I posted here once that I didn’t particularly like the Beatles.
You’d have thought I suggested raping kittens on Pay-Per-View.
Pearl Jam - AC/DC of the early 90s.
As someone who was in high school in Seattle in the early 90s, you would think I would be genetically predisposed to liking atonal mush-mouthed ramblings. And I do, I like exactly one Pearl Jam song. Which one? I don’t care, they’re all pretty much identical.
Everyone knows that The Beatles were a one-trick repetitive pony, whereas Judas Priest and Tears for Fears revolutionized rock with each new album. :rolleyes:
Sheesh…
No one has to like The Beatles certainly… but the claims that they didn’t do much of anything innovative are absurd. And then to cite TfF and JP as counterpoints?! Are we being whooshed?
I’d say The Cars had about about 4 great songs, which is 4 more than most 80s bands.
Acts that should be on this list:
Kansas (I may hear some negative feedback on that)
Cranberries
Abba (pick a song, any song)
Waitresses (Xmas novelty got them 2)
Royal Guardsmen (squeezed out the same Snoopy song 4 times)
Sham 69 (nothing beyond “Borstal Breakout” was necessary)
Siouxsie & the Banshees (should’ve quit after “Hong Kong Garden”)
Jimmy Reed :eek: (innovator with the walking bass line… amazing how many hits you can squeeze out of that one idea)
which means we should also include Chuck Berry :eek: :eek: :eek: for the triplets monomania…unless “My Ding-a-Ling” really excites you
most reggae bands (actually we could probably have about a half-dozen reggae songs in total and call it a day)
The Madness, Specials, and any other white neo-ska band… actually we could combine them into one song and pull the plug
I’d continue but that’s probably enough mortal enemies for one day. 
As I learned, they actually have a very strong following on college campuses to this day. I haven’t heard too much of their newer stuff, but it’s not awful.
[Ghost of Lissener]*It’s an Evil Planet - It’s a *Beatle Planet![/Ghost of Lissener]
I just wanted to point out that anyone who’s nominated an artist & posted to this thread is essentially saying:
I don’t think the works of (Insert Band Name Here) are good enough that they deserve the praise (and royalties) from the masses*.
*Bear in mind: The masses are also know as the general record-buying public.
(The same group who made songs like Disco Duck, Candle in the Wind, Jenny From The Block, (Everything I Do) I Do It For You, Who Let The Dogs Out?, Lady In Red and Puppy Love big hits).
The Beatles were good musicians and very influential, true, but they didn’t have an ounce of soul between them. F’rinstance, listen to the Beatles’ version of it, then listen to the Wilson Pickett version. There. Is. No. Comparison. The former makes me think, “hey, clever song.” The latter makes my hair stand on end and tears come to my eyes.
No way. With just one song you can’t appreciate the subtlety of their grand design. Their first big hit was Waterloo, this made the English love them, but pissed off the French. So they had to write Voulez Vous to win them over. And then there were Fernando and Chiquitita, until their Super-[storm]-Troopers had swept over all of Western Europe.
One-hit wonders, indeed.
My, my. What a retarded post. I meant, “F’rinstance, listen to the Beatles’ version of Hey Jude, then listen to the Wilson Pickett version.”
:smack:
Yes, songs do tend to lose something in their original versions by their composers. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: They certainly sometimes do. Or, to put it in other words, sometimes someone comes along and does a better job with a song than the composer. Pickett came along and put that song to bed. Made it his own. The Beatles’ version is pale and clunky by comparison.
Alanis Morissette - “You Oughta Know” was great, but I never liked anything else she did.
Stone Temple Pilots - I really, really liked “Big Bang Baby” (probably because it sounded like Redd Kross and not STP) but could have done without the numerous Pearl Jam/Soundgarden/Alice in Chains soundalikes.
And then, there’s Joe Cocker.
But, you see, when people don’t agree with those two beginning points, they don’t care if people who hold them dear “take them seriously” or not.
I like the Beatles well enough. I wouldn’t choose a Beatles cd for my desert isle. In fact, I doubt one would make my top 100 (not surprising since at least half would be operas). Personally, I think Beethoven was the be all and end all, if it comes to that.
The original isn’t always the best.
The classic example: “All Along the Watchtower”.
I was trying to think of an example, that’ll do nicely. We’ve had loads of “Covers That Are Better Than the Originals” threads around here. For that matter, Hendrix’s version of The Star-Spangled Banner WAY better than the original. 
OK, Moderator chiming in here, perhaps a little late, but better late than whatever.
DING! ::: ringing moderator bell :::
Personal insults are NOT tolerated in Cafe Society. See Forum Rules: PLEASE READ, and note the section “On Good Manners and Common Courtesy”.
You can attack the Beatles’ works all you want, but you cannot attack a poster who likes/dislikes the Beatles. I trust the distinction is clear. Behave.
Most any Dylan tune that’s more famous for someone else’s cover is so for a good reason.
C’mon, everyone who doesnt agree that the early Beatles oeurve is actually a brilliant parody is a :wally
Okay, folks, if you’re gonna hijack, do it right. How could you let this thread devolve into the mention of “artists that only ever put out one song, dozens of times?” without mentioning Z.Z. Top?
(Bubbadog steps in sees the ugliness that is unfolding in what should be a good subject thread, checks for mods, and against his better judgement, puts his jr. plastic mod hat on)
[jrplasticmodhaton]
C’mon kids. Let’s just all agree that some people don’t like the Beatles, that other people have some compelling reasons to submit that the Beatles weren’t repititious, while others think that they are (and I’m suspecting Paul M’s voice may be the reason behind latter)
[/jrplasticmodhat]
I’m all for Britney Agulera Lo being a one-hit-wonder