Why The Beatles are crap

[Dunc]

So your premise is that popularity is equal to quality. So that makes Is This The Way To Amarillo the best single of last year and James Blunt made the best album in 2005?

It's immaterial what bands you or anyone else might like or dislike, I couldn't give a fig. As I'm sure you couldn't give a fig about what I choose to listen to. All I'm trying to establish is that The Beatles are not the Holy Grail of pop music as we are constantly being force fed.

And no one is putting Amarillo or James Blunt up as changing music. The fact is that the beatles aren't deemed as unique because of their ability to write and perform songs, more in production techniques, diversity of music on albums, use of different influences (music hall, C&W, rockabilly, pop, rock, R&B etc) as well as creating new sounds with them eg. Tomorrow Never Knows, Abbey Road EP, Sg Pepper, Revolver, The White Album etc).

Another factor that makes the legendary is the sheer quantity of what is deemed by most people to be good music in a short career.

If I'm alright with you, I'll tend to listen to those who are deemed experts in their field who inform me that the Beatles changed music rather than someone who seems a bit bitter about it all and who doesnt like them.

Even those music commentators who don't like them appreciate they changed things.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

So your premise is that popularity is equal to quality. So that makes Is This The Way To Amarillo the best single of last year and James Blunt made the best album in 2005?

It's immaterial what bands you or anyone else might like or dislike, I couldn't give a fig. As I'm sure you couldn't give a fig about what I choose to listen to. All I'm trying to establish is that The Beatles are not the Holy Grail of pop music as we are constantly being force fed.

Generally speaking I guess popularity often comes down to how good your music.. that's not always the case particularly here in the UK with stuff like Mr Blobby able to pick the no.1 slot. But generally speaking, the more people like your music, the more popular you will be.. I would have guessed that would have been common sense but I have no problem having to point this out to you if it needs to be done. Maybe you don't agree with what you think we are being 'force fed' with but most of the people that have replied here seem to disagree with what you are trying to force feed us. It's all down to personal taste at the end of the day.

Onto my next point, you said "to put them on some sort of pedestal really is "talking shite".. obviously this is just your opinion.. I would just like to see what band you would put above all others and what your reasons for doing so would be, and see if you end up 'talking shit'.

 

[Dunc]

Some light reading....

The Beatles were, by most definitions, the biggest musical act of the twentieth century. In their homeland alone, they have had more than 40 different singles, albums and EPs reach Number One. This kind of success has been repeated in many more countries and EMI estimated that by 1985, the band had sold over one billion records worldwide.[1] Their ballad Yesterday, written by McCartney, may well be the most-covered song in the history of recorded music.[2]
The Beatles' achievements and contributions to popular music, and indeed international youth culture, were profound and wide-ranging. Their early original material fused elements of early American rock 'n roll, pop, and R&B into a new form of popular rock 'n roll, almost single-handedly kick-starting the British Invasion, laying the groundwork for the rock culture of the 1960s, and establishing the prototype for the self-contained rock group.
Throughout their career, The Beatles balanced their huge popularity with increasingly experimental and boundary-pushing music that took cues from eclectic sources like folk, R&B, soul, classical, electronic and Indian music while exploiting increasingly sophisticated technology and innovative recording techniques.
In this way, they helped pioneer more advanced, multi-layered arrangements in both rock and pop and were instrumental in the development of some of 1960s rock's dominant styles, such as folk-rock and psychedelia. As songwriters, they were among the most influential and melodically sophisticated of the era, helping to push rock beyond its early blues and R&B forms and into more expansive territory. Critical evaluation of The Beatles legacy demonstrates that they "introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century". [3]
To a significant extent, however, the impact of The Beatles extended well beyond music. Their clothes, hairstyles, actions, and even choice of instruments made them trend-setters throughout the decade, while their growing social awareness, reflected in the development of their music, saw their influence extend into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s. Though the group disbanded in 1970 (amid much internal strife), they are still recognised as easily the most iconic performers of their era, and moreover one of the greatest popular music groups of the entire rock era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles

 

[No.6 Muzzy Izzet...]

If I don't like a band I usually just ignore them. Take the Arctic Monkey's for instance. I don't think they're anything special, and that their successes are bloated. But I say fair play to them and I wouldn't want to take away from them their successes, as they've done something I haven't.

What's your obsession with trying to discredit The Beatles. Maybe you fear The Beatles.

 

[fcukcov]

One of the main reasons for the beatles being so popular was the whole Liverpoolcool vibe at the time and okay at times they didnt do anything that radical from what elvis and buddy holll etc had been doing before but maybe that was their success. Im sure they would rather offend ten people and please a million with middle of the road type pop music than please one and displease millions by playing Norwegan Nose flutes.

My point is bands have done this throughout history, hence the spice girls success, on a general level it was hard to 'hate' them, okay you could dislike their music but hey good luck to anyone that can make more in a few short years of fame than i am going to make in my life time.

 

[drummindefender]

im also intrigued that ox fox has filed to try and argue against the points i've made despite pointing this out already

 

[Ox Fox]

Thank you for the responses, I'll take these one at a time if I may.

Dunc - I've never criticised anyone for their personal choice of listening material, I've criticised bands sure but not called anyone for liking them (apart from Robbie Williams perhaps). So if want to believe I'm a bit bitter about the Beatles being popular that's fine, but it's not true, I'm not Pete Best. Listen to the so called experts by all means, but they are driven by self-interest, populism and fallibility as much as any one else. Personally I like to make my own mind up with out having a Q/Mojo/Rolling Stone/NME rating or a 100 best of chart to justify it.

Shaun - Not sure what I've done to upset you but I'll apologise anyway for any offence I may have caused. As with Dunc you enjoy what you enjoy. You may regard the list of bands under your sig as having made a great contribution to popular music, I may or may not think they are all stomach churningly awful - it matters not one jot. As you rightly say no one is right no one is wrong. I'll always respect anyone who stands up for what they believe in and applaud your wholehearted enthusiasm of what you like, but surely by the very nature of this forum everyone has a right to question or offer an opinion without getting the other person getting the hump?

DD - Sorry I wasn't ignoring you, just not sure what you like me to do? A track by track analysis of SPLHCB and why concept albums have never been much cop? Or discuss how much of its originality was down to George Martin's production? Personally I think Pet Sounds is a much better album which was made at the same time and which Paul Mcartney has said is his all-time favourite album. In fact I'm sure had Smile come out at the time it was supposed to, in the way it was supposed to, I think it might well have become the reference point for 60's pop psychedelia instead of SPLHCB.

So in the words of The Beatles all you need is love.

 

[Dunc]

Thank you for the responses, I'll take these one at a time if I may.

Dunc - I've never criticised anyone for their personal choice of listening material, I've criticised bands sure but not called anyone for liking them (apart from Robbie Williams perhaps). So if want to believe I'm a bit bitter about the Beatles being popular that's fine, but it's not true, I'm not Pete Best. Listen to the so called experts by all means, but they are driven by self-interest, populism and fallibility as much as any one else. Personally I like to make my own mind up with out having a Q/Mojo/Rolling Stone/NME rating or a 100 best of chart to justify it.

Fair enough, so that reverts back to my original answer which is that its ok to say you don't like The Beatles, but to say they are crap or unoriginal is an opinion, but flies in the face of the evidence available.

You are quite right, as with every art, critical acclaim is subjective and there are plenty of albums rated highly that I don't like, but I'm sure they have musical merit.

 

[MHS]

I've criticised bands sure but not called anyone for liking them (apart from Robbie Williams perhaps).

What's wrong with Robbie Williams?

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

Thank you for the responses, I'll take these one at a time if I may.


Shaun - Not sure what I've done to upset you but I'll apologise anyway for any offence I may have caused. As with Dunc you enjoy what you enjoy. You may regard the list of bands under your sig as having made a great contribution to popular music, I may or may not think they are all stomach churningly awful - it matters not one jot. As you rightly say no one is right no one is wrong. I'll always respect anyone who stands up for what they believe in and applaud your wholehearted enthusiasm of what you like, but surely by the very nature of this forum everyone has a right to question or offer an opinion without getting the other person getting the hump?

Well, what you've upset me with would be some posts before this thread where you would try and take the piss out of the music I like, and with no firm argument I might add. I'd wager you've never even heard anything by some of those bands I have listed. With regard to that last notion, surely then everyone also has the right to question your opinions without you getting into a strop aswell? I don't know where you got that first list from in the first place, but it is a damn joke, not least because it is being disrespectful to two dead legends of the industry.. which to me suggests that it was written by a complete moron in the first place.

Like I said earlier, I'm not the biggest fan of the Beatles, but I can appreciate they wrote some memorable and lasting songs and they did define the standard for decades, no.. centuries to follow.

 

[Willlow]

If you are looking at bands that changed music forever surely you have to look at....


....Bros! :icon_lol:

 

[lazzer]

i respect both opinions on this matter ,if i had one criticism of the beatles it is when john lennon claimed they were more popular than nathan
seriously i dont have a beatle record in my collection and probably think the same as OX fox about them.But i cant deny they changed the face of music and attitudes of the then younger generation.Songs of yesteryear can in todays times seem pretty lame but you have to put yourself into the mindset of a kid who heard the likes of "helter skelter" for the first time compared to what had gone before it must have been mind blowing.I myself was taken aback by the pistols.clash, et al but today looking back they seem a bit "safey" compared to their day when the governement discussed the dangers of listening to them.You have to imagine these things in perspective and consider what went before.Their consistencey and diversification for 8 or so years speaks for itself.
you cant deny if it wasnt for the beatles,elvis and the likes we would still be listening to perry fecking como

 

[drummindefender]

i respect both opinions on this matter ,if i had one criticism of the beatles it is when john lennon claimed they were more popular than nathan
seriously i dont have a beatle record in my collection and probably think the same as OX fox about them.But i cant deny they changed the face of music and attitudes of the then younger generation.Songs of yesteryear can in todays times seem pretty lame but you have to put yourself into the mindset of a kid who heard the likes of "helter skelter" for the first time compared to what had gone before it must have been mind blowing.I myself was taken aback by the pistols.clash, et al but today looking back they seem a bit "safey" compared to their day when the governement discussed the dangers of listening to them.You have to imagine these things in perspective and consider what went before.Their consistencey and diversification for 8 or so years speaks for itself.
you cant deny if it wasnt for the beatles,elvis and the likes we would still be listening to perry fecking como

to be fair the bigger then jesus quote is often misinterpreted-i don't think lennon was claiming they were better then jesus just that more people have heard of them and know them then jesus

 

[Ox Fox]

This was the actual quote:

'Christianity will go,' he said. 'It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first-rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me.'

 

[Dunc]

This was the actual quote:

Must have seen a premonition of George Bush and his neo cons, along with President Blair bible bashing their way around the world.

 

[drummindefender]

ox maybe i'm making an assumption but it seems to me if a band has become popular and has sold records you think there crap automatically-instead you'd rather go for a very rare norwegian progressive reggae folk blues rock quartet because no-one else has heard of them, and then you can claim them to be your own and make out there the real ones with talent ie you cant stand it if a band has fans.

 

[Ox Fox]

ox maybe i'm making an assumption but it seems to me if a band has become popular and has sold records you think there crap automatically-instead you'd rather go for a very rare norwegian progressive reggae folk blues rock quartet because no-one else has heard of them, and then you can claim them to be your own and make out there the real ones with talent ie you cant stand it if a band has fans.

I may be elitist but believe it or not I'm not a music snob DD, so this may surprise you but you're totally wrong :icon_bigg

I honestly don't care it's in the top 40, or sells 40 copies come to that, just what it sounds like and/or makes me feel. In the last month for instance I liked the Gnarls Barkley single for the first 3 times I heard it and the Primal Scream single was great (for them). I don't care for manufactured pop too much but some of the Sugababes singles I think are great pop records. I might buy Norwegian progressive reggae folk blues rock but then again I found the Goldfrapp album quite entertaining. The only things I really go out of my way to avoid are Robbie Williams, folk, modern R&B, misogynistic/gangster rap, oh and 4/4 dance music doesn't really do much for me either.

I do prefer to see bands in smaller venues if possible because it's usually a better atmosphere, better sound quality and you can get to the bar quicker, but then again I've seen plenty of stadium/arena acts too.

Hope that helps.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

I do prefer to see bands in smaller venues if possible because it's usually a better atmosphere, better sound quality and you can get to the bar quicker, but then again I've seen plenty of stadium/arena acts too.

Hope that helps.

I've been to all sorts of live shows but in my opinion nothing beats a proper stadium rock show. 60,000 people shouting out 'Wanted Dead Or Alive' ina stadium packed to the rafters is pretty mesmerising stuff.. plus, who needs a bar when you've got guys walking around the gold circle area with backpacks of beer and smirnoff strapped to their backs? The best small venue show I've seen would easily be Skid Row..

 

[lazzer]

to be fair the bigger then jesus quote is often misinterpreted-i don't think lennon was claiming they were better then jesus just that more people have heard of them and know them then jesus

i like the way you picked up on the jokey bit about nathan and totally ignored the serious bit still peter and the wolf and all that

 

[alex]

I'm actually all for applauding and recognising genuine talent, popularity never comes into it. I simply cannot understand why people have cast The Beatles as being the epitome of popular music. As I mentioned before they could write pretty melodies but so can James Blunt (if sales are being used as some sort of taste barometer).

"They changed the way modern music is written, performed and presented."

How did they write musically differently from anyone else, before or at the time? Because they wrote and performed their own songs? well so did Buddy Holly amongst hundreds of others?

In terms of their performances and presentation being different, this was because their manager groomed them, he told them exactly what to wear and how to act on stage. For instance the little bows whenever they were on TV - not very rock and roll but it helped softened them to the establishment.

If you like them that's great, but to put them on some sort of pedestal I'm afraid really is "talking shite".

,Buddy Holly died before being able to output anything like what The Beatles did. The Beatles' back catalogue and sheer consistency is what makes them more special than most. Even after shaping modern-day indie-rock with 'Revolver' they still had 'Sgt Pepper', 'Abbey Road', 'The White Album' etc etc to come....This is after all that had gone before. They WERE the first band to record a pop single using only strings and voice 'Eleanor Rigby' and their production techiniques with George Martin are still upheld as extraordinairy. There was no weak link in their chain. People slag off Ringo, not me, I love his drumming.

They are and will probably always be, the most consistent pop band of all time. That's why they're on a pedestal, just as Pele is at football.

Music is all about opinion, but you calling The Beatles 'crap' is just utter nonsense.