For Those Who Dislike The Beatles

P

plangentmusic

Guest
I just don't get this. It's like saying you don't think Bach is all that good. It's like not liking music.

All music post Bach has been, in one way or another, based on what he did. And all music post Beatles has been influenced by the Beatles.

So even if you've never heard them (which I think would be impossible) you're STILL influenced by them because everything you've ever listened to is influenced by them.

Did that make any sense?
 

larryz

Platinum Member
Yes it does. We'e all been influenced by them in a positive way, whether we know it or admit to it or not.

Good point. Now Charlie Watts is fair game for criticism. Would the Stones have succeeded without him, I thnk so. I love him but his playing, in my opinion, was not as crucial to the sound of the Stones as Ringo. Don't mess with my Richard Starkey.
 
P

plangentmusic

Guest
Lennon admitted he got the line from a Chuck Berrey song and My Sweet Lord is probably the most blatant "unintentional" rip off of all time. I mean, it's the SAME EXACT SONG! That was obvious within my first hearing the first 8 bars. Harrison probably thought he was divinely inspired, and just forgot he was recalling the Chiffons tune. It amazes me that Phil Spector didn't recognize it. I think if he were still in the Beatles, Paul or John or George Martin would have called him on that.

As for the other examples, I think they're a little silly. Yes, songs will share some chord changes and rhythms and even a few notes of a melody, but that's hardly ripping off other music. As they say, there are only 12 notes, so it's bound to happen that some stuff will be similar.
 
P

plangentmusic

Guest
Yes it does. We'e all been influenced by them in a positive way, whether we know it or admit to it or not.

Good point. Now Charlie Watts is fair game for criticism. Would the Stones have succeeded without him, I thnk so. I love him but his playing, in my opinion, was not as crucial to the sound of the Stones as Ringo. Don't mess with my Richard Starkey.
I agree, though Charlie was a part of the sound too (as "ordinary" as it might have been) , so who knows? Maybe the Beatles would have still been great with a different drummer and a different guitar player. As in the case with Charlie, I think it was more the fact that they had the right personalty types for the situation.
 

vindrums

Senior Member
Ironically I dislike both the Beatles and Bach. Appreciating history and liking the musical output of a certain artist or group of artists are two seperate things. I am well versed in the music of the Beatles. I enjoy many of their melodies and applaud them for their experimentation...I just don't like listening to them. This opinion, IN NO WAY means that I don't understand their importance in the evolution of rock n roll.

I feel the same way about the music of Bach. I truly appreciate the historical signifigance of his music. I have performed numerous works on marimba...I would rather listen to Beethoven!!!

Appreciating music and liking music are two seperate issues.

I appreciate the blues...would rather listen to Zeppelin.
I appreciate dixieland jazz...would rather listen to Miles
I appreciate Bach...would rather listen to Beethoven, Mahler, Stravinsky or Bartok
 

Bull

Gold Member
I don't hate The Beatles but I am not a fan. I have never owned an album or turned up the radio when a tune came on. Occasionally, I will pretend to hate them just to get a rise out of their fans. It always amazes me how upsetting that can be to people.
 

Spreggy

Silver Member
Yes it does. We'e all been influenced by them in a positive way, whether we know it or admit to it or not.

Good point. Now Charlie Watts is fair game for criticism. Would the Stones have succeeded without him, I thnk so. I love him but his playing, in my opinion, was not as crucial to the sound of the Stones as Ringo. Don't mess with my Richard Starkey.
I would go so far as to say the Stones were insignificant, but I'm not an expert on these things.

I have a friend who is a prof at a prestigious conservatory, and is also African American. He hates the Beatles. He said if you grew up in the 'hood in those days, you hated the Beatles.
 

GruntersDad

Administrator - Mayor
Staff member
I don't get it either, but really, did we need ANOTHER thread on the same topic?

Really. Why open a NEGATIVE thread. Ridiculous Why not have a category:
For Those Who Dislike The __________

Come on guys get back on track. Mods please close this.
 
P

plangentmusic

Guest
Really. Why open a NEGATIVE thread. Ridiculous Why not have a category:
For Those Who Dislike The __________

Come on guys get back on track. Mods please close this.
Wow, ironically that's the most negative post I've seen.

Wasn't trying to start any fights -- just pointing out the POSITIVE aspects of something that some people may not appreciate. And I'd venture that anyone who dislikes the Beatles or Bach does not compose,

I get vindrums point, even if I'm not totally in accord with it. That's what discussion are about, or should be...isn't it?
 

stramming

Member
I hate when people say that The Beatles were overrated. Uh.... NO THEY WEREN'T. They're called the greatest band ever because they WERE the greatest band ever!
 

JimmyTheMonkey

Senior Member
My old roommate didn't like the Beatles or Zeppelin. He doesn't like old music because it "sounds old." I interpret this to mean that he prefers modern "perfection" recording techniques. I imagine this is the case for many who don't appreciate the Beatles. They just got used to the auto-tuned music on the radio and can't listen to old analog stuff. Similar to getting used to Blu Ray and then trying to go back to VHS. I am glad that there is a slight resurgence of more "genuine" recording, such as the new Foo Fighters album done in analog.

Obviously, I still give him an immensely hard time about not liking the Beatles.
 

tamadrm

Platinum Member
My old roommate didn't like the Beatles or Zeppelin. He doesn't like old music because it "sounds old." I interpret this to mean that he prefers modern "perfection" recording techniques. I imagine this is the case for many who don't appreciate the Beatles. They just got used to the auto-tuned music on the radio and can't listen to old analog stuff. Similar to getting used to Blu Ray and then trying to go back to VHS. I am glad that there is a slight resurgence of more "genuine" recording, such as the new Foo Fighters album done in analog.

Obviously, I still give him an immensely hard time about not liking the Beatles.
Old is a relative term.I guess that if he hates Beatle music because it sounds old,then classical dosen't have a chance.Sounds like he would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.

This guy would have fit in perfectly in the 60's when the battle cry of a generation was"don't trust anyone over 30".Hopefully with age will come wisdom.

Steve B
 

Pocket-full-of-gold

Platinum Member
Now Charlie Watts is fair game for criticism. Would the Stones have succeeded without him, I thnk so.
Keith, Brian and Ian Stewart didn't think so. It's not like he just fell into the gig. They more or less begged him to join for more than six months before he agreed. Keef details in his book just how badly they wanted him. Calls him "the bed that I lie on."

Replaceable? Possibly (who isn't?)......but not to any of the Stones. They wouldn't hear of it.

I would go so far as to say the Stones were insignificant
Not to me mate.

There's a ton of acts that could arguably be deemed as insignificant.........but when you've influenced millions, I just don't see how the term fits.
 
Last edited:

mikel

Platinum Member
My old roommate didn't like the Beatles or Zeppelin. He doesn't like old music because it "sounds old." I interpret this to mean that he prefers modern "perfection" recording techniques. I imagine this is the case for many who don't appreciate the Beatles. They just got used to the auto-tuned music on the radio and can't listen to old analog stuff. Similar to getting used to Blu Ray and then trying to go back to VHS. I am glad that there is a slight resurgence of more "genuine" recording, such as the new Foo Fighters album done in analog.

Obviously, I still give him an immensely hard time about not liking the Beatles.
I trust he was not around in the 60s?

Things musical moved so fast in the 60s and 70s it was a hugely exciting time.

Difficult to understand how he can say "I dont like the Beatles" unless he is merely being obtuse. I can understand people not liking a band/artist who have a particular style, but the Beatles moved on relentlessly through styles and genres and also invented there own.

I still feel blessed to have grown up during the 60s and 70s because it would seem a lot of the music from that era is attaining classic status, and for good reason.
 

groove1

Silver Member
The Beatles are undoubtedly viewed differently by people who were listening to each next
recording that came out as it happened rather than listening for the first time years later.
The world has changed a lot since that time. I was in my teens then twenties in the 1960's
so I remember each Beatles recording as it came out. I listened to everything during that
time that I could. The thing about the 60's was that everything was recorded....good and bad.
It wasn't "packaged" like the past couple of decades. (thankfully, the internet has helped undo this once again).

The music of The Beatles was loved by the youth all over the world, a significant achievement.

There were so many amazing changes in all of the arts. It was an incredible time to be
alive and young. We thought it would go on forever. We liked all the great bands, Beatles
included.
 
Last edited:

Deathmetalconga

Platinum Member
I just don't get this. It's like saying you don't think Bach is all that good. It's like not liking music.

All music post Bach has been, in one way or another, based on what he did. And all music post Beatles has been influenced by the Beatles.

So even if you've never heard them (which I think would be impossible) you're STILL influenced by them because everything you've ever listened to is influenced by them.

Did that make any sense?
I don't get it why you'd start a thread like this and I don't get why it sticks in your craw that there actually exist a few people who don't like The Beatles. But I don't need to get it.

Look on the bright side: you don't need to get it. It's a personal preference. I am one of a handful of people on the planet Earth who think The Beatles are dippy, vanilla-bland, overrated, banal and embarrassingly overplayed. I simultaneously acknowledge they are the most influential band in the relatively brief history of Western pop music. So? They influence me in the sense that I try to avoid sounding like them.

By the way, the spelling of the band is "The Beatles" not "the Beatles." The capital "The" is part of their name.
 
Top