that before you make any real judgement calls. I'll send it to you if you've never heard it.

Not trying to push any bands on people, you like what you like. But not being at least somewhat familiar with Abbey Road and writing off the Beatles seems a little ridiculous.

You may write them off only after you've heard that record.

Yeah, you've got me pegged all right. I have been living under a rock and have never been exposed to this obscure recording you speak of.

[jonathan]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Yeah, you've got me pegged all right. I have been living under a rock and have never been exposed to this obscure recording you speak of.

haha, not trying to peg you... just making sure you've heard it.

[Savage Clone]

Originally Posted by jonathan

haha, not trying to peg you... just making sure you've heard it.

Appreciated.

[CHOUT]

I've always been into their mid-period stuff over anything else (rubber soul is my favorite). I never liked the white album on that much, except for certain songs.

[Savage Clone]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

This position does not even warrant a reply because it's simply a misguded notion by someone that just wants to try and be different since the art of much of the Beatles' recorded output outshines all of that collected crud put together.

You see, this is the part that chaps my hide just a bit. If we were talking about almost any other band (no matter how popular), would you question me at all on this? Personal taste is subjective and individual, and one can have honest opinions that have nothing to do with "wanting to try to be different." I try to give you enough credit in this department; why will you not do the same?


By the way, thanks for pointing out my grammatical errors in previous posts. That kind of writing is the sort of thing up with which you should not put.
And you spelled "misguided" wrong in your post, but you've probably edited it by now anyway...