Why are the Beatles the one band people don't allow you to dislike?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

As detailed in a thread I created here a while back...for the longest time I didn't 'get' the hype behind the Beatles. I liked a few of their songs, but thought they were placed on a pedestal far above what they actually deserved. So, i decided to do the one, fool-proof way to judge whether or not they deserved their reputation...I sat down and listened to their music chronologically in several marathon sessions. Wasn't that crazy about the debut, but by the time I got to A Hard Day's Night, I was hooked. Now, my obsession is rivaled only by the Beach Boys' music, and there are days where I actually prefer to listen to the Beatles.

So, to those who aren't in to the Beatles, I ask...how much have you actually heard? I challenge you to do what I did and listen the the albums chronologically, without prejudice. Just try it. Humor me. If you still feel the same way afterwards, then I tip my hat off to you and admit to agree to disagree. But really, I think that's the best way to appreciate any band, so your mileage may vary.

[Ron]

It seemed quite drawn out and over the top to me.

How do you make a film, about what 1500 people drowning on the world's most famous ship, 'over the top' ?  They had to sink the titanic in the movie.  It was going to be 'over the top'.  It's called "TITANIC".  that word, if you look it up in the dictionary, means "OVER THE TOP"

Just sayin'.

[Ron]

As detailed in a thread I created here a while back...for the longest time I didn't 'get' the hype behind the Beatles. I liked a few of their songs, but thought they were placed on a pedestal far above what they actually deserved. So, i decided to do the one, fool-proof way to judge whether or not they deserved their reputation...I sat down and listened to their music chronologically in several marathon sessions. Wasn't that crazy about the debut, but by the time I got to A Hard Day's Night, I was hooked. Now, my obsession is rivaled only by the Beach Boys' music, and there are days where I actually prefer to listen to the Beatles.

So, to those who aren't in to the Beatles, I ask...how much have you actually heard? I challenge you to do what I did and listen the the albums chronologically, without prejudice. Just try it. Humor me. If you still feel the same way afterwards, then I tip my hat off to you and admit to agree to disagree. But really, I think that's the best way to appreciate any band, so your mileage may vary.

Imagine if you actually lived through it, experiencing them changing as a band, as the music was released along the way?  Imagine if it took you 10 years to hear all of the songs chronologically.  Not hard to figure out why so many people were their fans then, and are now.  I have some very esoteric theories on why the band was so successful, but I'll save those for myself

[Moon Dawg]

I always find it puzzling that people who hate the Beach Boys, the Hollies, the Lovin' Spoonful, Paul Revere and the Raiders and other mid 60's pop groups love the Beatles. They'll tell me their favorite bands are Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Stones, and the Beatles. Are they thinking just the White Album Beatles? Abbey Road? Or do these lovers of hard rock really dig "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" and "Ticket to Ride"?

  There's a certain type of Beatles fan who might disparage the pre-1966 stuff. The stultifying playlists of AOR FM radio may have contributed to this cultural quirk. On the other hand there are hard-core Beach Boys fans who do not care much for the Endless Summer, and The Beach Boys get ZERO play from AOR classic rock radio.

[Lonely Summer]

I always find it puzzling that people who hate the Beach Boys, the Hollies, the Lovin' Spoonful, Paul Revere and the Raiders and other mid 60's pop groups love the Beatles. They'll tell me their favorite bands are Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Stones, and the Beatles. Are they thinking just the White Album Beatles? Abbey Road? Or do these lovers of hard rock really dig "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" and "Ticket to Ride"?

  There's a certain type of Beatles fan who might disparage the pre-1966 stuff. The stultifying playlists of AOR FM radio may have contributed to this cultural quirk. On the other hand there are hard-core Beach Boys fans who do not care much for the Endless Summer, and The Beach Boys get ZERO play from AOR classic rock radio.

And that's the puzzler for me. I hear the Beatles having much more in common musically with the Beach Boys, the Byrds, and other groups that were popular in 64-66. I hear very little connection musically between the Fab Four and the harder rock that came along circa 67-69. Yet unlike the Beach Boys, the Beatles were still considered hip in the late 60's.

[Ron]

Drugs.

[The Demon]

I always find it puzzling that people who hate the Beach Boys, the Hollies, the Lovin' Spoonful, Paul Revere and the Raiders and other mid 60's pop groups love the Beatles. They'll tell me their favorite bands are Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Stones, and the Beatles. Are they thinking just the White Album Beatles? Abbey Road? Or do these lovers of hard rock really dig "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" and "Ticket to Ride"?

  There's a certain type of Beatles fan who might disparage the pre-1966 stuff. The stultifying playlists of AOR FM radio may have contributed to this cultural quirk. On the other hand there are hard-core Beach Boys fans who do not care much for the Endless Summer, and The Beach Boys get ZERO play from AOR classic rock radio.

And that's the puzzler for me. I hear the Beatles having much more in common musically with the Beach Boys, the Byrds, and other groups that were popular in 64-66. I hear very little connection musically between the Fab Four and the harder rock that came along circa 67-69. Yet unlike the Beach Boys, the Beatles were still considered hip in the late 60's.

Definitely agree, but they are probably fans who embrace the Beatle material embraced by mainstream, classic rock radio.  It's a matter of people accepting a false image of the band, just like those who think the Beach Boys only did car and surf songs, even though that period of their work really only lasted a few years.  Or classic rock fans/radio stations who love Led Zeppelin, CCR, Neil Young, but won't touch the Grateful Dead, because they only did long, boring jams, right?  Or punk fans who worship the VU--jams included--but won't touch GD.  Or classic rock and prog fans who won't touch punk because it was about swearing, mucus, and not playing your instrument.  Etc., etc.  Some people like art for personal fulfillment, but most people use it as a fashion accessory.  That's what it comes down to.

I also think a lot of listeners these days don't particularly care for early 60s pop.  They find it too light, lyrically, I guess.  Personally, I love the Beatles, but I never thought they were deep people and I don't think they ever had anything very meaningful to say.  The only songs that move me emotionally are "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," "Julia," and maybe one or two more.  I think this is because McCartney tends to be reserved, emotionally, and when Lennon did get personal he mostly descended into this narcissistic messiah complex ("Ballad of John and Yoko," most of his solo work).  But to me the early songs are as rewarding as the later ones, because I never really rated them as lyricists, for the most part.  Their quality lyrics seemed born more of a need to compete (this is where the Dylan influence comes in), than from an inner need to say something.  So I really enjoy A Hard Day's Night and Rubber Soul most of all, more than Pepper or The Beatles.  I wish A Hard Day's Night was more embraced along with their "classic" albums--it's so much more who they are than what came later, as great as that later stuff is.  They made really fun music that could be embraced by a lot of people, and set a new level of consistency for rock/pop.  To me, the early music really exemplifies that.  They were never quirky artists drawing you into their inner world, like Captain Beefheart or Prince or much of Brian Wilson (Smiley Smile, "Still I Dream of It") or Syd Barrett, etc. 

To me that early stuff also really stands up in the sense that it's not hard to see McCartney doing those songs, even if he's much older.  But I really can't see Kurt Cobain, if he were alive and approaching 50, doing many of those Nirvana songs.  Seeing the Hall of Fame induction, it was really, really difficult to imagine a middle-aged man singing songs almost purely created out of youthful confusion, insecurity, and anger.  But guess which songs are considered "better" or more "serious"?

[halblaineisgood]

.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[The Demon]

  Personally, I love the Beatles, but I never thought they were deep people and I don't think they ever had anything very meaningful to say. 

I don't know what to make of this post...  they are such excellent singers, who gives a f*** if they're "deep" ?  I don't really expect pop music to be "deep". Maybe I do, actually...I dunno. Let's talk...

I probably should have quoted it, but I was too lazy to crawl back through all the Titanic talk; this is what I was kind of responding to:

The comment from your friend that they 'promoted peace and love' actually has a lot of merit to it.  You can poo poo it because they were a rock band, but the truth is to a lot of that generation, the Beatles DID promote love and peace, the things they said held a lot of weight with people even though they were simply rock stars.  When they did "All You Need Is Love" it changed things.  Did it 'heal the world' or make people stop fighting?  No, but it helped validate the feelings some people had at the time and it planted a seed in the hearts of others.

I'm not saying I care that they're deep.  If I was then I would hate their early songs.  I'm just saying that many people see their mid-60s stuff (and some solo works) as having depth, and I don't think those songs are really any deeper than the early material. 

[Moon Dawg]

 The earlier post about John descending into Messianic self-importance was dead on. It wrecked some of his solo work for me. I do think WALLS & BRIDGES is just a couple of tracks shy of being a great album. It's an underrated effort IMO.

[Moon Dawg]

  I actually felt guilty after writing that  somewhat critical post on John. It's true - The Beatles have become an institution that is beyond reproach! I'm a Beatles fan, yes, but it sure is easier digging the likes of The Beach Boys and The Rolling Stones, neither of which have been elevated to sainthood just yet.

[Lonely Summer]

I always find it puzzling that people who hate the Beach Boys, the Hollies, the Lovin' Spoonful, Paul Revere and the Raiders and other mid 60's pop groups love the Beatles. They'll tell me their favorite bands are Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Stones, and the Beatles. Are they thinking just the White Album Beatles? Abbey Road? Or do these lovers of hard rock really dig "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" and "Ticket to Ride"?

  There's a certain type of Beatles fan who might disparage the pre-1966 stuff. The stultifying playlists of AOR FM radio may have contributed to this cultural quirk. On the other hand there are hard-core Beach Boys fans who do not care much for the Endless Summer, and The Beach Boys get ZERO play from AOR classic rock radio.

And that's the puzzler for me. I hear the Beatles having much more in common musically with the Beach Boys, the Byrds, and other groups that were popular in 64-66. I hear very little connection musically between the Fab Four and the harder rock that came along circa 67-69. Yet unlike the Beach Boys, the Beatles were still considered hip in the late 60's.

Definitely agree, but they are probably fans who embrace the Beatle material embraced by mainstream, classic rock radio.  It's a matter of people accepting a false image of the band, just like those who think the Beach Boys only did car and surf songs, even though that period of their work really only lasted a few years.  Or classic rock fans/radio stations who love Led Zeppelin, CCR, Neil Young, but won't touch the Grateful Dead, because they only did long, boring jams, right?  Or punk fans who worship the VU--jams included--but won't touch GD.  Or classic rock and prog fans who won't touch punk because it was about swearing, mucus, and not playing your instrument.  Etc., etc.  Some people like art for personal fulfillment, but most people use it as a fashion accessory.  That's what it comes down to.

I also think a lot of listeners these days don't particularly care for early 60s pop.  They find it too light, lyrically, I guess.  Personally, I love the Beatles, but I never thought they were deep people and I don't think they ever had anything very meaningful to say.  The only songs that move me emotionally are "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," "Julia," and maybe one or two more.  I think this is because McCartney tends to be reserved, emotionally, and when Lennon did get personal he mostly descended into this narcissistic messiah complex ("Ballad of John and Yoko," most of his solo work).  But to me the early songs are as rewarding as the later ones, because I never really rated them as lyricists, for the most part.  Their quality lyrics seemed born more of a need to compete (this is where the Dylan influence comes in), than from an inner need to say something.  So I really enjoy A Hard Day's Night and Rubber Soul most of all, more than Pepper or The Beatles.  I wish A Hard Day's Night was more embraced along with their "classic" albums--it's so much more who they are than what came later, as great as that later stuff is.  They made really fun music that could be embraced by a lot of people, and set a new level of consistency for rock/pop.  To me, the early music really exemplifies that.  They were never quirky artists drawing you into their inner world, like Captain Beefheart or Prince or much of Brian Wilson (Smiley Smile, "Still I Dream of It") or Syd Barrett, etc. 

To me that early stuff also really stands up in the sense that it's not hard to see McCartney doing those songs, even if he's much older.  But I really can't see Kurt Cobain, if he were alive and approaching 50, doing many of those Nirvana songs.  Seeing the Hall of Fame induction, it was really, really difficult to imagine a middle-aged man singing songs almost purely created out of youthful confusion, insecurity, and anger.  But guess which songs are considered "better" or more "serious"?

  It's really hard to improve on A Hard Days Night for great pop/rock songwriting. Every song on that album is great. I've never had a problem appreciating the pre-Rubber Soul material, even if it is mostly girl/boy romance stuff. I think that material resonates more with me than the early BB's surf and car songs. I never surfed, never desired to, and never valued any car beyond its ability to get me places. But most of us hopefully have been in love, known heartbreak, all that stuff, so those themes in music are pretty universal. The Beatles did as good a job as any at expressing those kinds of feelings.

[Cyncie]

The generation who grew up with The Beatles have certainly placed them on a pedestal. A high one, at that. But, I have to wonder how much longer that will last. New generations of musicians are certainly acknowledging their influence, but the general public isn't necessarily following.

A friend's teenage daughter recently got into The Beatles big-time. She made a comment on her Facebook about them, and one of her male friends said, "What is it with girls and The Beatles? Only girls like them."  His comment was "liked" by several other male friends.  I assume that said friends had never actually listened to The Beatles (or spent any time listening to music that was written before last year),  and had them pegged as some kind of early boy band.  That, or they preferred their classic heroes to have a harder edge. Either way, they completely missed the influence The Beatles had, and found them irrelevant to their present day.

I like The Beatles and their cultural impact can't be denied. But, I think their god-like status will be tempered somewhat with time and distance. Elvis was the "king" in his day. In the present his talent is recognized, but the only ones fainting over him are Graceland pilgrims and little old ladies at cheesy Vegas shows.

[The Demon]

The generation who grew up with The Beatles have certainly placed them on a pedestal. A high one, at that. But, I have to wonder how much longer that will last. New generations of musicians are certainly acknowledging their influence, but the general public isn't necessarily following.

A friend's teenage daughter recently got into The Beatles big-time. She made a comment on her Facebook about them, and one of her male friends said, "What is it with girls and The Beatles? Only girls like them."  His comment was "liked" by several other male friends.  I assume that said friends had never actually listened to The Beatles (or spent any time listening to music that was written before last year),  and had them pegged as some kind of early boy band.  That, or they preferred their classic heroes to have a harder edge. Either way, they completely missed the influence The Beatles had, and found them irrelevant to their present day.

I like The Beatles and their cultural impact can't be denied. But, I think their god-like status will be tempered somewhat with time and distance. Elvis was the "king" in his day. In the present his talent is recognized, but the only ones fainting over him are Graceland pilgrims and little old ladies at cheesy Vegas shows.

Great post.  While the Beatles' cultural influence shouldn't be ignored, I hope they are really remembered for their craft and artistic curiosity.  Those are two of their greatest strengths.  I'm not saying new music is worse, but it feels like now we have more and more people hoping to be famous simply because they exist.  People like the Beatles wanted to be famous, but they at least wanted to be famous for doing something, or trying to be the best at something.  Not because they thought they knew how to use a mirror well.

[Moon Dawg]

I like The Beatles and their cultural impact can't be denied. But, I think their god-like status will be tempered somewhat with time and distance. Elvis was the "king" in his day. In the present his talent is recognized, but the only ones fainting over him are Graceland pilgrims and little old ladies at cheesy Vegas shows.

  Let's back up for a moment please. Elvis is held in higher regard today than he was around the time of his death. During his lifetime, Elvis never quite regained the spectacular/controversial standing of say 1956-61. (early superstardom/Army/early post Army) After the comeback of 1968-72, his record sales were often flat and his personal life became the subject of sordid speculation. When he died in 1977 his life and career were a mess (despite still selling out concerts) and his standing with the general public was perhaps at its lowest point since the dog days of the late movie period.

 By contrast, Elvis as singer/artist is held in high regard by most today. The tabloid stuff has become secondary as the revelations of his drug addiction have faded over time. RCA/BMG and Elvis Presley Enterprises have done a nice job of marketing, presenting Elvis' music with a bit a dignity and respect while turning out a profit.

 Graceland continues to attract thousands of fans from all over the world BTW. I was there in 1993; it was damn hot that July but I did not faint. Your "little old ladies" remark betrays a type of cultural condescension that is in fact an outmoded stereotype.

 Have a Great Day,
 Steve

[Cyncie]

I like The Beatles and their cultural impact can't be denied. But, I think their god-like status will be tempered somewhat with time and distance. Elvis was the "king" in his day. In the present his talent is recognized, but the only ones fainting over him are Graceland pilgrims and little old ladies at cheesy Vegas shows.

  Let's back up for a moment please. Elvis is held in higher regard today than he was around the time of his death. During his lifetime, Elvis never quite regained the spectacular/controversial standing of say 1956-61. (early superstardom/Army/early post Army) After the comeback of 1968-72, his record sales were often flat and his personal life became the subject of sordid speculation. When he died in 1977 his life and career were a mess (despite still selling out concerts) and his standing with the general public was perhaps at its lowest point since the dog days of the late movie period.

 By contrast, Elvis as singer/artist is held in high regard by most today. The tabloid stuff has become secondary as the revelations of his drug addiction have faded over time. RCA/BMG and Elvis Presley Enterprises have done a nice job of marketing, presenting Elvis' music with a bit a dignity and respect while turning out a profit.

 Graceland continues to attract thousands of fans from all over the world BTW. I was there in 1993; it was damn hot that July but I did not faint. Your "little old ladies" remark betrays a type of cultural condescension that is in fact an outmoded stereotype.

 Have a Great Day,
 Steve

I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that the music can stand the test of time, but the fan frenzy eventually fades. And really. Do serious Elvis aficionados go to Vegas Elvis impersonator shows?

[Moon Dawg]

 Well, there are different subsets of Elvis fans. Some would not be caught dead at such a show but others would enjoy. For the most part I can't stand Elvis impersonators.

[Ron]

Of course it fades.  people don't go around swooning over Beethoven anymore, although he's clearly the man.  People don't go out of their way to hang up posters of William Shakespeare anymore, although his greatness is widely acknowledged.

Things fade... but the greats don't disappear.  They take their rightful place with the other immortals we teach our children about. 

[Moon Dawg]

I like The Beatles and their cultural impact can't be denied. But, I think their god-like status will be tempered somewhat with time and distance. Elvis was the "king" in his day. In the present his talent is recognized, but the only ones fainting over him are Graceland pilgrims and little old ladies at cheesy Vegas shows.

  Let's back up for a moment please. Elvis is held in higher regard today than he was around the time of his death. During his lifetime, Elvis never quite regained the spectacular/controversial standing of say 1956-61. (early superstardom/Army/early post Army) After the comeback of 1968-72, his record sales were often flat and his personal life became the subject of sordid speculation. When he died in 1977 his life and career were a mess (despite still selling out concerts) and his standing with the general public was perhaps at its lowest point since the dog days of the late movie period.

 By contrast, Elvis as singer/artist is held in high regard by most today. The tabloid stuff has become secondary as the revelations of his drug addiction have faded over time. RCA/BMG and Elvis Presley Enterprises have done a nice job of marketing, presenting Elvis' music with a bit a dignity and respect while turning out a profit.

 Graceland continues to attract thousands of fans from all over the world BTW. I was there in 1993; it was damn hot that July but I did not faint. Your "little old ladies" remark betrays a type of cultural condescension that is in fact an outmoded stereotype.

 Have a Great Day,
 Steve

I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that the music can stand the test of time, but the fan frenzy eventually fades. And really. Do serious Elvis aficionados go to Vegas Elvis impersonator shows?

 Not sure if I misunderstood you or not. You seem to imply the people who visit Graceland are a bunch of rubes.

[the captain]

Of course it fades.  people don't go around swooning over Beethoven anymore, although he's clearly the man.  People don't go out of their way to hang up posters of William Shakespeare anymore, although his greatness is widely acknowledged.

Things fade... but the greats don't disappear.  They take their rightful place with the other immortals we teach our children about. 

The cultural baggage would definitely seem to be the most likely to fade away quickly as the people affected by it die off. Though what they--the audiences--leave behind (documentaries, books, etc.) could certainly keep influencing that side of things as well. But the comment about boys not liking the Beatles because they prefer rebels a few posts back shows how time affects us: while maybe not the Stones, the Beatles certainly were rebels. I mean, imagine yourself a father at the time: I doubt you'd fail to understand the appeal those boys had on your 16-year-old daughter. Like most good rock / pop, it was largely sexual.

As far as the greats not disappearing, that's probably true. Yet we can't quite say that, because when something disappears, it's hard to say whether it was great later on. And it's only relatively recently we've had such good and easily accessible records of what has come before. Even some bands we consider great were at least somewhat forgotten (or undervalued, anyway) now and again, e.g. VU or Big Star. And I'm sure there are a million better examples than those.

What's interesting to me is that part of what makes something great is just the changing tastes as time goes on. We find the great in different things as we move along, both individually and collectively.

[rogerlancelot]

Bear with me for a moment and let us consider the OP (original poster) Dr. Zombi.

Dr. Zombi started this thread at June 05, 2014, 04:14:42 PM.
His/her last login was at June 06, 2014, 09:49:58 AM which by then a whole page had been wasted on this argument.
Dr. Zombi has only made 8 posts (not including others about old school gaming like N64).

In my personal opinion, Dr. Zombi is a new (probably rather young) member who hadn't realized that this thread would cause a stir. I'm waiting to see if he/she returns to rectify this.

In the meantime, my personal complaints about the Beatles:
- I don't care much for the a-side to the "Love Me Do" / "PS I Love You" single but consider the b-side a decent composition (musically).
- During the song "Magical Mystery Tour", John & Paul sing these "ahhhhs" that are frequently slightly out of tune.
- John Lennon was busy too busy with Yoko and dabbling with heroin to write a decent song for the Get Back sessions.
- They made Ringo sing "Boys" which he still sings decades later.

Some nice things to say about the Beatles:
- They broke up before making a crappy album (as opposed to the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, etc.).
- They popularized growing hair and brought attention to a universal LOVE (not the boy/girl kind).
- My father hated them with a passion (he only hated good music in my opinion).
- They had Paul McCartney on bass guitar (also sometimes drums or lead guitar). He wrote some beautifully melodic bass lines inspired by Brian Wilson.

Stopping there until OP comes back. For those of you who really hate the Beatles, listen to their failed Decca audition. They really sucked there so you'll really get a kick out of it. For those of you who like the Beatles, can you point me in the direction of a good Beatles message board to join? I have yet to find one. I'm familiar with Sulpy's board where members are required to hate all solo Beatles projects, Apple and Yoko (I've seen some serious racist comments that were ok with them) or they will ban you. No kidding.

[Lonely Summer]

The Decca tape is definitely not the Beatles at their best, but a few of the performances are quite good - Sheik Of Araby, Crying Waiting Hoping, To Know Her is to Love Her, Hello Little Girl. They were nervous, though, and it showed.

[Ovi]

For those of you who like the Beatles, can you point me in the direction of a good Beatles message board to join? I have yet to find one. I'm familiar with Sulpy's board where members are required to hate all solo Beatles projects, Apple and Yoko (I've seen some serious racist comments that were ok with them) or they will ban you. No kidding.

I've been on DM's Beatles forums for a few years now...the board's active days are kinda long-gone, but interesting conversation still stirs up once in a while. There's plenty of knowledgeable and level-headed people around. We did song-by-song reviews of each Beatles albums a while back and now solo Lennon is on hold, but will get picked up again sometime soon. Drop by and take a look around, if you wanna.

[Gabo]

To answer the OP:

Because people  usually dislike them for stupid reasons (they were/are more popular and acclaimed than your favorite band).