Why The Beatles are crap

[drummindefender]

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

i did see the joke lazz

 

[Ox Fox]

,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.

Sorry Alex, not to be picky here but you stating that the Beatles being the first to record a track with just strings and voice is like saying George Formby was a revolutionary because he was the first popular performer to have a hit with just him and a ukulele. :icon_wink The strings on that song are beautifully arranged (wasn't it influenced by Vivaldi?) and George Martin was a very clever man, but again wasn't Buddy Holly (the major influence on the original band) using strings in pop music to great effect years beforehand, albeit not in the same classically arranged way?

In regard to consistency some people would say When I'm 64 is a stinker, Yellow Submarine and Octopus's Garden are playgroup songs and let's not go down the Obi La Di Ob La Da route again. :icon_bigg As you go on to say, quite rightly, it's all subjective. If you enjoy listening to them that's great, no-one is wrong or right. Once again I've never criticised anyone for what they like. All I have tried to get over is that The Beatles have become the holy cows of music and somwhow gone beyond criticism, I think this has been demonstrated in some of the reaction on this thread. Of course they made a significant contribution, but in terms of innovation this has become ampified and distorted down the years.

 

[drummindefender]

Sorry Alex, not to be picky here but you stating that the Beatles being the first to record a track with just strings and voice is like saying George Formby was a revolutionary because he was the first popular performer to have a hit with just him and a ukulele. :icon_wink The strings on that song are beautifully arranged (wasn't it influenced by Vivaldi?) and George Martin was a very clever man, but again wasn't Buddy Holly (the major influence on the original band) using strings in pop music to great effect years beforehand, albeit not in the same classically arranged way?

In regard to consistency some people would say When I'm 64 is a stinker, Yellow Submarine and Octopus's Garden are playgroup songs and let's not go down the Obi La Di Ob La Da route again. :icon_bigg As you go on to say, quite rightly, it's all subjective. If you enjoy listening to them that's great, no-one is wrong or right. Once again I've never criticised anyone for what they like. All I have tried to get over is that The Beatles have become the holy cows of music and somwhow gone beyond criticism, I think this has been demonstrated in some of the reaction on this thread. Of course they made a significant contribution, but in terms of innovation this has become ampified and distorted down the years.

i wouldnt say they have gone beyond criticism-theres quite a few beatles songs i think are shite (most notably revolution number 9) but the sheer amount of quality songs outwiegh the bad ones and more then make up for it

 

[Dunc]

Sorry Alex, not to be picky here but you stating that the Beatles being the first to record a track with just strings and voice is like saying George Formby was a revolutionary because he was the first popular performer to have a hit with just him and a ukulele. :icon_wink The strings on that song are beautifully arranged (wasn't it influenced by Vivaldi?) and George Martin was a very clever man, but again wasn't Buddy Holly (the major influence on the original band) using strings in pop music to great effect years beforehand, albeit not in the same classically arranged way?

In regard to consistency some people would say When I'm 64 is a stinker, Yellow Submarine and Octopus's Garden are playgroup songs and let's not go down the Obi La Di Ob La Da route again. :icon_bigg As you go on to say, quite rightly, it's all subjective. If you enjoy listening to them that's great, no-one is wrong or right. Once again I've never criticised anyone for what they like. All I have tried to get over is that The Beatles have become the holy cows of music and somwhow gone beyond criticism, I think this has been demonstrated in some of the reaction on this thread. Of course they made a significant contribution, but in terms of innovation this has become ampified and distorted down the years.

4 songs in a otherwise glittering career. Lennon must be turning in his grave thinking he's let the side down.



Actually, IMO one of the down points of the Beatles was Lennon & McCartney as people, Lennon was well intentioned but a complete hypocritical arse and McCartney is like an embarrassing uncle these days.

 

[Ox Fox]

4 songs in a otherwise glittering career. Lennon must be turning in his grave thinking he's let the side down.



Actually, IMO one of the down points of the Beatles was Lennon & McCartney as people, Lennon was well intentioned but a complete hypocritical arse and McCartney is like an embarrassing uncle these days.

Sorry Dunc it was the first four that came to mind, and I forgot to put "etc..."

Let me know if you need a complete list :icon_wink

 

[Leesoh]

I like some of the Beatles stuff. They were an important part of a culteral revolution (so to speak), but what gets me is that people big up them and ignore the rest. Yes, Pet Sounds being one example.

 

[Melton Fox]

I like some of the Beatles stuff. They were an important part of a culteral revolution (so to speak), but what gets me is that people big up them and ignore the rest. Yes, Pet Sounds being one example.

Pet Sounds doesn't get ignored, it is widely regarded as one of the best albums of all time

But you are right in the fact that most "youngsters" would recognise the name Abbey Road and not Pet Sounds

 

[highland fox]

I think they are awful but its all opinions

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

i dont mind them....but this thread could go on forever will just have to agree to disagree

 

[highland fox]

i dont mind them....but this thread could go on forever will just have to agree to disagree

You don't know what you are talking about...:icon_wink

 

[alex]

Sorry Alex, not to be picky here but you stating that the Beatles being the first to record a track with just strings and voice is like saying George Formby was a revolutionary because he was the first popular performer to have a hit with just him and a ukulele. :icon_wink The strings on that song are beautifully arranged (wasn't it influenced by Vivaldi?) and George Martin was a very clever man, but again wasn't Buddy Holly (the major influence on the original band) using strings in pop music to great effect years beforehand, albeit not in the same classically arranged way?

In regard to consistency some people would say When I'm 64 is a stinker, Yellow Submarine and Octopus's Garden are playgroup songs and let's not go down the Obi La Di Ob La Da route again. :icon_bigg As you go on to say, quite rightly, it's all subjective. If you enjoy listening to them that's great, no-one is wrong or right. Once again I've never criticised anyone for what they like. All I have tried to get over is that The Beatles have become the holy cows of music and somwhow gone beyond criticism, I think this has been demonstrated in some of the reaction on this thread. Of course they made a significant contribution, but in terms of innovation this has become ampified and distorted down the years.

It was the first number one pop song with just string accompaniment (sp) I believe.....

Your point about the 'stinkers' is completely out-weighed by their huge discography of what most would declare as 'non-stinkers'.

Shall I post the discography for vote?

 

[Naughty Fox]

No

 

[drummindefender]

Pet Sounds doesn't get ignored, it is widely regarded as one of the best albums of all time

But you are right in the fact that most "youngsters" would recognise the name Abbey Road and not Pet Sounds

oi stop slagging off my generation innit

 

[Naughty Fox]

The whole Beatles thing to me is a bit of a bore, I like some of their stuff and some I think is crap, just my opinion. Its like the old question 'Beatles or the Stones' why not like both?
People have different views on the Beatles depending on age and if they are 'really into music' (i.e write music or play in a band), forget if the song is crap, there might be one part that is production genius or a sound never heard before. Where as 'just the listener' like myself may not notice these things.
With the varying styles that the Beatles produced it is very easy to say that they had an influence on music that has been written and performed since, it is harder and harder to come up with new sounds and styles and anything that does seems new is just another angle on something that has gone before. They also set high benchmarks to any band wanting to be successful with their endless number ones and impact they had at the time, so it is easy for bands to quote the Beatles as being an influence as they want to have some of the same success that they had.
I have not looked (and do not intend to), but I bet there are quotes from the Beatles saying who there influences were and some might surprise you, it will always be the same.
I do agree though on the point of them being a little bit untouchable with regard to 'slagging them off', people do forget thay were also a bunch of drug addict smack heads at one point (so are/were alot of other bands), but this gets forgotten due to their 'genius'.
There are alot of bands that have had just as much a big infuence as the Beatles on how music was/is produced/written/sound that get less credit due to being 'not the right sort' like the Sex Pistols, Hendrix, ect (can not hink of anymore off the top of my head, cue Lazzer/Melton) and other more well known like Led Zep and Queen.

 

[Ox Fox]

It was the first number one pop song with just string accompaniment (sp) I believe.....

Your point about the 'stinkers' is completely out-weighed by their huge discography of what most would declare as 'non-stinkers'.

Shall I post the discography for vote?

I must be missing something but I just don't get why you've singled out using a string accompaniment as being so special, someone's got to be the first at doing everything, and yeah in this case it was the Beatles. People have been singing along to string instruments ever since their invention, just the because the Beatles were the first to reach the top of a chart isn't that much of an achievement is it? You could say a more notable achievement was The Monkees having the first no1 album featuring a synthesiser in 1967. But they didn't invent the synthesiser which was surely the clever bit.

 

[drummindefender]

I must be missing something but I just don't get why you've singled out using a string accompaniment as being so special, someone's got to be the first at doing everything, and yeah in this case it was the Beatles. People have been singing along to string instruments ever since their invention, just the because the Beatles were the first to reach the top of a chart isn't that much of an achievement is it? You could say a more notable achievement was The Monkees having the first no1 album featuring a synthesiser in 1967. But they didn't invent the synthesiser which was surely the clever bit.

or maybe you could look at it that they were creative by the fact that they were the first band to make a successful song by using string music in a pop record they had the vision to see that it could be successfully incorprated into pop/rock music of 60s

 

[alex]

I studied 'Eleanor Rigby' for music - the timing and concept of the record was/is truly extraordinairy. That's all really....

 

[highland fox]

I studied 'The Village People' very closely - the timing and concept of the record was/is truly extraordinairy and the way they shaked their asses made me hard. That's all really....

Horrible stuff Alex ...just awful

 

[alex]

Alex I have named a lamb up here 'Eleanor Rigby' and I plan to shag her in to next week soon.....What a coincidence hey?

Ok HF, ok....