Yeah, well then why was Bob Dylan so impressed that he took up rock and roll?
As I said before, they were innovative from the beginning. Read any book on Rock & Roll history.
And thanks for the insult. Trying to disguise it with “at the time” doesn’t work. Are you so insecure in your masculinity and maturity that you have to attack those of other people?
I actually like the Beatles. But as a matter of principle I think most bands are overrated, especially the still-popular classic-rock era performers.
The Beatles are the band that I think is the most over-rated that I still like. Even Pink Floyd, whom I like and I do NOT think is over-rated, could not withstand the Beatles fame without being overrated, and the Wall is to all other band’s albums as Gods are to Men.
So, I guess compared to most people who like the music of that era, I don’t like the beatles. Except I do 
I hate the Beatles. I disliked the Beatles before I started liking Tears For Fears, at which point everybody and his/her brother insisted that I must like the Beatles. This has resulted in an excess of people playing the Beatles at me, which in turn has caused me to truly despise the Beatles. My ex-girlfriend was a Beatlemaniac, but we figured out early on that we each hated the other’s music and so it was best not to discuss it. Nonetheless, I’ve heard everything they’ve ever released, and with the exception of one or two songs out of the entire oeuvre, I don’t like it.
“But Tears For Fears sounds like the Beatles!”
No, they don’t. You can argue that The Seeds Of Love (the album, not the song, which is “Sowing the Seeds Of Love”) was inspired by the Beatles, but it is far more complex, multilayered and varying than anything the Beatles ever did. None of their other albums come even close. So don’t try playing that angle.
To be honest, I don’t listen to music very much. I like a lot of classic rock, but I haven’t really heard a representative sample of the genera. The Beatles are actually one of the few bands that I’ve heard a good sized amount of music from, so they’re one of the very few bands that I have a definate opinion about whether or not I like their music.
Other than classic rock, I listen to pretty much anything that I find pleasant. I like lots of individual songs by bands of all generas. I also like 8-bit video game music- I have a whole winamp playlist of nothing but Final Fantasy 1 songs!
I don’t like them much, no.
It’s not that I don’t respect what they did as musicians, because I play a couple instruments and I can appreciate that the chord structure of “Yesterday” or even “I Saw Her Standin’ There” isn’t exactly run-of-the-mill three-chord rock. I like some of the songs that they did, such as “Come Together” and “Drive My Car.”
It’s not that I don’t appreciate their period in musical history, or how they bore up creatively under the tremendous pressure of their own stardom.
I just don’t think that everything they did was gold, that’s all. I have one of their greatest hits albums (the blue double-set) and that’s about all I think I need. I think of them on the same level as… say… Foreigner. A few good hits, a bunch of other songs, pretty good construction, and the Beatles deserve an extra nod because they were around first.
This doesn’t mean that because I like Billy Joel and Elton John that I therefore must enjoy their musical predecessors.
I never cared for 'em much. I remember hearing Beatles songs as a little kid and not being too impressed by them then either, although I can also remember singing along to those of the early hits that were easy enough for me to pick up.
I wasn’t around to see the Beatles change the musical landscape of the world or what have you, but I won’t argue against their influence. However, I cannot think of a time when I’ve ever actually wanted to listen to a Beatles song. I don’t turn off the radio when they come on, but I don’t believe I’ve ever thought “I’d like to hear ‘Help’ now” or “Alright, it’s ‘I am the Walrus’!” I can’t imagine that I’d ever be willing to pay money for a Beatles recording.
Is this where you sign up? Can I get on the anti-Doors and Led Zepplin list, too?
Actually, early, early Beatles had a lot of raw energy and were pretty rockin’, but it all went downhill from there…
I’ve got two friends that dislike the Beatles.
They both like the Rolling Stones and are both surprised that the Beatles were as popular as they were/are.
My father hated the Beatles, my mother is indifferent.
I don’t like 'em either. Their early stuff is horribly out of tune. Their later stuff is more technically proficient, but just doesn’t do anything for me, except for a couple songs that I like.
I’m not a fan. Couple of good songs, but I could say that about the Monkees. The Beatles just don’t do it for me.
I’ve ODed on them, but The Beatles are pop masters. I don’t understand any arguments about The Beatles being simplistic, because they certainly are not. Anybody who thinks so must not have listened to a lot of Beatles or is deaf.
Their music just displays so much variety. It constantly surprises me. It’s not cookie cutter verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus. Some songs do fit the mold, but the majority of their work constantly pushes the pop idiom. I mean, what other band can make a popular hit with a song that contains a passage of 11/8 - 4/4 - 7/8 like “Here Comes the Sun” (The "Sun, sun, sun, here it comes part.) Or the alternating 3/4 and 4/4 of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”? Or how about the modal simplicity of “Eleanor Rigby” (there’s a good reason this song is a perennial jazz favorite, covered by such powerhouses as Chick Corea and Wes Montgomery. Booker T & the MGs even have a smokin’ cover of it.) The Beatles music trancends genre.
And Ringo Starr. For a long time, I thought he was just a mediocre drummer. Granted, he’s not the most technically gifted percussionist. But the man is inventive as all hell. His drum parts are original and musical. Unlike most drummers he doesn’t fall into the 1-3 kick, 2-4 snare trap over and over again. He almost never duplicates a drum beat on any two songs. Listen to the rhythmical variations in a song like “She Said” and tell me Ringo isn’t a musical drummer. His drumming style is loose, but has undeniable swing, and The Beatles would be worse off without him.
For an interesting analysis of the entire Beatles canon, song by song, both from a lyrical and music standpoint, check out this impressive web page.
As for Tears for Fears, no doubt they were a great band, but I just don’t hear them as being anywhere near as inventive and genre-challenging as The Beatles.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. The other bands did it only after The Beatles had done it first. Name any “innovative” song from the 60s and I’ll show you where The Beatles did it first.
Sorry again, but you’re talking out your ass. I can think of dozens of Beatles songs (especially from the Revolver era on) that are just as “complex, multilayered and varying” as that crappy song. And they did it without benefit of banks of synthesizers, even. But it’s probably pointless to argue musical merit with someone whose favorite band is Tears For Fears.
Tears for Fears are one of the alltime greats, but they’re still lower on that list than the Beatles. I own zero Beatles recordings; I find most of their stuff mostly boring. But there’s no question that without the Beatles, pop music today would be an entirely different animal. Plus there’d be no Bangles. Not that that wouldn’t be a *good *thing . . .