If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I hate the Beatles. If the Beatles didn't exist, would we still have the same music being made, given the other influences coming up at the same time?
- The Animals
- The Rolling Stones
- The Kinks
- John Mayall
- Cream
- The Yardbirds
- The Who
- Jimi Hendrix
(not in strict order)
Now we know all of them - maybe not the Animals - were either enthralled by, or trying to keep up with - the Beatles. Would they have done what they had done if the Beatles weren't there too?
It's nothing new. People tend to put their favorite artists on a pedestal and "worship" them and the music they made after they are gone. The list of what I consider overrated post deceadent artists is staggering, from Lohn Lennon to Kirk Cobain (pronounced go-bang) Elvis, Hendrix, Sinatra, yada yada yada. Not taking away from the contribution each of them did make to the music, but honestly, hardened fans do go way overboard and you just have to consider the source and move on.
I recently got into a discussion on another board where a guy who wanted to form a Nirvana tribute band wanted some feedback from others. He asked for it. My feedback was why? pure and simple. He went on with all the good Kirk Cobain did for todays music and how the music of today would be so much different if it weren't for him. Poor guy stepped right into a shitstorm. It was kind of entertaining watching the flame that ensued.
Haven't read all of the replies, but I agree with the dislike towards the Beatles "machine". My wife is a huge fan so I probably get exposed to it more than others, and it is just a horrible commercial enterprise that has nothing to do with their music.
With that said, I also didn't really like the Beatles before I met my wife. Now they're probably in my top 10 bands of all time. Paul McCartney is an expert songwriter. George Harrison has an incredibly unique style, even to this day. John was more image than substance, although Ringo does have a very solid internal beat. Ignore their early stuff, and ignore their later stuff. Go listen to Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers, White Album (in that order). You'll change your mind about the music and realize that they really did create rock as we know it today. Even Akerfeldt from Opeth likes the Beatles.
edit: I Want You (She's So Heavy) is an awesome song to crank up the stereo for.
With that said, I also didn't really like the Beatles before I met my wife. Now they're probably in my top 10 bands of all time. Paul McCartney is an expert songwriter. George Harrison has an incredibly unique style, even to this day. John was more image than substance, although Ringo does have a very solid internal beat. Ignore their early stuff, and ignore their later stuff.
dude Lennon and Harrison had the most substance by far... they came up with all the weird experimentation stuff. Paul wrote the biggest amount of bubble gum pop tunes.
"There is nothing more fearful than imagination without taste" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"To be stupid, selfish and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost" - Gustave Flaubert
One of my biggest problem with the "beatles machine" is how the "bosses" tried to sell them.
The Beatles were originally a group of rockers wearing leather jackets. Then the "bosses" had an idea to dress them up nicely and market them as "nice boys from Liverpool".
The reality was of course different and when the public finally realized that the nice boys weren't actually really nice then the band finally were free to let go of that image. By the time they started making Abbey Road they all were full blown hippies, very long hair, facial hair, more casual clothing etc.
"There is nothing more fearful than imagination without taste" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"To be stupid, selfish and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost" - Gustave Flaubert
dude Lennon and Harrison had the most substance by far... they came up with all the weird experimentation stuff. Paul wrote the biggest amount of bubble gum pop tunes.
I'll admit John had some good songs but Paul's are more memorable, and just better written overall.
Anyway, we agree on the main point, that everyone should pay attention to the Beatles, because they really did influence the genre.
It's nothing new. People tend to put their favorite artists on a pedestal and "worship" them and the music they made after they are gone. The list of what I consider overrated post deceadent artists is staggering, from Lohn Lennon to Kirk Cobain
Who is Kirk Cobain? I think you're confusing him with that Kurt Hammett guy from Metallica.
I feel my soul go cold... only the dead are smiling.
I'm the same way about Elvis: He was nowhere near the "King of Rock and Roll". Carl Perkins and a ton of others did more than Elvis did. He was merely the "pretty face to make the girls cum in their panties", and he along with the Beatles did more to denigrade music and musical talent into a cheap tactic to get laid more than to actually advance or foster a budding art form.
I want to depart this world the same way I arrived; screaming and covered in someone else's blood
The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Comment