I Hate Beatles Fans

[BlinkingDuck]

@Blaster_Master

Basically, my point is that sometimes the master is always the master, and sometimes the pupil surpasses the master. First is meaningful historically, but nothing more.

Weird how people can have such dramtically different views…

In my opinion if the master has pupils and those pupils don’t surpass the master…then the master SUCKS!

Pupils SHOULD surpass their master. If they don’t then that means the field is in decline.

Masters should also get some credit for the success of their pupils…unless the master is a blaster of course.

[E-Sabbath]

It’s not just that the Beatles were first. Or that they wrote such complex music. Or that they were packaged and sorted. Or that they inspired so many other bands. Or that they had their hands in so many genres of music, inventing several of them, redefining others.
Or that they had so many number ones.
Or that their songs speak to so many people.
Or that their music, even today, can calm an angry mob and make them all better. (Remember, Hey Jude and the airport last year?)
It’s all of it. They didn’t do any one thing. They did so many things. They shattered the box that music was in. You don’t have to like them. Enough other people do. But you do have to appreciate them.

(Reverend Horton Heat, Black Country Communion, and Armored Saint, by the way.)

[The_Second_Stone]

@Leaffan

Well, according to Rolling Stone Magazine The Beatles have 4 albums in the top 10.

1. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
2. Revolver
3. Rubber Soul
4. The White Album.
   But what do they know?

ETA: This is based on artistic merit, not sales.

And Abbey Road is head and shoulders better than any of those albums. IMO.

[Mewl_Dear]

I fuckin hate people who try to marginalize the Beatles just to boost their internet badassery.

[Jack_Batty]

You know Paul and Ringo still read everything that anybody writes about them on the internet. Think how *they *must feel?

[Rysdad]

@Mewl_Dear

Steve Miller blows!

Yes, yes he does.

And, CheeseDonkey…disliking the Beatles doesn’t make you cool, and advertising your incomprehension (like you did here) makes you look, well, stupid.

[Argent_Towers]

What Beatles lyric could hold a candle to this work of genius?

Abra, abra cadabra.
I want to reach out and grab ya.
Abra, abra cadabra.
Abracadabra.

Hey, I like the Steve Miller Band, but I accept it for what it is - light hearted music that doesn’t take itself seriously.

I also think it’s ridiculous to act like the Beatles’ early career as a cute boy-band idolized by screaming teenage girls invalidates everything they did after that period. Get back to me with the Jonas Brothers comparison when the Jonas Brothers release a series of musically groundbreaking albums.

[Frank]

How come everyone hasn’t started signing off with the music they’re listening to right now?

Z. Z. Top (on a Wrangler’s commercial)

[Leaffan]

@CheeseDonkey

My definition of greatness can be convoluted, however often it at least partly has to do with: What created the band’s purported greatness? Was it the music it produced, or was it media/marketing created hype, often apocryphal stories and notable tragedies, trials and tribulations…and oh yeah, they made music too?

The Beatles’ greatness is a result of the latter.

Which is why I stated earlier that many of the bands that achieved immortality do not deserve that immortality. They are immortal not because of their music - they are immortal more because of the peripherals. And once immortality due to peripherals has been achieved, the music is once again brought to the fore.

Just look at Michael Jackson. Peripheral: He died. Then once again, his music became super duper popular.
Cultish followings, like the Beatles have, also seem to develop after years of retrospect. People look at the past with rose colored glasses - the past was better than the now, the present can never be better than the past, and therefore nothing today can usurp anything from back then…which is why today no modern baseball player can ever be as good as Willie Mays and Willie Mays could never be as good as Babe Ruth. People prop up the past because they want to believe what the past created is better than anything today can create. They get cultishly-obsessed with defending it, because they cannot tolerate the thought of some present or some more recent past being better than the past they are trying to sustain.

Only when the current present and the past are both in the past, after a future has come and gone, can people really look at anything with any sort of objectivity. But it takes time. A lot of time sometimes. Only in recent years, for example, have people begun to think that, hey…maybe Mays WAS better than Ruth.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

This is just wrong on so many levels.

I don’t listen to The Beatles and reminisce about a past through rose-coloured glasses. I appreciate their music for what it is.

From an artistic perspective, I also appreciate:

The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Doors
The Beach Boys
Carole King
Gordon Lightfoot
Simon and Garfunkle
Black Sabbeth
Arlo Guthrie
Deep Purple
James Taylor
Alan Parsons Project
Electric Light Orchestra
Alice Cooper
Frank Zappa

That’s all I can think of for now.

[Frank]

@CheeseDonkey

Only in recent years, for example, have people begun to think that, hey…maybe Mays WAS better than Ruth.

Actually, we had a fairly recent discussion in the game room arguing whether Mays was even the best of his time, let alone better than Ruth.

(The LiftMaster commercial didn’t have any music.)

[Eonwe]

This is clearly pointless, but . . .

@CheeseDonkey

That’s why so many guys who died early or tragic deaths live on as “legends” - because their stories were super tragic, and people are attracted to tragic stories.

Elvis
Cobain
Marley
Morrison

And more recently, Michael Jackson.

Remember, before Michael Jackson died, he hadn’t necessarily left the spotlight, but his popularity and mind share had declined since his heyday. Then he kicked and, oh my gosh, he was everybody’s favorite singer again! He was suddenly the greatest thing since the flushable toilet!

Your perception of the status of all of these people before and after their deaths shows that you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

[Jack_Batty]

@Argent_Towers

I also think it’s ridiculous to act like the Beatles’ early career as a cute boy-band idolized by screaming teenage girls invalidates everything they did after that period. Get back to me with the Jonas Brothers comparison when the Jonas Brothers release a series of musically groundbreaking albums.

Which will never happen unless they get laid and start doing drugs.

So … what? Two years? Three tops?

This (which is in a constant loop in my head)

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Jack_Batty

You know Paul and Ringo still read everything that anybody writes about them on the internet. Think how *they *must feel?

What about the other two? Don’t you think they have an internet connection in (rock and roll) heaven?

[Leaffan]

@RickJay

In all seriousness, the accusation that Rolling Stone is essdentially a Baby Boomer publication is an accurate one. According to them, of the ten best albums ever made, nine were made in a twelve-year stretch and six of those nine by just two artists. The only outlier was made just five years after than twelve-year stretch and in the 32 years since nothing’s topped them, and few albums have come close. Indeed, most of the top fifty are from the same time period.

I really like me some Beatles, and I admit it is theoretically possible that all the best albums ever made were made between 1963 and 1974, but frankly it really, really strains credulity. Where the hell is “Achtung Baby”? Where’s “Fear of a Black Planet?” “Rumors?” Am I seriously being asked to believe that “Plastic Ono Band” is the 21st best album of all time? Shit, man, it isn’t in the top thousand and wouldn’t be The Tragically Hip’s fourth best LP. (I admit my opinion here is a minority one, but the hell with it; it’s only well regarded because Lennon’s name is on it.) Rolling Stone is so preposterously old, so dominated by 57-year-old cranks, they they should hold their business meetings at a Swiss Chalet at 4:30 in the afternoon.

I suppose that it’s theoretically possible that all the best music was made before 1974 or 1980 or whatever arbitrary old fart cutoff one wants to use, but… oh, hell, of course it isn’t true, it’s a million miles from being true. I’m sorry, but U2 rocks, and Prince rocks, and REM rocks, and Peter Gabriel rocks, and The Police rock, and Public Enemy rocks, and Pearl Jam rocks, and The Beastie Boys rock, and Springsteen rocks, and Nirvana and the Fugees and NWA and The White Stripes and hell, throw in the Hip, too. I’ll put “Fully Completely” on any day, any time.

Achtung Baby - I know a couple of unremarkable songs on the album. Rolling Stone has it at #62.
Fear of a Black Planet - I’ve never heard of the album or the band. Rolling Stone has it at #300.
Rumors - Great album - That’s why Rolling Stone ranked it at # 25.

The Tragically Hip are relative unknowns outside Canada, and rightly so. They had a handful of decent songs 20 years ago and that’s it.

The Beastie Boys, the Fugees, NWA and The White Stripes? I do not know one single song by any of these bands.

I’ll have the quarter chicken with fries, please.

ETA: Outlandos d’Amour is at number 434.

[kaylasdad99]

Oy, I can hear your arteries hardening from here. Plus, you’ll be up all night with your heartburn.

Bring him the mashed potatoes instead of the fries. And just butter, not the gravy.

[johnpost]

just for fun picking some early years to see who rocked, not a thorough study, just random picks done quickly

1963
She Loves You - Beatles
Come On - Rolling Stones
Do You Want to Know a Secret - The Beatles

1964
Love Me Do - The Beatles
All Day and All of the Night - Kinks
Little Red Rooster - Rolling Stones
You Really Got Me - The Kinks

1965
Satisfaction - The Rolling Stones
Ticket to Ride - The Beatles

1966
Light My Fire - The Doors
White Rabbit - Jefferson Airplane
Paperback Writer - The Beatles

1967
Are You Experienced - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Axis: Bold as Love - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
The Grateful Dead - Grateful Dead
A Whiter Shade of Pale - Procol Harum
All You Need Is Love - The Beatles
Monterey - Eric Burdon & The Animals,
Nights in White Satin - The Moody Blues

1968
Electric Ladyland - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
A Saucerful of Secrets - Pink Floyd
Music from Big Pink - The Band
Anthem of the Sun - Grateful Dead
Lady Madonna - The Beatles

rock on Fab Four

[Trick_Rider]

@CheeseDonkey

Who were attracted to the Beatles when they were active? Screaming fanatical teenage girls.

What are screaming fanatical teenage girls attracted to nowadays? Jonas Brothers. Justin Bieber.

So basically, The Beatles were nothing more than the Jonas Brothers of the 1960s. It was a band of Justin Biebers.

I can see what you mean if you’re referring to their early career. I think of the band in terms of their whole run as a band of Justin Biebers that became a band of Becks. Yes, they did start out with somewhat generic bubblegum pop. The later experimentation is what made them great.

@Leaffan

The Tragically Hip are relative unknowns outside Canada, and rightly so. They had a handful of decent songs 20 years ago and that’s it.

Blasphemy!

Listening to The Hip right now, but it’s not my fault! They just came up on shuffle!

[PandaBear77]

FWIW, OP, I don’t like the Beatles, either.

I mean, they’re ok and all, but meh. Elvis is where it’s at!

Plus John was a douchecanoe. I’m sorry he got shot and his little boy was left without a father, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t still an asshole.

[Argent_Towers]

People always say this, and I don’t understand why. Why was John Lennon an asshole?

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@E-Sabbath

It’s not just that the Beatles were first. Or that they wrote such complex music. Or that they were packaged and sorted. Or that they inspired so many other bands. Or that they had their hands in so many genres of music, inventing several of them, redefining others.
Or that they had so many number ones.
Or that their songs speak to so many people.
Or that their music, even today, can calm an angry mob and make them all better. (Remember, Hey Jude and the airport last year?)
It’s all of it. They didn’t do any one thing. They did so many things. They shattered the box that music was in. You don’t have to like them. Enough other people do. But you do have to appreciate them.

Really, I think the Beatles themselves said it best:

He roller-coaster, he got early warning, He got muddy water, he one mojo filter, He say, ‘One and one and one is three’

I mean, who can disagree with that?