mdmatt4ever
Member
- Sep 27, 2006
- 2,751
- 26
- 48
Anybody here that hates the beatles?
- Thread starter JGMetalhead
- Start date
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
The thing about The Beatles is that their material varied so greatly depending on which era it was written or who was the main songwriter of any given track, so most people will find something to enjoy in there somewhere. I find it difficult to grasp how anyone can enjoy other 60s bands but hate all The Beatles did. Blanket criticism of the band generally seems to revolve around how popular/overrated they were/are or how much songs like "Obladi-oblada" and "When I'm Sixty Four" sucked, which is understandable, but it's a shame that people leave it at that and never delve further into their catalogue because there is some great stuff in there.
A band being over rated shouldn't be your excuse. Metallica and Iron Maiden are over rated, yet they are one of my fav bands.
I listen to alot of different things people wouldn't expect me to listen to. I like the silversun pickups (laugh at me) but they're really good. I agree with you not liking the Beatles though. They were always a boring band to me.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,681
- 9,655
- 113
i'm not a big beatles fan, i quite like 'revolver' and i really like some of 'with the beatles' but the later stuff in particular rarely gives me anything. i prefer the beach boys, the zombies, byrds, dylan, plenty of other big names from the era.
yawn. nobody bashes those bands because they're popular, certainly not at GMD anyway, everyone who makes these kind of arguments is delusional and usually a fanboy. they get bashed more than less known bands because they're discussed more than less known bands so people voice their opinions about them more often - granted, people do have a tendency to exaggerate their criticism in the face of obnoxious fanboyism. in other cases you're mistaking cause for effect; bands often get lots of attention (usually from 16 year old morons) because, y'know, they suck and genuinely warrant bashing.
yawn. nobody bashes those bands because they're popular, certainly not at GMD anyway, everyone who makes these kind of arguments is delusional and usually a fanboy. they get bashed more than less known bands because they're discussed more than less known bands so people voice their opinions about them more often - granted, people do have a tendency to exaggerate their criticism in the face of obnoxious fanboyism. in other cases you're mistaking cause for effect; bands often get lots of attention (usually from 16 year old morons) because, y'know, they suck and genuinely warrant bashing.
Einherjar86
Active Member
My roommate is a huge Beatles fan, and he has consistently played me music from several eras of their career. It's not that I think it's bad, or that the music wasn't important or innovative (or that they weren't to thank for basically founding the way we record rock music today).
What I don't enjoy about The Beatles is their approach to songwriting, both lyrically and musically. I don't enjoy the chord progressions very much (I don't find them particularly pleasing, for some reason), and I'm not usually interested in what their lyrics deal with. Altogether, I just don't think they create an interesting atmosphere.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I enjoy Led Zeppelin (some material more than others), The Band, Springsteen, Mark Knopfler, Neil Young, Tom Petty, Gordon Lightfoot, Leonard Cohen, lots of 90s bands (Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Live, RATM, etc...); so it's not that I dislike non-progressive music.
It has to do mostly with the atmosphere created by a specific song or album. Floyd, Genesis, and Tull are my favorites because they most often create the atmosphere that I typically enjoy in music.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Einherjar86
Active Member
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I've only heard Ashes Are Burning, and that's supposed to be one of their best, so I guess I'd have to recommend that.
Totally agree with you... doesn't matter to me if a band is happy, dark or etc.. i'll like them... guess you and me are only two who appreciate the Beatles... i like all their era's...
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think that's the one with an orchestra playing on it. I'll definitely look into it, thanks.
BloodSword
Member
Another "bash" thread. Could'nt be more unoriginal. I'll weigh in and say simply, Lennon/McCartney were 2 of the best songwriters in the last half of the 20th century. The music that a lot of you young cats listen to today was influenced by the Beatles.
mdmatt4ever
Member
- Sep 27, 2006
- 2,751
- 26
- 48
i'd actually say brian wilson was the best songwriter of the last half of the 20th century. listen to his arrangements of instruments and vocal melodies. way more complex than anything lennon/mccartney did plus wilson produced most of the stuff himself and the beatles needed george martin and wilson never really had a writing partner while lennon and mccartney could bounce ideas off eachother
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,681
- 9,655
- 113
brian wilson's songs actually *feel* like the simplest things in the world though, always totally otherworldly yet totally familiar, unpredictable yet fluid, etc. pretty much the definition of greatness as far as i can tell, historically speaking.
'complexity' is the only way of giving a listener access to strong emotions in an age where every semi-intelligent person has already assimilated all the easy routes and put quotation marks around them (what we generally refer to as 'dated'). the problem with bands like dream theater (the archetypal example of a 'complex' band that isn't good) is that not only do they take those easy routes which would by themselves be too obvious to immerse any of us, but then try to mask that fact by deviating from those routes in seemingly random diversions which don't lead anywhere either. nonsense cannot be complex, complex implies structure. great bands on the other hand take really really tough routes (sometimes more advanced or self-aware versions of the easy routes) but manage to stay on the path. hope that metaphor makes sense.
the problem with the beatles for me is that they do what dream theater do in the sense that so much of their invention stinks of gimmickry or wankery, for its own sake rather than the song's, especially post-revolver. they were capable of much more when they wanted to be though; perhaps they were even capable of writing something as intensely poignant & ecstatic as pet sounds, but i wonder if their egos didn't get in the way, 'cause they certainly never managed it.
'complexity' is the only way of giving a listener access to strong emotions in an age where every semi-intelligent person has already assimilated all the easy routes and put quotation marks around them (what we generally refer to as 'dated'). the problem with bands like dream theater (the archetypal example of a 'complex' band that isn't good) is that not only do they take those easy routes which would by themselves be too obvious to immerse any of us, but then try to mask that fact by deviating from those routes in seemingly random diversions which don't lead anywhere either. nonsense cannot be complex, complex implies structure. great bands on the other hand take really really tough routes (sometimes more advanced or self-aware versions of the easy routes) but manage to stay on the path. hope that metaphor makes sense.
the problem with the beatles for me is that they do what dream theater do in the sense that so much of their invention stinks of gimmickry or wankery, for its own sake rather than the song's, especially post-revolver. they were capable of much more when they wanted to be though; perhaps they were even capable of writing something as intensely poignant & ecstatic as pet sounds, but i wonder if their egos didn't get in the way, 'cause they certainly never managed it.
@ gimmickry: It's fucking pop, what do you expect
@ wankery: We're still talking about the beatles right? wtf
@ wankery: We're still talking about the beatles right? wtf
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Hm, I need to actually listen to significant quantities of the Beatles and Beach Boys sometime so I can put in my 2cp here - this looks like a good discussion.
mdmatt4ever
Member
- Sep 27, 2006
- 2,751
- 26
- 48
listen to the beach boys tune "heroes and villians" or "good vibrations". you have to listen closely because there is so much going on underneath the first layer of music its crazy. just my opinion but i also think brian wilson has a better voice than anyone in the beatles. his vocal on "don't worry baby" is one of the best in the history of music. pet sounds and smile are the 2 best wilson related albums.
anyways some thing to consider. george martin produced the beatles. brian wilson did probably 95% of the production during his time in the beach boys and produces his own stuff. paul always had john to bounce ideas off of. brian wilson wrote close to 80% of the material the beach boys did while he was in the band. the other tunes were covers and the occasional track from another member. mike love gets credit with cowriting a lot of tunes but its for any lyrical changes he made before he sang the lead. george martin was not used for let it be and its easily the worst latter day beatles release and basically drove the nail in the beatles breakup coffin. martin then helped the band create abbey road which imo is the best beatles album so its easy to see in the quality between the 2 albums that martin did a lot
Badbird
Never banned
The Beatles are an ok band but very overated.I got repect for them doing changing their pop style music to experiment with other music genres but i rather listen to other classic bands instead.They are the most overated band in history
Similar threads
