Change!–We can cha-ange!
I like WEEN a lot. So much that after I last saw them play, I started a thread about them. No one replied 
I’m over it…NOT. Their album The Mollusk is extremely Beatles-esque and a asychedelic masterpiece and I can confidently say I’m probably the only person on this board who recognizes their genius.
I feel better now.
Hey Roland, TFF is playing in Reno this weekend! Neener neener neener!!!
I also find this statement difficult to fathom. If we could leave aside the whole thing with Tears For Fears for now…and even the fact that you just don’t like The Beatles…could you give us some their songs that you find non-musical, disjointed and incoherently bizarre.
I’ll stipulate a few just to avoid argument.
Revolution 9
You Know My Name
Tomorrow Never Knows (this hurts)
and just to make it a little easier, even the Harrison sitar songs.
I’v got a couple of rambling points I was thinking of that aren’t really cohesive, so I’ve made a list (but take this with a grain of salt):
- Tears For Fears has the Beatles as an influence. It really shows. On top of that, they’ve admitted to it too:
2)The Beatles had influences too. A band’s influences and roots aren’t the sum of their work. One of my favorite singer-songwriters, John Wesley Harding, calls Nic Jones one of his influences. In fact, he did an album of songs done by Nic Jones. I really did not enjoy it at all. Cheryl Wheeler cites Richard Thompson as an influence. I can’t stand (most of) Richard Thompson’s work. Somehow, I get by.
3)TFFF (you can guess what the extra F is for at this point) are a fine band. In. My Opinion. Opinions are subjective, especially about music. Look at Arnold Schoenberg’s supporters and detractors, his atonal/pantonal music and his subsquent followers and their further development with his music and 12 note theory. Talk about divisive opinions there.
4)The Beatles were a fine band too. Their impact on modern music is really incalculable but it is undoubtedly huge. My interest in their music waxes and wanes but it’s only because it seems so omnipresent. It’s hard for me to enjoy music that I’ve heard my whole life. But that doesn’t detract from its importance.
5)Hi Roland!
6)Speaking of point #5, this might be part of the problem. Your perceivable, interminable, discussions and allusions to TFFF and your screen name can be thought of as an obsession. Those factors might work against you in this Beatles vs. TFFF thread (and all others). (In other words, maybe slow down a bit). 
Just to clarify: I didn’t mean that I find the majority of their songs overall are disjointed and nonmusical…just most of the ones that contain a level of complexity concurrent with what I usually enjoy. Actually, Ass For a Hat (nice name, by the way) nailed a couple of 'em with Revolution 9 and, to some extent, You Know My Name. I actually enjoy Tomorrow Never Knows, so no worries there, Ass :). Believe it or not, I actually know the pain of which you speak…the end of the original version of Mothers Talk is near and dear to my heart, but I cannot help but admit that most would find it decidedly less than pleasing.
stpauler: I know that TFF list The Beatles as their number one influence. So do a lot of bands, half of which sound nothing like The Beatles whatsoever. I actually don’t count TFF in that half (hell, just listen to their latest album), but I still think that, while you can see where one has its basic roots in the other, the two sounds are fundamentally different enough to be judged independent of one another.
Your points 2, 3, and 4 are valid, I agree with them, and I have no other comment.
Five and six, I’ve addressed before, including here in this thread. But, since I really can’t blame you if you haven’t read every word I’ve written thus far (I’ve been a touch prolific), have a look at this thread. I’m aware of the problem, I’m just not sure how to fix it without either changing my username or abstaining from mentioning Tears For Fears at all for a long period of time…and even that second measure might not work, since people have a tendency to make TFF-related comments/jokes at me anyway whenever I post in the thread (again, not that I don’t appreciate ‘em, I’m just sayin’) based on my username alone.
I just hope I’ve got this whole Beatles mess sorted out. I’m not dissing anyone for liking the Beatles (except insofar as I did so in the referenced thread, which was basically just me being a moron, so I ask that you ignore that). All I ask is that nobody flame me for not liking them, and most of all, don’t insist that I have to like them because of how great and awesome and wonderful they obviously are, as proved by <insert 50 pages of statistics here>. As you might have figured out, that sort of thing gets to me after a while. 
Okay, eventually, I will stop posting to add supporting points. “Eventually”, however, is not now.
I just want to point out, for those that seem confused by the notion – Paisley Park, for one – that it is entirely possible (and indeed often practical) to recognize the greatness of an artist or a piece of work without actually liking it.
Case in point: Exapno Mapcase states that he doesn’t like classical music, yet he still recognizes its importance in the history of musical development, and he respects the fact that many find it ingenius and enjoy it a great deal for that reason. The only place I would beg to differ with him is when he says that it is his fault, rather than that of classical music, that he does not enjoy it. My own position would be that there is no “fault” at all, on the part of himself, classical music, or anybody/anything, contained in his enjoyment (or lack thereof) of any piece or genre of art.
Saying that classical music, or The Beatles, have not achieved greatness, is stupid and wrong.
Saying that classical music, or The Beatles, are “bad”, is not stupid or wrong per so, but it is pretty much irrelevant…what is “bad” supposed to mean?
Saying that you don’t like classical music, or The Beatles…now there’s the ticket. It is subjective in that the end result (liking or disliking) is indisputably left
up to the individual, but it can nonetheless be discussed objectively, via reasons and qualities thereof. Debating it is a bit of a strange endeavor; a debate generally requires a statement of some sort that we can assert or refute, and when the only statement being made is “I like X”, there’s not much else that can be said in the way of argument. This sort of topic, then, is the defining line between that which can reasonably be discussed, and that which can reasonably be debated.
Where am I going with this? Simple. You can’t prove that I should like The Beatles because of their greatness, and I can’t prove that you shouldn’t like The Beatles just because I don’t judge music by the greatness of its artist. You can assert that you like The Beatles, and then you can provide your reasoning, and I can accept or reject it at my desire. I can say that I don’t like them, and I can provide my reasoning, and you can accept or reject it at your desire. Clearly, most here do not use the same criteria to judge music as I do. Therefore, your conclusions about what you ultimately do or do not like are going to be different from mine. It doesn’t mean that either of us is using faulty reasoning, or has an invalid point of view. It just means that we look at things differently.
So, to sum up yet another long-ass post from yours truly: yes, The Beatles are Great, but personally, I don’t really care. If you think I’m completely off base, then guess what? You’re just as correct as I am, because we’re both correct in our own perception, which is the only place that anything artistic really matters. I don’t believe that real-world events affect the relative quality of a piece of art. Many disagree. But all of us are right. Dig?
Seriously, I’d change your username.
Showing up with a name like Roland Orzabal, proclaiming TFF the best band ever, and your namesake the greatest musical genius of the 20th century (SNERK;)) and then proceeding to call The Beatles simplistic and boring is just kind of a total sensory overload.
Witness:
Random_Guy: TFF is my favorite band, and I appreciate The Beatles, but don’t particularly care for their music.
Or
Roland Orzabal: Roland Orzabal is teh greatest!!!11!!1! The Beatles? Holy crap they’re simplistic and boring!!!11!!!1!/1
Fair enough.
Which I didn’t do, and have made numerous statements in this thread alone clarifying that that is precisely what I am not doing; if you still honestly think that is my position, I really can’t help you…
Which I didn’t do; I said “one of the greatest” (it ain’t pedantry; there’s a significant difference there), and I’ve given reasons why I believe this to be the case, and I’ve explained that I under no circumstances place Roland above The Beatles in terms of sheer mental musical mettle…
Which I did, once, in a moment of frivolity that I have since admitted was inaccurate and unjustified, and have since clarified my position (at length) to be that I personally find the music of the Beatles simplistic and boring…
Yeah. It probably would be. If I had done that stuff. Which I didn’t. Seriously, were you kidding? Or did you not read the thread, or are you being willfully obtuse based solely on my username? I know based on what I’ve seen of your posting history that you are an intelligent person, more than enough so to understand the points I’ve been making throughout this thread, so it’s got to be one of the above.
I honestly can’t tell if that’s supposed to be sarcastic or a good-natured jibe, so I’ll take just it at face value. I never said anything equating to “Roland Orzabal is teh greatest”. I have noted that people tend to assume that that is my position, which observation led to A) me starting the thread in which I outline this perception issue and ask for opinions about changing my username, and B) me starting this thread to illustrate my actual position on both Tears For Fears and The Beatles. From (B), I would hope it would be clear by now that I don’t think “Roland Orzabal is teh greatest!!!11!!1!”, and that I believe my point-blank statement that “The Beatles are simplistic and boring” was ill-considered, though my overall personal opinion of their music incorporates both of those qualities.
Good-natured, man. Chill out. 'Swy I included the smilies.
To clarify: yes I was kidding about the stuff I said in that post. But I do think you should change your username. Just IMHO.
Ok. Good enough. No need to apologize…between this and the Pit thread I’m speechifyin’ in, I just REALLY need to get my brain out of full-bore Overexplain & Debate Mode. People are liable to think I’m either an android or a babbling loon. Or a loony babbling android. Which might actually be kind of cool. But…
Would it like Tears For Fears?!?!
The mind boggles.
What if it were a paranoid android?
Then it wouldn’t remember…it wouldn’t remember…why wouldn’t it remember my name?! Off with its head, man, off with its head, man; why wouldn’t it remember my name (I guess it does…)?
Hey, that’s it! I’ll just change my username to Thom Yorke! No more associations with Tears For Fears at all! It’s brilliant! Whaddaya think?
You must work in marketing…