Who's sick to death of hearing about the beatles....!?

[JK]

I was when I was at school in the UK, where everyone seemed obsessed with them.  I preferred the likes of The Rivieras and The Rockin' Rebels. (This was in '63, many months before the onset of the British Invasion.) 

Still, time being the great leveller or healer or something, I'm not stdohatb now. :=)

[Andrew G. Doe]

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles?

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

[Bicyclerider]

Not at all sick of hearing about Beatles.  Amazing how good Paul and Ringo look on the grammy tribute.  Liked Jeff Lynne's performances, and Stevie Wonder did a great rearrangement of his original cover of We Can Work It Out.  Not so enamored of some of the other performers' takes on the Beatles.

For the US, the Beatles were unknown until January 64 when I Want to Hold Your Hand exploded, and their success enabled the rest of the British invasion, which was a huge musical and cultural shift for the US charts and youth culture.  So I think a 50th anniversary tribute is definitely in order.  I still remember the first time I heard the song, over the radio in a pizza parlour, before their appearance on Sullivan.

[guitarfool2002]

For me they were inspiring, challenging, healing, a prime influence on me learning and playing music, and basically a group of friends who I could go to whenever I needed a boost, or a smile, or a good cry in the hard times. I still can't get through playing or hearing a song like Here Comes The Sun without choking up a bit, but that's really personal and not for public disclosure.

I'll never get tired of hearing them or about them. How could someone get tired of a close and dear friend who has been there for you through good times and bad? 

[G.C]

I'm sick of hearing that people are sick of hearing about the Beatles

+1

[Micha]

I really rarely hear about the Beatles these days.

[Pretty Funky]

End of the day, if you don't like hearing about anything, turn off the source. Simple!

[bgas]

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles?

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

I think most of the people in the world have heard of the Beatles. On what do you base your perceptions?

[Moon Dawg]

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles?

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

I think most of the people in the world have heard of the Beatles. On what do you base your perceptions?

 It's an interesting question. It feels safe to say the majority of people living in the world today have heard of The Beatles and Elvis Presley. Michael Jackson too. I could be wrong.

 Objectively speaking, The Beatles are one of my favorite groups, but from time to time I have resented them in the sense so few have heard "Surf's Up" compared to say "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". They seem to be above and beyond reproach at this point don't they.

I recall listening to the Red album at age 10 (1976) and feeling rather guilty for thinking they were better than Elvis. It just didn't seem right...

[BB Universe]

A similarity that I find between the Beatles and the Beach Boys is the variety and diverseness of songs and music that both groups have in their respective catalogues. Styles, themes, arrangements, whatever.   

[JohnMill]

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles?

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

I think most of the people in the world have heard of the Beatles. On what do you base your perceptions?

 It's an interesting question. It feels safe to say the majority of people living in the world today have heard of The Beatles and Elvis Presley. Michael Jackson too. I could be wrong.

 Objectively speaking, The Beatles are one of my favorite groups, but from time to time I have resented them in the sense so few have heard "Surf's Up" compared to say "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". They seem to be above and beyond reproach at this point don't they.

I recall listening to the Red album at age 10 (1976) and feeling rather guilty for thinking they were better than Elvis. It just didn't seem right...

I think the majority of people living today have heard of The Beatles and probably have even heard a song or two.  Whether or not the vast majority of people living in the world today are Beatles fans is another matter entirely.  But have they heard of them?  There is no debate.  The Beatles are the definition of a household word.

One such example that just popped into my head was that in the late eighties, Paul McCartney did a call in radio show exclusively for The Soviet Union and found that the Russians were just as familiar with The Beatles and their music as was the rest of the world despite the fact that up until that point no Beatle had performed a concert in USSR and their records allegedly weren't as heavily promoted in that area of the world as they were in most others. 

[JohnMill]

For the US, the Beatles were unknown until January 64 when I Want to Hold Your Hand exploded, and their success enabled the rest of the British invasion, which was a huge musical and cultural shift for the US charts and youth culture.  So I think a 50th anniversary tribute is definitely in order.  I still remember the first time I heard the song, over the radio in a pizza parlour, before their appearance on Sullivan.

A tribute is definitely in order but it should've begun last year or the year before.  For goodness sake by February of 1964, the band had already released two LPs, five singles and I believe a number of EPs as well (although these contained no unique material).  

Also to be fair and as most of us know, The Beatles should've broke the US market long before they did and George Martin was rightfully disgusted as he explains in "Anthology" how Capitol Records not only tried but managed to stymie The Beatles' expansion (and eventually ensuing popularity) in The United States by refusing to carry their records on their label.  Their excuse that The Beatles/Martin/Parlophone didn't understand how to make American records is pure bollocks as well.  Their records just didn't sound in line with the majority of that manufactured sh*t that the US record labels were churning out circa 1960-1962 and calling "rock and roll".  The Beatles sound really wasn't at all far removed from their American rock and roll, rhythm and blues influences all of whom had already proved successful on the US charts a few years before.  

Furthermore The Beach Boys' third LP "Surfer Girl" was released in September of 1963 and you can't say that record is galaxies away from The Beatles' first two albums.  Each band had their unique sound but songs from both bands could easily be played side by side on the radio without issue.  

[guitarfool2002]

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles?

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

I think most of the people in the world have heard of the Beatles. On what do you base your perceptions?

 It's an interesting question. It feels safe to say the majority of people living in the world today have heard of The Beatles and Elvis Presley. Michael Jackson too. I could be wrong.

 Objectively speaking, The Beatles are one of my favorite groups, but from time to time I have resented them in the sense so few have heard "Surf's Up" compared to say "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". They seem to be above and beyond reproach at this point don't they.

I recall listening to the Red album at age 10 (1976) and feeling rather guilty for thinking they were better than Elvis. It just didn't seem right...

I think the majority of people living today have heard of The Beatles and probably have even heard a song or two.  Whether or not the vast majority of people living in the world today are Beatles fans is another matter entirely.  But have they heard of them?  There is no debate.  The Beatles are the definition of a household word.

One such example that just popped into my head was that in the late eighties, Paul McCartney did a call in radio show exclusively for The Soviet Union and found that the Russians were just as familiar with The Beatles and their music as was the rest of the world despite the fact that up until that point no Beatle had performed a concert in USSR and their records allegedly weren't as heavily promoted in that area of the world as they were in most others.  

JohnMill, I'm not intending this to be sarcastic or anything of the sort, but it wasn't just that they weren't as heavily promoted, but under the USSR and communist rule, the Beatles and their records were banned, and it was illegal to own or play them out in the open in some areas, a crime which could actually lead to being jailed. Imagine, Beatles records being against the law - the joys of communist rule. Not to mention the fact that they operated all the radio stations, so the only way you'd get anything like the Beatles was from distant broadcasts or illegal stations.

There was a fascinating documentary about McCartney and band performing in the USSR, sometime in the last 8-10 years or so, perhaps on PBS in the US, and this topic was explored. The music of the Beatles was in fact outlawed, but just like the old jokes about American designer jeans being sold underground in the USSR, Beatles records were like a secret society.

They were so in demand among Russian teenagers and 20-somethings, yet almost totally unavailable, that these enterprising Beatles fans when they did get hold of an album would make copies of the album by imprinting the vinyl record and its grooves into used x-ray film material - it was able to capture the ins and outs of the grooves enough to hold the impression and reproduce the music enough to be listenable, although the quality was obviously poor.

But in light of not having any records, this was how they exchanged Beatles music, all done underground and under the radar of the law, the KGB, whatever the heck you want to call that police state and all the countries it ruled over.

That always stuck with me, how the love of the Beatles' music and what it represented to those kids as they expressed in that film led them to go to such lengths just to hear ersatz, illegal copies of the vinyl pressed into X-ray film material.

Incredible too that this is just in the past 50 years that these countries and governments saw Beatles records as such a threat that they were against the law to own, and how unbelievable it is in light of almost all of us being able to simply walk into a record shop since we were kids and buy whatever we wanted to spend the money to buy.

[JohnMill]

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles?

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

I think most of the people in the world have heard of the Beatles. On what do you base your perceptions?

 It's an interesting question. It feels safe to say the majority of people living in the world today have heard of The Beatles and Elvis Presley. Michael Jackson too. I could be wrong.

 Objectively speaking, The Beatles are one of my favorite groups, but from time to time I have resented them in the sense so few have heard "Surf's Up" compared to say "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". They seem to be above and beyond reproach at this point don't they.

I recall listening to the Red album at age 10 (1976) and feeling rather guilty for thinking they were better than Elvis. It just didn't seem right...

I think the majority of people living today have heard of The Beatles and probably have even heard a song or two.  Whether or not the vast majority of people living in the world today are Beatles fans is another matter entirely.  But have they heard of them?  There is no debate.  The Beatles are the definition of a household word.

One such example that just popped into my head was that in the late eighties, Paul McCartney did a call in radio show exclusively for The Soviet Union and found that the Russians were just as familiar with The Beatles and their music as was the rest of the world despite the fact that up until that point no Beatle had performed a concert in USSR and their records allegedly weren't as heavily promoted in that area of the world as they were in most others.  

JohnMill, I'm not intending this to be sarcastic or anything of the sort, but it wasn't just that they weren't as heavily promoted, but under the USSR and communist rule, the Beatles and their records were banned, and it was illegal to own or play them out in the open in some areas, a crime which could actually lead to being jailed. Imagine, Beatles records being against the law - the joys of communist rule. Not to mention the fact that they operated all the radio stations, so the only way you'd get anything like the Beatles was from distant broadcasts or illegal stations.

There was a fascinating documentary about McCartney and band performing in the USSR, sometime in the last 8-10 years or so, perhaps on PBS in the US, and this topic was explored. The music of the Beatles was in fact outlawed, but just like the old jokes about American designer jeans being sold underground in the USSR, Beatles records were like a secret society.

They were so in demand among Russian teenagers and 20-somethings, yet almost totally unavailable, that these enterprising Beatles fans when they did get hold of an album would make copies of the album by imprinting the vinyl record and its grooves into used x-ray film material - it was able to capture the ins and outs of the grooves enough to hold the impression and reproduce the music enough to be listenable, although the quality was obviously poor.

But in light of not having any records, this was how they exchanged Beatles music, all done underground and under the radar of the law, the KGB, whatever the heck you want to call that police state and all the countries it ruled over.

That always stuck with me, how the love of the Beatles' music and what it represented to those kids as they expressed in that film led them to go to such lengths just to hear ersatz, illegal copies of the vinyl pressed into X-ray film material.

Incredible too that this is just in the past 50 years that these countries and governments saw Beatles records as such a threat that they were against the law to own, and how unbelievable it is in light of almost all of us being able to simply walk into a record shop since we were kids and buy whatever we wanted to spend the money to buy.

Well I was aware they were banned in the USSR and I apologize if I didn't make that clear.  As you stated some copies obviously slipped in which resulted in copies and copies and so on and so forth.  Incidentally the USSR wasn't the only place where The Beatles records were not readily available to the general public.  As I recall many of their records were banned for years in South Africa.

[sandmountainslim]

I have always loved The Beatles but I find they have been overdone the past few years.   Paul has toured constantly and to a degree so has Ringo.    I would have LOVED to see Paul on tour in the 80's when he was still youthful and his voice was still in perfect pitch but alas he did VERY few shows for that entire decade. 
Ringo is Ringo and that about sums him up as a performer.   
Surprisingly the Ex-Beatle to surprise me in recent years is Pete Best who released his album Haymon's Green in 2009 and in my opinion it is the best album by any former member of that group since Harrison's Cloud Nine in 1987.    Love Paul but in my eyes Tug of War was his last really good album of new material. 

[filledeplage]

How can anyone be sick to death of hearing about The Beatles?

This may come as something of a shock to you, but a huge percentage of the world's population have never even heard of The Beatles, and of those that have, not everyone sees them as musical messiahs.

I think most of the people in the world have heard of the Beatles. On what do you base your perceptions?

It's an interesting question. It feels safe to say the majority of people living in the world today have heard of The Beatles and Elvis Presley. Michael Jackson too. I could be wrong.

 Objectively speaking, The Beatles are one of my favorite groups, but from time to time I have resented them in the sense so few have heard "Surf's Up" compared to say "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". They seem to be above and beyond reproach at this point don't they.

I recall listening to the Red album at age 10 (1976) and feeling rather guilty for thinking they were better than Elvis. It just didn't seem right...

I think the majority of people living today have heard of The Beatles and probably have even heard a song or two.  Whether or not the vast majority of people living in the world today are Beatles fans is another matter entirely.  But have they heard of them?  There is no debate.  The Beatles are the definition of a household word.

One such example that just popped into my head was that in the late eighties, Paul McCartney did a call in radio show exclusively for The Soviet Union and found that the Russians were just as familiar with The Beatles and their music as was the rest of the world despite the fact that up until that point no Beatle had performed a concert in USSR and their records allegedly weren't as heavily promoted in that area of the world as they were in most others.  

JohnMill, I'm not intending this to be sarcastic or anything of the sort, but it wasn't just that they weren't as heavily promoted, but under the USSR and communist rule, the Beatles and their records were banned, and it was illegal to own or play them out in the open in some areas, a crime which could actually lead to being jailed. Imagine, Beatles records being against the law - the joys of communist rule. Not to mention the fact that they operated all the radio stations, so the only way you'd get anything like the Beatles was from distant broadcasts or illegal stations.

There was a fascinating documentary about McCartney and band performing in the USSR, sometime in the last 8-10 years or so, perhaps on PBS in the US, and this topic was explored. The music of the Beatles was in fact outlawed, but just like the old jokes about American designer jeans being sold underground in the USSR, Beatles records were like a secret society.

They were so in demand among Russian teenagers and 20-somethings, yet almost totally unavailable, that these enterprising Beatles fans when they did get hold of an album would make copies of the album by imprinting the vinyl record and its grooves into used x-ray film material - it was able to capture the ins and outs of the grooves enough to hold the impression and reproduce the music enough to be listenable, although the quality was obviously poor.

But in light of not having any records, this was how they exchanged Beatles music, all done underground and under the radar of the law, the KGB, whatever the heck you want to call that police state and all the countries it ruled over.

That always stuck with me, how the love of the Beatles' music and what it represented to those kids as they expressed in that film led them to go to such lengths just to hear ersatz, illegal copies of the vinyl pressed into X-ray film material.

Incredible too that this is just in the past 50 years that these countries and governments saw Beatles records as such a threat that they were against the law to own, and how unbelievable it is in light of almost all of us being able to simply walk into a record shop since we were kids and buy whatever we wanted to spend the money to buy.

Just excellent - GF2002! I never heard that x-ray film "subversive technique" to get the music. The music was a huge threat because of what it represented. The whole "free speech and association" was what was feared most.  The greater the repression, the more "creativity" blooms.  And, how unfortunate that Lennon was gone, when the "Iron Curtain" was beginning to crumble, starting in Poland with Walesa...

[pixletwin]

I am sick of Ringo flashing the double peace sign. 

[Mikie]

Guess not too many here are sick of hearing about the Beatles!  Nice thread!!

I was holding off buying the new box set, but after reading this, I think I'll break down and get it.  This is what should have been Vol. 3 of the box sets; Vol. 1 and 2 being the Mono and Stereo boxed remasters from '09.  Pretty cool having the U.S. releases (complete with a miniature butcher cover!)

http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2014/01/26/the-u-s-albums-box-set-a-final-word-on-mixes-used/

[JohnMill]

Guess not too many here are sick of hearing about the Beatles!  Nice thread!!

I was holding off buying the new box set, but after reading this, I think I'll break down and get it.  This is what should have been Vol. 3 of the box sets; Vol. 1 and 2 being the Mono and Stereo boxed remasters from '09.  Pretty cool having the U.S. releases (complete with a miniature butcher cover!)

http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2014/01/26/the-u-s-albums-box-set-a-final-word-on-mixes-used/

I read on the Hoffman forums that the packaging is superb but not to expect the albums as they originally sounded when issued in the sixties.  They used the 2009 Mono and Stereo remasters for these and occasionally inserted the rare mixes that were unique to the US pressings where appropriate.  According to the Hoffman forums, most but not all of the rare US mixes are included in this box set but if you are a completest you actually still need those old "Capitol Albums" boxsets that came out around five or six years ago.  Unlike this new US Albums box set, those boxes DO accurately represent the original US catalog right down to the original mixes including I believe the duophonic mixes that Capitol was so fond of during that era.

[Mikie]

Yeah, I guess we won't be hearing any Dave Dexter mixes on this new set!  

But according to the aforementioned article, they adhered to the original U.S. mixes as much as possible, and when they didn't, there were good reasons not to.

[SMiLE Brian]

They should make a movie about Dave Dexter....

[Bean Bag]

Objectively speaking, The Beatles are one of my favorite groups, but from time to time I have resented them in the sense so few have heard "Surf's Up" compared to say "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". They seem to be above and beyond reproach at this point don't they.

I recall listening to the Red album at age 10 (1976) and feeling rather guilty for thinking they were better than Elvis. It just didn't seem right...

Excellent way to put it, Moon Dawg.  I think this describes, almost to a "T" -- how I feel.

My beef with The Beatles has always been based around the hype they've received.  I always felt like it was clever marketing.  Of course, how one gets marketed has nothing to do with the quality of their work.  For fans of the Simpsons, I've always likened it to the "Gabo" episode.  Where day in and day out, everyone gets bombarded with "Gabo is coming!"  No one knows what "Gabo" is... but their interest is piqued.  And finally, when "Gabo" arrives, naturally, it's a sensation.

But it doesn't quite end there for me.  Personally, their work doesn't have the impact and staying power that matches their impact and legacy.  And their impact and legacy is huge -- no doubt.  That's not my point.  I'm not denying their impact and legacy.  My point is their work doesn't match it, to me.  Just my personal taste and preferences.  It doesn't resonate in my soul to the same degree it "changed the face of rock."

I don't feel the impact.  It doesn't move me the way Brian's work does.  And no where near Elvis.  The Beatles often sound light.  Cute.  Like kid music as a result.  It's great and catchy and flawless and cool.  And they are one of my favorites.  But after a few spins, I think I'm good.  For long awhile.  But again, that's personal taste and not the topic of the thread.




And yes... I can understand why Beatles fans would be sick of people who are sick of the Beatles.  But we are also sick of it.  It's a sick loop.  

[Dancing Bear]

I'm sick to death of hearing that Sgt Pepper is overrated.

[rab2591]

End of the day, if you don't like hearing about anything, turn off the source. Simple!

At the end of my day yesterday I went to watch a show on Netflix, I turned on my Apple TV box, and a Beatles App 'magically' appeared next to all of my other apps. When it comes to this latest marketing campaign, it seems it's not as simple as turning off the source

[sandmountainslim]

Nah, albums that define eras are not overrated.

I'm sorry, but I just don't care for those albums much. It comes down to personal taste, not general consensus.

I only like a few songs from each. The rest? Sgt. Pepper is too pop and the White Album is too weird.

But I still love Rubber Soul, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road

Sgt. Pepper is my least favorite Beatles album.   Of all the psychedelia released that year Pink Floyd's The Piper At The Gates of Dawn floors Sgt. Pepper in all but sales.   The White album would be very very good with some songs chopped out of it.  A single disc White Album would be great.