Who DOESN'T like the Beatles?

Today in class we the topic of discussion somehow turned to music. I mentioned that I didn’t care too much for the Beatles. The class acted shocked, absolutely shocked, that I didn’t like them.

Except for one or two songs, I don’t really like their music. Anyone else with me?

I’ve a minimal amount of time for them. They did some fascinating things. But so did a helluva lot of other people at the same time.

I can never help but feel the the Beatles just fell in the exact place to exploit the incipient commercialism of popular music, while having enough musicality to write good songs, while keeping a decent level of artistic control allowing them to experiment with said songs, and while generally being good friends. Once any one of these elements went wrong, it was Goodnight Vienna. The reason that most of Lennon’s albums, and everything that McCartney has done, is awful, is because they’re nothing special in themselves.

What cannot be denied, however, is the influence the Beatles had. Like Elvis, it’s something quite independent from any song.

The Rolling Stones? :eek: :smiley:

The Beatles did some amazing progressive material in the twilight of their career. But other than that, I have little time for them. I certainly can’t stand their pop songs…yuccchh!!

Still, the Rolling Stones are worse. With the possible exception of the Beastie Boys, the Stones are the most overrated band of all time.

The Beatles were at the right place at the right time, but GorillaMan you’re underestimating just how much the Beatles made it the right place and time.

It’s hard for anyone who wasn’t around in the early 60s to realize how greatly they created modern music out of nothingness. And how quickly they grew to greatness.

The early songs were fun and catchy and universal and minor. But then they transformed. The Beatles of 1963 were nothing like the Beatles of 1964 who were nothing like the Beatles of 1965 who were nothing like the Beatles of 1966 who were nothing like the Beatles of 1967 who were nothing like the Beatles of 1968. They brought shape and coherence to all of 60s rock music. They did not do it alone, obviously, but they made everybody else better by their example. And the need and desire to compete with them.

The Beatles were a whole, made better by one another and by the association with George Martin, and none of this survived their ending their friendships. Doesn’t matter. At their best, they were brilliance personified.

There is all too much music I don’t like or don’t appreciate and I’m sorry that it has to be that way. In the same vein I’m sorry for you if you feel that way about the Beatles. Nothing I say will make a difference, I know. But the Beatles are important and influential because of their music, and not the other way around.

I like a handful of songs but I’m pretty apathetic towards them on the whole. I’m much more of a Monkees fan.


You and the late Allan Sherman.

I love 'em for the most part, although there are a few songs of theirs I find just juvenile (Girl) or insufferable (Revolution #9).

Allan Sherman?

Missed it by that much!



This is exactly what I liked and admired most about the Beatles. I mentioned it to friends at the time. Every album they came out with was different from what they’d done before, and all of their music was different from what anyone else was doing.

True of many other musicians in the 60s. Perhaps the one difference is that they made so many albumsin this way? And should that be the measure of greatness?

I’m not going to deny that the Beatles weren’t very influential and important, or that they were technically skilled. I just don’t like their music.

Just curious, what kind of music do you like?

Heeeey… I like the beastie boys. Not cause they are particularly great or anything, but because they are fun. :slight_smile:

Oh, and the Beatles are okay. I’m sure they were brilliant in their day, but that was like almost half a century ago. It got old, I guess. To me, they are the band I liked when I was 10.

I agree with most of your post, except the beginning of this part. Their early songs were great too, and they were hardly universal or minor. They were one of the hardest rocking groups around for their time.

And (this is for those who think they were just at the right place at the right time) there were several other things that set them apart from other bands of the time.
They wrote their own songs. Back then, no one did that.
They were anti-commercial. They didn’t want to release How do you Do It, even though it was a surefire #1 hit.

I enjoy some of The Beatles’ more experimental works, but for the most part they didn’t do the kind of music that interests me. Nothing against them as musicians, just not my sort of thing.

The Beatles have done some of the best rock and roll ever.

They have also done some mind-numbing crap.

Some people treat all beatles songs as if they could do no wrong.

I concur.

Let it Be Naked made it clear to me that Phil Spector was right in what he did on the original release.

I was such a huge fan in high school in the 70s, I guess I kind of overdosed on them. I tried listening to a CD of Sgt. Pepper a few years ago, having grown up with the LP, and I couldn’t listen to it all the way. I knew every note so well, and the way the songs didn’t segue into one another on the CD made listening to it painful.

There’s very little music from my teenage years that I’m still interested in listening to. The Beatles are just one more group. Their pre-Revolver albums were, at the time, of little interest to adults or males. They were very much the N’Sync of their day.