The Beatles *sigh*

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It's no secret that I've stated on many times that I find the Beatles to be incredibly overrated and that I 'hate' them. Need to clarify that last statement...I don't hate their music. It's more of 'I hate how they're viewed as the best of all time to the point of ignoring every other band'...that type deal. I hate going into a book-store and seeing 50 different Beatles books but no Beach Boys books on the shelf (usually when a new BB book is released I end up having to buy it online). I also don't like a lot of the earlier Beatles songs (especially Mr Moonlight, which just might be my least favorite song by a major artist). That said...I actually really like a lot of the post-Pepper material I've heard. To be perfectly honest, I've never heard one of their albums in their entirety. I...just couldn't do it. Some of it is due to over-familiarity, from being a kid and hearing my dad have it on the oldies station. I really don't care for songs like 'Love Me Do', and (to a lesser extent) 'She Loves You', for instance. Whenever I'd hear a song from Rubber Soul onwards, it was pretty cool, but I'd cringe when I'd hear much of the earlier stuff. I'll tell you another thing that annoyed me (and it was the same thing that turned me off the to Beach Boys for years before finally giving them a real  chance in 1995 when I was 17); I hated when in school in history class we'd be shown a VHS tape and when it got to the 1960s, it'd show the Beatles performing and it'd show all the kids screaming...I'm sorry, but I found that annoying. When the studio audience is mic'd louder than the band, I'm not a happy panda. If I wanted to hear people scream hysterically, I'd watch Saw . If I wanted to see a moptop, I'd go clean the kitchen. I think striped shirts looked cooler than matching suits. But maybe that's just me.

With all that said...I'm finally going to listen with an open ear. What would any of you recommend for those just getting into them?

[SMiLE Brian]

My exact problem with them as well Billy. We are brothers in arms.....

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I admit that much of the problem is with myself. That's why I really want to attempt to listen to the whole catalogue with an open mind and open ear. Two of the latter, in fact.

[EgoHanger1966]

Honestly, if you don't like them...you don't like them. It's not a big deal - I'd probably berate you at a party if I was drunk, though. 

I think their "best" albums are With The Beatles and A Hard Day's Night. There is a sense of enthusiasm, joy, and earnesty that I find in these albums that I find in no other albums. They were so fresh, they had something (fairly) new, they were tight. I'd try to give those two a listen.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Hard to say. I fundamentally don't understand the value of terms like "overrated" and "underrated" - I can't think of a worse way of evaluating art. Is Shakespeare overrated too? Reminds me of the scene from Manhattan where Michael Murphy and Diane Keaton come up with the Academy of the Overrated...

It's strange because it's not that you just have a problem with the music but also with people's genuine reaction to that music.

[alf wiedersehen]

Some consider Revolver to be their best album. And it's pretty good. There's a song called "Here, There, and Everywhere" which was Beach Boy inspired, and, as a plus, it's also a pretty good song.

Rubber Soul is also a pretty good album too. It shows them slightly leaving their old territory in favor of a new direction and shows subtle Dylan influences.

Sgt. Pepper is of course the album that's known world wide, and although I don't think it's the best, A LOT of people love this album.

The White Album is pretty eclectic and not so I'm not exactly sure if it's a great album to start with. It might be my favorite album of theirs though.

Lastly, Abbey Road is a polished, pop gem and there's isn't a weak track on there.. well if you don't focus on "Octopus's Garden."


Like, Egohanger said, if you don't like them, then it's no big deal. There's no reason to feel like you have to listen to these albums.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Hard to say. I fundamentally don't understand the value of terms like "overrated" and "underrated" - I can't think of a worse way of evaluating art. Is Shakespeare overrated too? Reminds me of the scene from Manhattan where Michael Murphy and Diane Keaton come up with the Academy of the Overrated...

It's strange because it's not that you just have a problem with the music but also with people's genuine reaction to that music.

Regarding the last point, what bothers me is the attitude that the work they did was so much better that nobody else was worth considering.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Some consider Revolver to be their best album. And it's pretty good. There's a song called "Here, There, and Everywhere" which was Beach Boy inspired, and, as a plus, it's also a pretty good song.

Rubber Soul is also a pretty good album too. It shows them slightly leaving their old territory in favor of a new direction and shows subtle Dylan influences.

Sgt. Pepper is of course the album that's known world wide, and although I don't think it's the best, A LOT of people love this album.

The White Album is pretty eclectic and not so I'm not exactly sure if it's a great album to start with. It might be my favorite album of theirs though.

Lastly, Abbey Road is a polished, pop gem and there's isn't a weak track on there.. well if you don't focus on "Octopus's Garden."


Like, Egohanger said, if you don't like them, then it's no big deal. There's no reason to feel like you have to listen to these albums.

I DO like HT&E a lot, actually.

Sgt Pepper I actually did try to listen to once to see what the hype was about, but I couldn't get into it. That was a good 15 years ago, so I can't count that

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Hard to say. I fundamentally don't understand the value of terms like "overrated" and "underrated" - I can't think of a worse way of evaluating art. Is Shakespeare overrated too? Reminds me of the scene from Manhattan where Michael Murphy and Diane Keaton come up with the Academy of the Overrated...

It's strange because it's not that you just have a problem with the music but also with people's genuine reaction to that music.

Regarding the last point, what bothers me is the attitude that the work they did was so much better that nobody else was worth considering.

The attitude from whom exactly? Because I happen to think there music is better than any other pop/rock and roll band but that certainly doesn't prevent me from considering other music.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

That was the general attitude when I was growing up and first getting into music. Just about any book on rock, any TV show discussing rock history, any time the 1960s were discussed in school. Obviously things are a bit different now. Many people still feel they are tops; although I disagree with that I can respect that. It just wasn't as balanced in the past.

[Jason]

They're absolutely one of the best bands to ever walk the planet, but they're not the be all/end all creators of pop culture that people like to think they are.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You have to say though that art is not only evaluated for its creative content but also for its cultural impact. Great works of art typically capture the current zeitgeist. This is why people who come to Sgt. Pepper today have such a difficult time understanding why it is ranked so high, so consistently on lists - because they did not experience the kind of impact that that album actually had and, therefore, can never fully understand the kind of work that that album did. Sgt. Pepper actually accomplished something that is extraordinarily rare and remarkably difficult to achieve and for that alone it is an extraordinary work of art. Is it my personal favourite album? No. But I can hardly quibble with how important it is or what kind of an achievement it is.

When you weigh in the kind of impact The Beatles had, you simply can't account for balance. They were truly off the scale in terms of significance and importance and that's leaving out the fact that their music was remarkably strong and creative. Again - this is why I bring up Shakespeare. Sure, you can say he's overrated because you're not entirely into his plays but you would also then have to forget about the fact that he basically informed how many in his own generation understood their lives and their place in the world, transformed English literature from that point forward, provides perhaps more than anyone else the biggest insights into the mindset of the early Modern era. And again, that's forgetting what Shakespeare actually wrote.

[rab2591]

Try the Love album! A cappella 'Because' starts it off, all the songs are mashed-up - creating totally different Beatles songs; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzDu7DanPS4

Love and the Magical Mystery Tour are the only albums I really listen to of the Beatles.
______

Basically any Beatles fans I know of my age (mostly people born in the 80s) swear by their music, and disregard much other 60s music (besides the Stones)....they consider The Beach Boys to be a happy surf group, nothing more. They haven't heard of The Zombies or The Hollies. It's pretty friggin irritating to be around these people when discussing music. So, I have to agree with Billy that somewhere in time, for generation Y, The Beatles became THE band of the 60s, and no one else really mattered - which is why we see 80 Beatles albums and 1 BB compilation at Best Buy these days.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Interesting - the opposite is true for my peer group. I mean, some Beatles fans may not like The Beach Boys but they are certainly open to many other things.

[guitarfool2002]

A fair evaluation of how a band is either embraced or ignored by a listener. This hits home for me because unless you really don't know much about me through what I write, I've been a Beatles fanatic since I remember songs like Hey Jude when I was a little kid. One of the first albums my dad took me to buy - and I remember this well - was going to have Hey Jude on it, that was a must. So him being more of a Sinatra and Sun Records/country kind of guy and not much of a record collector at all, we went to the local shop and saw this album with a Union Jack on the cover, the title "By The Beatles", unfortunately it turned out to be Beatles tunes played by the Longines Symphonette or some such studio band. Oh well.

All was made better through the next few decades as I built quite a Beatles audio collection and passed on the good stuff to others to enjoy, fans who loved the music but had no idea for example what a Beatles outtake sounded like. Or those who didn't spend weekends scouring yard sales and flea markets for the original LPs and 45's, which at that time you could find for a few bucks or less. I sold off some of that, but kept the important stuff.

That's the issue I think which gets confused by people looking in at Beatles fanatics who thrive on the music and sharing the band: It is personal, it brings back memories, and the reason why I kept certain vinyls is because *I* remember exactly where I got it, where I first listened, and just picking up one of those for a spin takes me back to a nice place when I need a lift.

That is not the same as thinking the Beatles are the be-all and end-all of popular music. I don't believe I've ever met anyone, nor had the (mis)fortune of interacting with anyone online who holds anything close to that opinion. If there are such folks, I'd say their enthusiasm is being misinterpreted as blind and stubborn devotion to an idea that all stops with The Beatles. I'd say also that if there are genuinely folks out there who hold that kind of opinion, it's their loss. If i ever meet one, I'll ask them directly.  

I wouldn't let a band's overzealous fanbase affect in any way the way *you* listen to the music, especially if it's a first time really digging into the albums with a critical ear. Wipe away ALL preconceived notions, all biases, anything you've been lectured about by music whores who think trying to knock the Beatles down a few pegs is somehow de rigueur to exist among a group of cynical, unhappy f*ckers who like to piss on others' picnics. "Oh, that Sgt. Pepper album, that was so overrated, it's not that good, it really didn't affect as much in 1967 as The Byrds, or VU, or (fill in the blank), it's only worthwhile in mono..." Bullshit. It's a landmark album that deserves a critical listen from anyone - *anyone* - with even a passing interest in popular music and culture of the 1960's. If some fans seem to take that to an extreme level, and if the media tries to tie it into some bogus "Summer Of Love" prepackaged hoopla, don't let that guide what the music is and was.

The music is influential, it is fantastic, it is inspirational, and there is a reason why so many are fans. Seriously - if it were just a case of overhype, the truth would have come out by now and people listening would hear that they have been getting hoodwinked for the better part of 5 decades. Oh, that happens. Or it should happen more often with any number of critical-darling artists who can do no wrong except when it comes to appealing to a wider fanbase than core groups of music geeks (like me...).

Give The Beatles another shot, a solid listening. This is similar to The Doors thread a few months ago: Some albums are incredibly hard to separate, like Rubber Soul/Revolver or Please Please Me/With The Beatles. They were like bookends in the band's life and creative juices at that time in history.

Revolver is still top-5 for me, but so are albums like Hard Day's Night and even the oft-maligned Beatles For Sale (a personal favorite). Some of these from '63-'64 feature incredibly well-crafted songs written in between endless gigs and tour stops, where they'd literally drop into Abbey Road on a break from the tour, record a handful of songs, and be back on the road. Two, three albums every year like this - And the quality was consistently good, if not terrific considering the ages and the schedules of the guys creating it. Hard Day's Night is terrific, it stands alone as a solid album statement without having to see the film itself to "get" any of it.

I'd say start with Please Please Me and work up chronologically. Stick to the UK tracklists and album releases, that's how the band wanted them to be sequenced. So what if some American fans would rather hear "their" Beatles '65 instead, that's not what the band intended. I make the exception for Meet The Beatles.  

If you want the landmarks, these 5 groundbreakers are a good starting point: 1. Revolver 2. Sgt. Pepper 3. Meet The Beatles (US) or With The Beatles (UK) 4. Rubber Soul 5. A Hard Day's Night   Each of those had something unique or specific to their release which made them break new ground, in some way. Musically, technologically, culturally, etc.

Then watch any live performances, especially those from 63-64 which are on YouTube. The band was electric live. Pure energy, you can tell how Hamburg juiced them up as performers and musicians. Watch the Ed Sullivan American debut - riveting. Etc etc.

That same exact live energy and band dynamic was captured best on one single record in their career: She Loves You. Some instead would say Twist And Shout, but that was a cover. She Loves You is pure manic energy, unique to this band, from the first drum roll to the last "Glenn Miller" chord of the vocals. No one had cut a record that sounded quite that way before - take that to the bank.  

Mainly I hope you ignore those who wish to once again rewrite history so the Beatles' legacy is diminished in favor of whatever band or artist those doing the diminishing wish to promote, and ignore those as well who try to explain away the band's appeal by shifting it from the music to the fan reactions.

It's about the music, and it's waiting to be experienced with a few listening sessions. Good luck!  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Good point rockandroll. I think those of us who don't rate the Beatles as highly in comparison to some other artists were born after the fact ( I myself was born in 1978). Maybe if I'd been around then id feel differently. I wonder if Smile came out, would I be on a Beatles board right now discussing how the Beach Boys were overrated

So...I'm gonna start at the very beginning and listen all the way through to 1970. Going to be as objective as possible.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So...I'm gonna start at the very beginning and listen all the way through to 1970. Going to be as objective as possible.

Good way to do it.

There's something that really seems to magically work for The Beatles. The fact that there very first album begins with McCartney's exuberant "1-2-3-4!" and their last recorded album ends with "The End" and a very short "encore" is just unintentionally perfect. Not only immense talent but also luck was on their side.

[alf wiedersehen]

I think it's definitely different nowadays on The Beatles.

I was never the biggest music fan, usually I just listen to the music that was pumped out by stations like KROQ (hello So-Cal people.) I actually didn't think I liked The Beatles. I was in the camp of "everybody talks about this band, but I don't see what's so great," but I would hear songs like "Come Together," "A Hard Day's Night," and "Fool on the Hill" and secretly like them.

So, a year or two ago, I decided to actually listen to their music. I downloaded a fan made's greatest hits collection and I fell in love with their music. For the next six months or so, I constantly listened to The Beatles and read as much as I could about them. I read every album and song article on Wikipedia that had been published and I constantly read them over and over. It was the birth of my music fandom.

However, it didn't end with The Beatles. It spread out to different bands like Bob Dylan, and Jimi Hendrix, and Captain beefheart, and Pink Floyd.. Now, I have a huge, diverse musical collection that I would have never acquired if I hadn't sat down in one of the halls of my high school and listened to the compilation.

And my friend has a similar story.

So, The Beatles aren't necessarily the end-all, be-all, they're a jumping-off point for me, and probably a lot more people.

[alf wiedersehen]

Good point rockandroll. I think those of us who don't rate the Beatles as highly in comparison to some other artists were born after the fact ( I myself was born in 1978). Maybe if I'd been around then id feel differently. I wonder if Smile came out, would I be on a Beatles board right now discussing how the Beach Boys were overrated

So...I'm gonna start at the very beginning and listen all the way through to 1970. Going to be as objective as possible.

When you finish, you should definitely tell us what you think. I'd be interested. Maybe you can even join in the McCartney vs. Lennon debate..

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I thought of another point re: "the be all/end all creators of pop culture that people like to think they are."

You ever talk to a Dylan fan? I mean, a really serious Dylan fan? The one that collects every single scrap Dylan ever put on tape? They typically harbour the same attitude. Same with really serious Pink Floyd fans. Same with really serious Led Zeppelin fans. People devoted their lives to following around the Grateful Dead. Hell, even on this board, I've seen it put forth several times that if you can't admit that there is no one better than The Beach Boys then you have no business being here.

My point is that lots of artists have this kind of fan base, though I would imagine that there are plenty of fans like the kind I mentioned above that still find room for other artists. It's just that it all comes back to personal favourites. What makes it different for The Beatles, I'd imagine, is that they were more popular and received better critical acclaim so you have to face a wider group who could obnoxiously cite lists as if they constituted objective proof that their tastes are what's right. I can see how it might be grating but the fact is that The Beatles are not unique in having fans that appear to believe that their favourite band is "the be all/end all." In this case, they are almost victims of their own popular and critical success which creates that false impression.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[alf wiedersehen]

I was brought up knowing and listening to Beatles music, since my mom's a pretty big fan, and about two years ago (maybe longer, I don't remember) I began my obsession with their music and realized they weren't just happy-go-lucky goody-two-shoe boys and actually had some great music. Believe it or not, before then I listened almost exclusively to AC/DC and All American Rejects. While I was put into short-lived music lessons and would have had some skills anyway, without the Beatles, I probably never would have developed a passion for playing music. I was obsessed for about a year, when through my watching of every interview and reading of every article I could get my hands on, I began to develop an interest in The Beach Boys music through George Martin and Paul McCartney praising Brian's work. I always loved Wouldn't it Be Nice, but that was the only song I knew before The Beatles themselves turned me on to the BBs.

Personally, I like all of their albums (even the really early stuff) but my faves are Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album and Abbey Road. Across all those albums, only a couple of duds exist. Don't forget to check out the singles as well, since the Beatles released a lot more singles that were not released on albums than the BBs. (I believe George Martin believed releasing singles on albums was a form of "conning the public").

Yea, I can totally relate to your story. The Beatles really seem to be jumping off point for most people know.

Also, that wasn't just George Martin's way of thinking. The mentality of the Brits on singles were "it's already available, why would we release it again?"

[SMiLE Brian]

I try to like the Beatles, then superfans of them trash groups I like, making the Beatles fandom hard for me.

[guitarfool2002]

I try to like the Beatles, then superfans of them trash groups I like, making the Beatles fandom hard for me.

That kind of selfish and idiotic behavior has everything to do with those fans and their own personal issues and nothing to do with the Beatles or their music.

[drbeachboy]

Billy, what I did was start with the American version of Rubber Soul. That version has a nice vibe to it that was one of the few things Capitol did right, accidentally or not. If you want to try more American albums, The Beatles Second Album is well put together, but it is full of reverb not on the original British albums. Different listen for sure, but to me it added some pizzazz. JMHO.