I hate the Beatles

[the captain]

Frankly I'm amazed at their staying power finding legions of new fans with succeeding generations.  ...
I guess the Beatles made quite an impact to say the least.

That's one of the strongest arguments for them as the greatest, or at least among the greatest, bands. I think they are probably more than any other, THE band that people at least work through at some point. Virtually everyone becomes acquainted with the Beatles at some point, even if they eventually move on to something else. It's pretty rare to find someone who gets into pop music to some depth without ever working through their catalog. (In observations of people my age [32] or so, the other bands like that are the Doors, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix, then to a lesser degree Pink Floyd and Velvet Underground. It's much farther back on the list that I see the Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, the Who, the Zombies, the Kinks, or other "classic" bands. But that's just my anecdotal evidence.)

[Shady]

Frankly I'm amazed at their staying power finding legions of new fans with succeeding generations.  ...
I guess the Beatles made quite an impact to say the least.

That's one of the strongest arguments for them as the greatest, or at least among the greatest, bands. I think they are probably more than any other, THE band that people at least work through at some point. Virtually everyone becomes acquainted with the Beatles at some point, even if they eventually move on to something else. It's pretty rare to find someone who gets into pop music to some depth without ever working through their catalog. (In observations of people my age [32] or so, the other bands like that are the Doors, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix, then to a lesser degree Pink Floyd and Velvet Underground. It's much farther back on the list that I see the Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, the Who, the Zombies, the Kinks, or other "classic" bands. But that's just my anecdotal evidence.)

Just your evidence indeed.

[The Heartical Don]

I've got two functional brain cells left. The one is is for Brian Wilson, the other for Bach. So, there.

[donald]

Luther mentioned the Kinks as maybe not being on "the list" of younger people.  Too bad.

Ray Davies first two solo albums just recently released in 06 and 08 are must hear music.

And I will encourage anyone of the British invasion generation who ever enjoyed the Kinks to please go out and at least borrow if not buy these records and listen a few times.  I can almost guarantee you will not be disappointed.  I have not been so taken with any genuinely new music in a long time.  Ray's wit and gift of writing about characters and social concerns has not diminished a bit.  And the music is a delight.


to quaote a line from the 06 lp, "Other People's Lives"

"Yes, there is life after breakfast"

[the captain]

Frankly I'm amazed at their staying power finding legions of new fans with succeeding generations.  ...
I guess the Beatles made quite an impact to say the least.

That's one of the strongest arguments for them as the greatest, or at least among the greatest, bands. I think they are probably more than any other, THE band that people at least work through at some point. Virtually everyone becomes acquainted with the Beatles at some point, even if they eventually move on to something else. It's pretty rare to find someone who gets into pop music to some depth without ever working through their catalog. (In observations of people my age [32] or so, the other bands like that are the Doors, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix, then to a lesser degree Pink Floyd and Velvet Underground. It's much farther back on the list that I see the Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, the Who, the Zombies, the Kinks, or other "classic" bands. But that's just my anecdotal evidence.)

Just your evidence indeed.

Um, yeah. Thanks for confirming what I said.

[John]

More like the Suckles.

Wow. Awesome burn.


My two cents: The Beatles are the greatest indeed, and yes, they're over-rated. But still, they're the perfect match of talent and marketability. Excellent songwriters, great innovaters, multi-instrumentalists, and the chicks dug 'em too. God bless 'em.

[Shady]

Frankly I'm amazed at their staying power finding legions of new fans with succeeding generations.  ...
I guess the Beatles made quite an impact to say the least.

That's one of the strongest arguments for them as the greatest, or at least among the greatest, bands. I think they are probably more than any other, THE band that people at least work through at some point. Virtually everyone becomes acquainted with the Beatles at some point, even if they eventually move on to something else. It's pretty rare to find someone who gets into pop music to some depth without ever working through their catalog. (In observations of people my age [32] or so, the other bands like that are the Doors, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix, then to a lesser degree Pink Floyd and Velvet Underground. It's much farther back on the list that I see the Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, the Who, the Zombies, the Kinks, or other "classic" bands. But that's just my anecdotal evidence.)

Just your evidence indeed.

Um, yeah. Thanks for confirming what I said.

Your anti beach boys statments at times can be a drag, yeah you love half of their stuff and hate the rest.

No need to express that on the forum, yeah it's your right..but why even bother.

[the captain]

I whole-heartedly apologize for having opinions and being honest. This will not happen again. I will try to make this Blueboard. Dennis is super-cute and underrated. Brian's feces smell nice. The worst Beach Boys music is better than anyone else's. And my observations about what musicians in my general circle seem to have liked or not liked are incorrect--I should not mention them on a message board. It is sinful. From now on my posts will be nothing but BBs or BWs album liner notes. I promise.

[Shady]

I whole-heartedly apologize for having opinions and being honest. This will not happen again. I will try to make this Blueboard. Dennis is super-cute and underrated. Brian's feces smell nice. The worst Beach Boys music is better than anyone else's. And my observations about what musicians in my general circle seem to have liked or not liked are incorrect--I should not mention them on a message board. It is sinful. From now on my posts will be nothing but BBs or BWs album liner notes. I promise.

I never said that, you make really good posts a lot of the time Luther, but when I read  that a quarter of their catalogue is horrible rubs me the wrong way, you made that post by the way.

Be constructive all you want. just not bitter.

[the captain]

That's the thing. I am not bitter at all. Disliking some music isn't bitterness. And it's all wholly irrelevant whether I like or dislike certain pop music, just as it is whether you do. Not to me or you, respectively, but to most anyone else. This is just a message board. Falling into the orthodoxy or general opinion ... it's dull. And what's more, if I don't agree, what am I supposed to do? Lie or keep my mouth shut? In such a world, we'd end up with threads where nobody discusses anything, everyone just weighs in on how much s/he likes [topic at hand]. Blueboard. I'm a little (although in all honesty, not very) sorry if you don't like some of my opinions or my posting style. But I hope you notice that even when I'm disagreeing with something or saying I don't like something, I'm not attacking other posters, or their rights to their opinions. The exception to that is when someone does what you did a few posts ago, which was make a point to directly belittle my observation. Then I'm going to respond in kind. Anyway, enough of this. I believe we've made our points. You're very welcome to your opinions. Thats my last post about this, and you won't get any more sarcastic responses out of me. Live/ let live. (I got a notion we come from the ocean...)

[the captain]

Oh, and sorry to anyone who just read the past few posts and thinks their time was wasted. And it was. My bad. 

[Shady]

That's the thing. I am not bitter at all. Disliking some music isn't bitterness. And it's all wholly irrelevant whether I like or dislike certain pop music, just as it is whether you do. Not to me or you, respectively, but to most anyone else. This is just a message board. Falling into the orthodoxy or general opinion ... it's dull. And what's more, if I don't agree, what am I supposed to do? Lie or keep my mouth shut? In such a world, we'd end up with threads where nobody discusses anything, everyone just weighs in on how much s/he likes [topic at hand]. Blueboard. I'm a little (although in all honesty, not very) sorry if you don't like some of my opinions or my posting style. But I hope you notice that even when I'm disagreeing with something or saying I don't like something, I'm not attacking other posters, or their rights to their opinions. The exception to that is when someone does what you did a few posts ago, which was make a point to directly belittle my observation. Then I'm going to respond in kind. Anyway, enough of this. I believe we've made our points. You're very welcome to your opinions. Thats my last post about this, and you won't get any more sarcastic responses out of me. Live/ let live. (I got a notion we come from the ocean...)

Good Response.

And we obviously have two different views on the matter, but I think the main problem is, I like 99.7% of Beach Boys material I've ever heard, and you like a much lower number than that, and have no problem voicing that fact.

But no hard feelings Luther, just a little squabble, which is I guess why were here 

[carl r]

It's an interesting thread, this. I would also say that I don't like big chunks of the BBs back catalogue. I find most songs after "Love You" almost unlistenable, with some exceptions. I understand that saying this in a BB forum might hack people off. Bear in mind that I am mad about the BBs music that I do like. Not obsessed, but compelled by it. I suspect that the reason why people mention this love/hate thing is key to the whole enigma of the Beach Boys. Music you love, without wanting to. I've never been in the slightest bit inclined to listen to a Four Freshman album or dig out Chuck Berry. I'm not even that interested in a lot of Spector's stuff, it's great, just not my thing. The whole of the BBs music is greater than the sum of its parts and at their best they had something supernatural going on.

[the captain]

The whole of the BBs music is greater than the sum of its parts and at their best they had something supernatural going on.

To me, that's the amazing thing about any art that I love. But it's so personal: there is no external magic, I don't think. It's that it hits home for me. Granted, a lot of people share certain experiences and eventually share that personal response (such as with the greatest music so many of us love). But there are always those differences, too, and those are what can really cause a stir. But regarding that whole/sum of parts thing, that's what makes great work so hard to do again, even when you're the one who did it the first time. To me, it explains and even justifies why Pet Sounds can be brilliant and Imagination can be awful. Just because you're the one who made it once doesn't mean you make it consistently. (As I think I said in this thread earlier, actually, the Beatles are one of the primary exceptions to me. I like more of their music, percentage-wise, than anyone else's. It's probably in the mid- to high 70 percentile.)

[Wrightfan]

This thread is very ironic. I just came back from a concert, tribute band called RAIN of the fab four. Really cool experience, great playing. (As an aside, a woman sitting a small distance away from me looked EXACTLY like Linda McCartney! I almost went up to her and said "Hey Linda!" But then I remembered... )

They're coming up near Binghamton in April. Want to go see them!

[John]

The whole of the BBs music is greater than the sum of its parts and at their best they had something supernatural going on.

To me, that's the amazing thing about any art that I love. But it's so personal: there is no external magic, I don't think. It's that it hits home for me. Granted, a lot of people share certain experiences and eventually share that personal response (such as with the greatest music so many of us love). But there are always those differences, too, and those are what can really cause a stir. But regarding that whole/sum of parts thing, that's what makes great work so hard to do again, even when you're the one who did it the first time. To me, it explains and even justifies why Pet Sounds can be brilliant and Imagination can be awful. Just because you're the one who made it once doesn't mean you make it consistently. (As I think I said in this thread earlier, actually, the Beatles are one of the primary exceptions to me. I like more of their music, percentage-wise, than anyone else's. It's probably in the mid- to high 70 percentile.)

The only Beatles album I think is a true duffer is PLEASE PLEASE ME, and even that has five songs I consider stone classics on (for the record: I SAW HER STANDING THERE, ANNA, PLEASE PLEASE ME, THERE'S A PLACE and TWIST AND SHOUT). After that, there's a few duff tracks on almost every album - and while I don't love ABBEY ROAD as much as a lot of people, there's nothing on it that offends me, it's more an overall "bland" sheen.

The Beach Boys? I like more or less everything up from SURFIN' USA to SMILEY SMILE wholeheartedly (and love the filler for what it is). There's a couple of track I always fast forward (SOUTH BAY SURFER springs to mind) and most of the first LP is mulch.  I think WILD HONEY is cool, but way over-rated and more than a little thin, and FRIENDS does next to nothing for me, with the exception of MEANT FOR YOU, WAKE THE WORLD, DIAMOND HEAD and the Denny tracks. Most of 20/20 is great and 70% of SUNFLOWER is unspeakably brilliant and the rest is crap, like Bruce's tracks. I love SURF'S UP and HOLLAND, and bleh about CATP, love LOVE YOU and have a soft spot for L.A. LIGHT, the rest is just scattered tracks here and there. I probably like a bigger percentage of output by the Beatles, but I love the Beach Boys stuff more.

[endofposts]

I don't hate the Beatles, but I'm in the group that has significant Beatles burn-out.  When I was growing up, I loved the Beatles, collected their music (or the major albums and singles), and read books and articles about them.  I even aspired to want to make music like them, though I never did join a band or go into music.  I think a large reason I attempted to learn guitar and drums was the Beatles.  I also experimented with a tape recorder to do some things, like putting masking tape on the erase head to try to layer sounds like they did on "Tomorrow Never Knows," and made a tape loop of "Revolution #9" (backwards, of course, to hear "Turn me on, dead man.")   I was a Beatles nerd, watching the the two movies whenever they were on TV.  Maybe if I got into it later like I did the Beach Boys or some other bands I might like it as much.

[the captain]

No harm in that. I can't say I regularly play my albums, either--although I still count them as favorites. I have gone years without Hendrix before this one, and he's a huge influence. Zappa can go unplayed. And so on. We all get sick of, or need a break from, things that are overdone, even when we love them.

[Daniel S.]

I like the Beatles music but I really don 't listen to it that often. It's just not my favorite music.

I can't stand to listen to any of their songs more than a few times, as opposed to bands I really like (Cream, The Who, Rolling Stones, Paul Butterfield, Beach Boys) whose music is a daily part of my life.

The Beatles music, to my ears, sounds cloying and kind of boring. Not very dynamic. Maybe because they're mediocre at playing their instruments (Ringo excluded, who I think is one of the best drummers in the world)

I don't hate them, but the Beatles don't do it for me. The Beach Boys do it for me, but that doesn't mean they are "better" than the Beatles. I don't really care who is better.

[Daniel S.]

I just read a post on this thread that said people who are interested in pop music, at some point in their lives, work their way through the Beatles catalog. And yes, that applies to me.

[Lady]

The Beatles cartoons are good, and two of their tribute bands do a great job:  1964 and The Fab Four.

[Amy B.]

I grew up in the 80s and hated most of the music on the radio. I listened to the Beatles almost exclusively, with just a few exceptions. When people would tell me the Beatles were overrated, I thought they just hadn't heard enough of the catalog, thought of the band in its historical/cultural context, or considered its impact on pop music.

I have a friend who thought the Beatles were overrated. I asked her what she had heard. She said, "The singles and the White Album." So I made her a mix tape of a lot of other Beatles stuff. A few weeks later, she called me and asked me to make the same exact tape again. "I wore out the first one," she said. Then she apologized for thinking the Beatles were overrated. "I was so wrong." Then I tried to do the same conversion with the Beach Boys and got nowhere. Somehow I guess the Beatles are a bit more accessible.

To me it's just so much fun to be a Beatles fan. You've got the four personalities, the humor, the songwriting progression, the melodies, the multiple styles that they either used legitimately or parodied, the joy in the singing, the rapidly changing "looks" they adopted, the Mahareshi, the Lennon/McCartney drama, etc. Even their movies were good. Well, one was great, another was fun, and the third was... well...  But anyway, even when they didn't revolutionize sounds, they popularized them.

[Bean Bag]

I used to collect Beatles stuff back in the 80's & 90's AFTER getting all the Beach Boys I could find at the time. I tried as hard as possible to understand the Beatles like I did the BB. The thing is, the Beatles music, to my ears, just doesn't have any passion, and lacks soul. Also, unlike most BB albums, after a few listens I found I got as much from Beatles songs as I ever would. In other words I cannot get lost in the mysteriousness of the songs because there IS NO MYSTERY. It's like a Kid's book compared to Finnegan's Wake, and I'm just not gonna read the Cat in the Hat more than once or twice. And yes, I even had those yellow dog boots and the Sessions book.
     i remember there was a kid in High School who Loved the Beatles and would go on and on about how crappy the BB were. Typical reaction for that time. This is around '87-'88, so hardly any BB was available at the record store except for crappy tapes and a couple CDs. Still, I told him to listen to my cassette of PS and get back to me. Eventually he realised there was room for the BB in his life.
    Anyway, I now have exactly NO Beatles in my collection and I don't miss them one bit. If I never heard another Beatles song again (like that's even possible) I would not mind one bit. So do I hate the Beatles? Nope. I just think they are the most over-hyped act of all time. No need to try and dissuade me as my mind has been made up for, oh, 15 years on this one. Great thread by the way!

I agree 100%.  After I heard it -- I got it -- now turn it off.  It sounded great the first time...good the second, by the third, that's enough.  A lot of it quite frankly annoys me.  Except for Penny Lane.  That's worthy.  When I want British though -- I'll go with Syd or the Kinks.  Syd was legit....the Beatles were just crafty craftsman.  I don't believe they were artists.  (Isn't everybody an artist these days?)  I give them kudos for their craft.  I like Ringo...but I kind of want to punch Paul!?     John too...was he a pompus twit?  Maybe it's me.   

Second, I always found the baby-boomer fanaticism over them to be pukey.  Kind of makes me want to hate them, even though I don't. 

I broke out Pepper awhile back and kind of got into it (forced myself to)...but after a listen or three, I said to my wife, "I think I'm done with this"  And she said "yeah, it's not that good."  Smart chick.

I bought the US Album box, volume 2 I think...which I almost NEVER listen too.  But I like the idea of experiencing "Beatlemania" (barf) the way it happened here.  Good sounding remasters sucked me in.  But I never play it.  And I would never pay the $65 asking price.  It's the ultimate throwaway teenie bubble gum.  Boring.

I'm happy that they're actually remastering their catalog proper.  I might buy Magical Mystery Tour this fall...but that's it.  That's the only album by them blokes that I like.  They're actually being creative on that!  He he.  I bought that "LEt it Be N@ked" thing awhile ago too -- but never play it.  Across the Universe is nice.  But...I don't know...that album's weak.  Let it be crap.  Abby Road was good.  I might get that one too.  Revolver never reached me, but I feel like I "have to" get that one.  Same with Pepper.

I wouldn't say love/hate -- perhaps it's a like/hate relationship.  If music is drugs...I know I'm settling or I'm hard-up and in a bad place when I'm asking my dealer for Beatles sh-t.   


  -- "Hey buddy...I've this rubber soul all remastered...two disks, mono, stereo...you want a hit."  No. No.  Fck...letme see that.   

[BJL]

I loved the Beatles music when I was a kid, and I still like it quite a bit, though I rarely listen to it.  But my main problem with the Beatles is that it is representative of what I call the baby-boomer narrative.  The whole generation has this sickening (as I think some have already mentioned in this thread) air of self-importance about it.  the standard narrative that pervades our pop culture, so far as I can tell, is roughly this:

It begins by both honoring and belittling early rock and roll: honoring by saying that chuck berry and little richard laid the groundwork for all that came, belitting by generally not acknowledging early rock and roll as art, and robbing it of anything except for it's historical importance. 

then it says that rock and roll in the US had lost its way, essentially, that the early 60s were a pile of crap.  This has robbed popular music history of a full appraisal of the music of the time.  All the emphasis on the late sixties has had the effect of writing entire, extremely influential, but also awesome one their own terms, genres out of the historical narrative.  Ex: surf music, doo-wop, phil specter style pop, and to a much lesser degree, soul/motown. 

then it says that the British invasion, led by the Beatles, reinvigorated rock, leading it, with a growing cadre of british and american bands, to ever greater heights.  At the same time Bob Dylan turned rock into poetry.  This a) implies that any lyrics which aren't dense and druggy aren't poetry, which is bullshit.  b) it makes it look like the california rock scene of the late 60s was something new, when really, in my opinion, it grew organically out of the california rock scene of the early sixties. 

the narrative ends in the early 70s, when rock began its long slow descent.  There is some truth there, in that the rise of the "album as art" arguably led to the sterilization and commercialization of rock music, a world were albums were shiny, expensive, and national, rather than homegrown and energetically local.  At the same time, it completely marginalizes all sorts of music that doesn't fit with the narrative- the beach boys (minus pet sounds), are just one example.

Last, but not least, meta-narratives like this require both protagonists and antagonists.  Hence, the complete shunning of disco (among others) and, increasingly, all pop music.  It also created a rediculious generation gap, in which the music of, say, the 40s, is more or less ignored, while the music of, say,the 60s, is celebrated.  I find it hard to believe that any given decade or generation actually produced significantly better music than any other.  It is just a matter of the narratives we form, and how they shape what we listen to.  Even our politics are effected.  The anti-war movement of the 60s is far more lauded and referenced than the leftist youth movements that preceded it.  Not because they didn't exist, but because of the babyboomers overblown sense of self importance. 

I end my rant with a final plea: that music historians do for all of rock history what has been done for the beach boys in the past few years: destroy and then rebuild all the myths and fallacies which mar it.  Music is the one thing which should simply make people happy.  there is no room for pretension in music. 

Honestly though, I don't think that we will get a true appraisal of popular music in the twentieth century until the boomer generation has passed on. 

End rant.   

[Menace Wilson]

There's no denying the level of talent in the Beatles. 

What occasionally turns me off from them is their seeming lack of sincerity.  I often get the feeling when listening to them that their tongues are planted firmly in their cheeks (not always of course, but often).  I almost want to shake them by their collars and shout, "C'MON GUYS!  BE SERIOUS!"     

In contrast, there's B. Wilson.  I come away from a Brian Wilson song feeling as if he has shared a part of his soul with me.  I feel like I know the guy.  With McCartney, it's like he keeps the listener at arms length.