The Smiley Smile Message Board

I was just wondering if any of you know anybody who hates the Beatles and just wont give them a chance? I have started a topic similar to this about the Beach Boys... but in the end I know that the Beach Boys will never be as popular as A) a lot of their stuff isn't as well known B) their voices (now matter how great we think they are) might not be everyone's cup of tea and C) they just generally aren't as commercial.... Anyway, I just don't know how some people can't like the Beatles? I mean they are just so damn easy to like!! One of my friends in particular just doesn't like them at all... he thinks they are so over-rated etc.. So what do you guys reckon? How can anyone hate the Beatles?

He'll come around in time, believe me.

I hope so... he just doesn't seem to give it a chance... he obviously has something against them for some reason?

I don't know about hate, but I have known plenty of people who don't like them. Or who really don't care that much.

I never met anyone who didn't at least LIKE them. 

I like the Beatles but I don't think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread like a lotta people do. I don't think they were better than the Beach Boys in any way, I just think they got more hype and had good timing.

My mom totally hates all British rock, Beatles being the most hated.  I have no idea why she feels this way, her favorite band is Aerosmith and they were obviously largely influenced by the Beatles. 

I feel like I had a very sheltered childhood because of this.  I didn't really know anything about the Beatles or Zepplin until my freshman year of college.

More like the Suckles.

There's various reasons to not like a group rather than objectively not liking the quality of their songs, voices, musicianship, et cetera. I'd imagine most people who say they don't like the Beatles say so because they think they're extremely overrated - they don't understand why the Beatles are regularly hailed as being the greatest band in the world.

The Beatles are overated.

And I know plenty of people who hate them,

And while I don't hate them, I do hate Paul McCartney, well today's Macca not 60's Macca.

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 think The Beatles are the greatest band in the history of rock & roll.

I used to like them before John said he was better than Jesus, George became a muslim, and Paul married that one-legged girl who is on My Name is Earl.

Ringo is OK by me. >:D :angel:

I don't like them half as much as The Beach Boys. In fact I even prefer Kokomo-era BB over The Beatles, which is probably downright insane but I just can't help it, really. That said, I like most of what they did until Rubber Soul. After that it's mostly hit-or-miss though, Abbey Road and Let It Be being by far the least interesting of their albums for my liking.

Wild_Honey, if you hate McCartney be sure to check out his faux-avantgardist confessions in the Guardian...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2008/nov/25/paul-mccartney-carnival-light (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2008/nov/25/paul-mccartney-carnival-light)

Love McCartney II, by the way. Talk about one bizarre little record by a mainstream pop artist.

2nded. Overrated, underrated, too much hype, whatever: irrelevant. For my ears, they put out the most good music and the best percentage of good to bad. I think the only band that comes close on that last measure for me is Velvet Underground, who of course only had four official albums (if you don't count Squeeze) during their lifetime. I can't relate at all to the claim that they made soulless music, but that's OK: I don't have to. Suffice to say I disagree. And if it isn't deep, I'd probably just note that a) it's pop music, and b) THIS IS A BEACH BOYS BOARD, FOR f***'S SAKE! We're talking about lyrical depth as a prerequisite?

Yep. Exactly.

One could go into a long dissertation about the quality of the songwriting, musicianship, vocals, production, sociological impact, whatever. However, everything they did, with VERY FEW exceptions, was excellent.

I agree with both of you guys... not saying they are my favourite band but as you say they were the most consistent in terms of putting out good material... of course there was still the occasional piece of junk but that's understandable.

Yes, but, The Beatles' occasional pieces of junk (like The Beach Boys' BTW) were still better than everybody else's pieces of junk. ;)

I should note, though, I do know a guy who is unwilling even to listen to the Beatles. I don't know why. He used to play bass for me in a band. Very awkward when I'd make a reference I thought was universal (do it like the bass part in [famous Beatles song]." And I'd get a blank stare...

When I talk quality of music I rarely think of lyrics being the part of the song that grabs me, though I probably have more space in my brain filled with 60's and 70's pop lyrics than anything else. I don't ponder Lyrics, I ponder the mystery, the feeling, or whatever it is that speaks to my heart. The Beatles speak to my yawns. Also have to admit i MUCH prefer Sabbath to Zeppelin so...

I grew up on Beatles music, so I have to be bias lol. I do say though without Beatle music in my life, I would have NEVER liked music of that time period. As much as I would like to take the trash out on them now I am a BB/BW fan, I still enjoy their music highly and I still enjoy the conventions I go to every year!

I've only met about 3 or 4 people in my entire lifetime who hate the Beatles (I've also met people who are indifferent to them, but those people are indifferent to music in general). One of them, much like a person described by a previous poster, hates all British bands...I really don't know why. Another one was a classmate of mine in high school, who at the time was really into Zeppelin, Hendrix, Floyd, The Who, Skynyrd, and other "classic rock", who one day in school was singing the praises of Zeppelin and said "the Beatles weren't really that great, anyway." I didn't really think much of it at the time, but if I could travel back in time I would start an argument with him over the Beatles.

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... :'( :'()

I have to agree with the Sherriff, the Beatles are the best (in my opinion, anyway) and have to have one of the lowest percentages of filler for ANY band. Real duffer. There's very little.

I tired of them in the later sixties but did enjoy Abbey Road off and on over the many years.

I recall a time (I'm actually old enought to remeber their time on the top forty) when the Beatles were doing  great new and surprising sounds and styles  back to back to back...bam-bam-bam!!


Nowhere Man-Eleanor Rigby-Day Tripper-Yesterday.  Seemed like every few weeks you were knocked out by yet another very good and very original sounding Beatles song on the radio.  There was a LOT of great music coming out back then but no one else knocked it out of the ball park so frequently as the Beatles.

I grew up with the stuff.  But I can understand some who didn't not finding the Beatles as interesting or meaningful as I did.

Frankly I'm amazed at their staying power finding legions of new fans with succeeding generations.  Kids today listening to the music of the sixties would be like me in middle school listening to Rudy Vallee or going to Mary Pickford movies.

I had to grow up before I was even interested in discovering classic 50's pop or jazz.


I guess the Beatles made quite an impact to say the least.

Everything Pre Rubber Soul was just good pop music, then they had a 5 year period of Brilliance which ended with the pretty weak 'let it be'

Since then none of the Beatles members have made very good music, just a pretty good single now and then.

Still, they are the second best band ever.

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.

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

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"

Um, yeah. Thanks for confirming what I said.

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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

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  ;D

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!?   :lol  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.   :lol


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

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.   

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. 

:lol

Well ranted!  The bloated self-importance, yes...absolutely.  That's what the Beatles embody to me.  Boomers displaying this attitude that everything they did was so important and had never been done before.  Ever hear of the Jazz age?  But...Woodstock was the greatest thing in the world.   ::)  I bought into it when I was younger...but now Woodstock looks like just a bunch stupid kids, on drugs, dancing naked in the mud.  Wow...you guys were so important.   :p  -- now get off my property!    :smokin

I'm glad Brian was inspired to be more creative by the Beatles' work...but it's like trying to impress Murray or outdo Spector...it wasn't a contest -- he smoked them, I believe.  He was the real deal.

The Beatles were good, and I give them credit.  But they weren't that good.  A little weak on soul.


But what you said that rang true to me the most was -- "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."  That's so true.  The boomers had this disdain for all things, I don't know, middle-class American perhaps?  Groups like the Four Freshman were squares to them.  Thankfully Brian followed what interested him, regardless.  I love the jazz and dance orchestras from the 20s and 30s -- big bands from the 40s and 50s.  There's so much culture, professionalism and passion in that music.  Maybe that was their "parent's music" to them...but it's been buried as a result.  I never judged music based on what was cool and important or what music was the soundtrack to a political movement or what freaked out my parents the most.  I want passion, soul and inspiration.  Period.  I don't care if it came from Zimbabwe or a garage in Duluth, or a massive church pipe organ, or the Wilson's family-room organ.

Most complaints here have more to do with people's understanding or the media's presentation of the Beatles than the Beatles themselves. And Woodstock? Fucking irrelevant. May as well use it to criticize the Beach Boys. The authenticity and soul people choose to find here or there, too ... I don't believe you.

I hate the boomers but I love the Beatles.

The boomer/Woodstock thing is a satellite-topic, sure.  My (and others) dissatisfaction with the Beatles is real and there seems to be a common thread.  That's what we're trying to understand.  I think the Beatles were decent and at times interesting, but overall I find them weak on soul, passion and believability.  That's just my opinion.  I very quickly tire of them.  It's like candy.  Pure sugar.  No sustenance.  Now do you believe me?   :lol

With that understanding...a natural question arises as to their high regard within the boomer-world.  Which, I noticed, is how I was always told to look at Woodstock -- as some important social thing.  That's what I don't believe.  Kids breaking ranks with their parents, expressing themselves is nothing new.  They just took themselves too seriously perhaps.


My complaints with the Beatles can probably be applied to a lot of pop music.  Most of it is usually a little light on substance.  My collection leans heavily on jazz, Brian Wilson and classical with odds like Syd Barrett etc filling in the pop-ranks.  I do love pop music, very very much.  It's able to express so much, perhaps more than other genres, if done right.  But there's a lot of posturing in pop, a lot of manufactured attitudes, phony teen-angst, style over substance...etc.  There's little wonder in my mind why the music industry's in trouble.  They put all the eggs in that basket and don't know what else to do.  It's been that way since...dare I say....Beatlemania??

I guess I feel that, like nearly anyone else, the Beatles just did the best with what they could do. (IN my opinion, pretty well.)

The rest is all hype and circumstance. You like 'em or you don't, like anyone else.

I don't hate  the Beatles but I can never understand for the life of me why people regard them as the greatest band ever; I would say they're "one" of the greatest bands ever but not "the" greatest band ever. I think the Beach Boys were just as good in every aspect. As far as the Beatles' music goes though, I prefer everything up to Revolver, after that they still made great music but their earlier sh*t was more rock n' roll. I think the Beach Boys were consistent with making great music from the beginning all the way through Holland. Then they had that 3 year gap til 15 Big Ones came out, and although a lot of people dismiss that album because half of it was covers it was still a good album and sold enough to be their biggest studio album of that decade. I dig a lot of Love You and some of MIU too, after that it's really hit&miss. But as a whole the entire body of music the Beach Boys made will forever be engraved in my heart and soul. I don't think anyone will ever top Brian Wilson... 

The Beatles are so ingrained in our collective mind that it's hard not to love them -
their story probably means more to the average person than Jesus' story.
The breakup of the Beatles carries more weight than the crucifixion of Jesus.
People stand over the Lennon memorial thing in Central Park like it's Jesus' tomb.
When you go there - the atmosphere is religious.
"Imagine" is played everywhere and unquestioned, taken as a prophetic message of truth.
People get somber when it comes on, they get introverted and contemplative, they repeat the lyrics like ancient wisdom.

When George Harrison died, I was in school still, and they announced it over the intercom and we had a few minutes of silence.

Personally I think it's mass hysteria.
The results of a massively successful marketing scheme.
If the Beatles were a religion, most of the world would probably be Beatle.

The Beatles are regarded as 'the greatest' mainly because they didn't make any duff albums and rarely made a duff single. Most of all, they had a reliable group of talented craftsman writing their songs, rather than an off-his-rocker genius.

They may have soared no higher than the Beach Boys in quality--maybe not as high as Brian Wilson's highest points--, but they also never plumbed the Depths like the Beach Boys did...I mean, come on.

We all know the Beach boys have enough crap to fill one of Sheriff John Stones 74 minute compilations. ;)

The Beatles have only a few songs that are as bad as 'Surfin' 92.' Actually, I don't think they have any songs that bad.

Isn't Mr. Moonlight regarded as the 3rd season of Star Trek?    ;D

Yeah. But I actually kinda like it. Like that guitar riff or whatever, the percussion, and LOVE that organ solo. Funny.

For me, the lowest point of the Beatles is I only want to dance with you. Hate that lame song. Still it does have good rhythm guitar and drums.

You should've left Beatles albums in his guitar bag or his coat. I once played with a bassist who was fat and never wore deodorant and his B.O was not pleasant... we bought him some deodorant and left it in his bag. God, how cruel. Yet effective!

On a side note somewhat now relevant - my B.O always smells awesome and others have agreed. It has moods of its own, you can't say that for cologne! Changes with the time and place and activity, chameleon body smell. Did you know that the devotees and followers of the Prophet Muhammad used to bottle his sweat because it smelled so good? Yep, I'm like him. Sadly, my bassist was not. It's all down to diet, I think, and maybe genetics. He ate a lot of McDonalds...

The problem with the beatles (in my eyes, at least) is that they're too influential. By the time i'd heard Sgt Pepper, i'd already heard most of the ideas recycled by other bands, so it didn't hit as hard (and i first heard it when i was 14). I think that's just the main problem - most bands (british ones especially) have grown up musically with the beatles, so it all shows up in their music. That's my poorly worded contribution  :P

And of course they wrote crap - Let It Be? Maxwell's Silver Hammer? The Ballad of John & Yoko? The good/bad ratio is immensely on the side of good though

the way I look at the Ballad of John and Yoko is that it's a really good jam session, i love the drums and bass on it...the lyrics themselves, eh; but think of how popular John/Yoko (as a couple) was....As for Maxwell Silver Hammer, I've like quirky songs by the Beach Boys, so of course I like this quirky tune as well, prolly not the best for the last album though.

The Ballad of John and Yoko is among my half dozen favorite Beatles songs. Like with many things, my favorites change daily, but I just named it as my favorite Beatles song the other day. I think it's a great song.

Any fans of the being that is known as YOKO ONO here?

Check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kgu71d81U

If you don't love her yet, you will after seeing that video.

I don't really understand the Yoko hate. Seems to be rooted in some not-so-subtle racism and ignorance. I don't understand the general feeling that she is or was ugly - I think she's beautiful and was quite sexy a few decades ago.

You ARE joking right?

heavens no!

if you don't like Yoko, you are playing the game of existence wrong

she's

Heh, that's a good one. I don't hate Yoko, it's more that I just don't care much about her, but when I hear her doing her wailing or whatever you want to call it, I can't help but shudder.

If John had chosen a screeching, pretentious white woman over the Beatles, the story would have been the same, imo.

I agree. I have no doubt whatsoever that Yoko (and John, by proxy) experienced a lot of racism and unwarranted abuse. But being a victim in one regard doesn't require people who are "above all that" to like what you do. Just because she is or has been a legitimate victim of racism and sexism, my not liking her art doesn't make me a racist or a sexist.

I thought that by "Yoko hate," sofonanm was referring to people who hate her as a person, not people who hate her art, or music, or whatever it is. There are plenty of people who just can't stand her as a person, and I don't understand that except to say that it _is_ rooted in sexism and racism. It was jarring in the 60s for people to see a white Englishman with a Japanese woman-- and for her to be participating in everything he did when she "should have been" in the background, well, that was jarring too. And now I don't know if that's what people are thinking when they call her an ugly b**** and all that, but there's something behind it more than not caring for her "art." Yoko fascinates me. I don't like her art either, but she is one tough woman, and she's been through a hell of a lot.

Here's an interesting interview with John's Aunt Mimi from 1981.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRqU2teFtw8

In that case, fair enough. Obviously, that's pathetic and ridiculous.

I started listening to the Beach Boys and the Beatles at the same time. It was when I finally just stopped listening to the crap top 40 radio feeds to you. I stopped listening to the Beatles a couple of years ago (I listened to them a lot for awhile) but I still listen to the Beach Boys. I'm not quite sure what that means, but I felt like saying it. By the way Luther, I think you've got the world figured out. I wouldn't dare question you.

I like Yoko Ono. Music and person (insofar as I know her...which is not at all)

Fun fact: John and Paul only musisians on BOJAY.

For me the song is a bit too long, but I agree that the sound of it is awesome.

So what's everybody's favorite Yoko song? I like "Walking on Thin Ice", which is quite the disco smasher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7X7s8S1ns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7X7s8S1ns)

The Beatles were beloved, considered the greatest group on earth.  Suddenly Yoko became John's priority, the band took a backseat, and I think a lot of fans resented that.  And of course there are all the stories about her bringing a bed into the recording studio, or members of the band having to reach around her to fiddle with their own amplifiers, etc.  The perception seemed to be, "who the hell does she think she is?" 

But of course the person that fans should have been angry with was John.  She wouldn't have been anywhere near if John hadn't wanted her there.  But he was John Lennon, a beloved Beatle, so people would rather blame her than him.       

Edited to add: the guitar in "Walking On Thin Ice" has always reminded me of "Just Like The White Wing Dove".  :p


 

Fave Yoko song: MIND TRAIN!!! "dub dub...dub dub... dub-dub train passed through my mi-i-i-i-i-ind." Fantastic track.

Not really a fan, but this one kills me. JB W

That was on Fly, wasn't it? That's actually a pretty cool album if you're in the right mood. My favorite track on that one has to be "You".

i took some lsd once and heard "rain" and i felt like john was speaking the truest words i had ever heard.  anyone ever notice that that song and the jesus story about the disciples in the ship during the storm are very very similar?  im 26 now, discovered the beatles after me and my highschool gf broke up.  revolver was the album...songs like here there and everywhere and for no one spoke directly to my soul...i'm only sleeping aptly applied to my college state of mind.  she said she said and tomorrow never knows totally resonated with my drug drenched paradigm.  the beatles just clicked for me during my late teenage early 20s years.  overrated yes, but damn their music is like in my dna or something.
same as some of the beach boys stuff.  my poor gf has suffered through hours upon hours of smile bootleg listening.  but there was this time that don't talk came on and we just held each other and cried and damn if that music wasn't the most beautiful thing i'd ever heard.  i'm not too sure why i posted this...to answer the original thread i think some people hear it and some people don't.  i feel blessed that i hear it.  much love.

I prefer this remix so much more. fits the lyrics better. whaddya think?

http://www.imeem.com/pitchforkmedia/music/m6T5_UVV/walking-on-thin-ice/

Most people I've met don't like the Beatles. At all.

Their loss, really

Right you are! John was out of his mind when he got her involved in all the Beatles' & solo studio sessions. She shouldn't be allowed to sing at all, full stop. If she'd ever had talent - and I believe that everybody has a knack at least at 1 thing - that is definitely not singing.

Btw, same can be said about Paul's Linda. Just listen to her Wide Prairie record & you'll understand me.

I've always enjoyed Yoko's contribution to "Birthday".  It wouldn't be the same song without her high pitched "Birthday" backing vocals.

Completely disagree about Linda McCartney.  Not saying that she was a great singer but she has a couple of very good songs.  "The White Coated Man" absolutely rocks, I wish Macca would perform it himself.  She also has a couple of nice eighties power ballads on "Wide Prairie" as well.  Linda McCartney in my opinion was the type of singer that if you featured her in the right type of song, she could pull it off decently if not acceptably.  It was just the matter of finding the right vehicle for her which was a bit of a hit & miss proposition. 

One of my favorite comedy bits, and it's about Yoko's stupid wailing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss0XNOWvzlU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss0XNOWvzlU) (not safe for work, lots of language)

I really like "Move On Fast."  That's a cool one.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wUcUaPlUzFs

I get the chills whenever I listen to this (which isn't often anyway).

To think that what happened was:
John and Yoko finished mixing this song one night, and the song is essentially complete now.
They then decide to go back home to see Sean.
They get home.
John gets shot and killed.

I'm not much into Yoko's music but I never had a problem with her at all.  John had every right to be with whoever he wanted, she didn't mess up any sessions more than Linda did.

With that said, I really liked Linda.  I like hearing her sing backup on Paul's songs, loved the live stuff she did with them, the whole idea of wings including her, a guy and his wife making a rock band.... etc. I've got a lot of respect for her.  She wasn't a great singer but for what they were doing, she didn't have to be.  Most of the Wings music was just fun music, anybody could have sang it and that anybody was Linda.

I don't buy that for one second. Yoko was vocally present, offering up her suggestions, had her bed on the studio floor during the LIB sessions, shrieked during jams. Linda.....she just kept to herself and quietly observed.

Linda's presence disrupted the band, she was an outsider and it gave Paul 'power' basically.  So John did the same thing. 

Like I said I don't have any problem with either one of them, but as insecure as John was just Linda being in the studio was enough to f*** with his mind. 

Sure Yoko shrieking probably pissed people off but neither one of them should have been in the studio, and I've read Paul say the same thing before about his own wife!

IIRC, the first time John took Yoko to a Beatles recording session was the recording of "Hey Bulldog" in February 1968, albeit just as a guest. She didn't start coming to the studio with John full time, until they became a couple in May. Linda didn't appear on the scene until around September of 1968.

I love Goodbye Happiness and It Happened.

Paul brought Francie Schwartz around to a number of the early "White Album" sessions and I believe for a very short period of time that John, Yoko, Paul and Francie shared a flat together.  Jane Asher would also frequently attend Beatles sessions although not those held at EMI.  She was however a frequent guest to their BBC Sessions and would sit up in the control room with the producer Terry Henebery.  Henebery was a jazz fan and couldn't stand The Beatles and initially unbeknownst to them would often spend most of the BBC sessions berating them in the control room stating that they were horrible and knew nothing about music.  However, Henebery never realized that Asher was McCartney's girlfriend and was promptly reporting back to The Beatles everything he was saying about them.  Judging from the photographs that exist from the Beatlemania years, it seems that Asher had far more access to The Beatles' professional lives than any of the other girlfriends probably because she too was part of the entertainment industry at the time.  

I like Yoko's music more than I like anything by The Beatles, collectively or solo.

Just one link:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15880.msg388393.html#msg388393