Who honestly believes the Beatles sucked?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I just don’t get this. I’ve recently met two people who seriously seemed to think the Beatles were a talentless band, and then came this comment in the BBQ pit:
Jackknifed Juggernaut:

[qoute]
Also, for those of you comparing Oasis to The Beatles…Why? The Beatles were absolute crap. I’d call them the Backstreet Boys of their generation. And since popular music today is so crappy, I’d categorize Oasis as one of the 4 or 5 best bands in the world today.

[/quote]

I honestly don’t understand this opinion. Now, I don’t have a Beatles record in my collection, but I certainly believe they are the best pop band of all time. One complaint I’ve heard is that the Beatles were just a “three-chord pop band” and hell, anybody can do that. Wrong. I’ve played through many Beatles songs, and hardly any of them I would describe as three-chord songs. Their harmonic progressions, especially in the later albums, were very interesting.

Let’s pick a couple songs at random:

A Hard Day’s Night – 7 different chords (not counting 7ths as different than major triads)

Can’t Buy Me Love - 6 chords

When I’m 64 – 8 chords

Get Back – OK, here’s basically a 3-chord song, depending on whether you want to count D and D/A as the same chord.

Eight Days a Week - 5 chords

Anyhow, basically, I don’t think the categorization of the Beatles as a 3-chord band is based on any sort of fact. That said, I don’t think being a 3-chord band makes you bad, anyway. Look at the Ramones or AC/DC. Who cares how many chords you use as long as you do your job.

Quite simply, the Beatles wrote solid pop tunes. They had great hooks, great melodies, and great orchestration. Back-up vocals and harmonies are used expertly, and production on their albums was impeccible. Listen to any Beatles album at random, and not just how many of their songs are great songs. Almost any track off any album can be a single. How many artists today can boast that? One of the amazing things about the Beatles is how trasferrable they are into other genres of music. Chick Corea plays a beautiful interpretation of Eleanor Rigby, jazz pianists consider “Yesterday” a standard, Pearl Jam’s covered “I’ve Got a Feeling,” I’ve heard flamenco bands play “I Wanna Hold Your Hand,” Bela Fleck and the Flecktones have a variation of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” and “Michelle.”

Are you trying to tell me that leading musicians from different musical backgrounds don’t know what they’re talking about either when they pay homage to The Beatles by covering their works? Or how about this? – A quick search on CDNow tells me that they’ve been listed as an influence by the following artists: Big Star, Kate Bush, the Cars, the Pixies, the Kinks, Queen, Prince, Teenage Fanclub,
R.E.M., the Vaselines, Husker Du, Iron Butterfly, John Hiatt, YES, the Smiths, the Who, Matthew Sweet, and a whole lot more that I won’t bore you with.

I believe my ears when I hear the Beatles, and my ears tell me, the Beatles are probably the best all-around pop band ever. And deservedly so. How can you possible compare the Beatles to the Backstreet Boys. Twenty years from now, nobody will give a damn about the Backstreet Boys. I don’t think any respectable musician will be playing Backstreet covers. You certainly won’t hear the phrase “as influential as the Backstreet Boys’ Black and Blue” except in a sarcastic context.

So please, tell me, why do you hate the Beatles music?

2

I don’t like them simply because they have been rammed down my throat for the past 30 years. Same with Elvis. Sure, the Beatles were okay, I suppose, I just don’t like them. They were not the gods that the media hyped them to be.

3

[Moderator Hat ON]

Sounds like a survey to me. Moving to IMHO.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

4

I kinda feel the same way Lyllyan does.

Did the Beatles suck? No. Are they overrated? Heck yes. The fact that “When I’m 64” uses 8 whole different chords hardly puts their music on a different plane than the “3 chord bands” of the 1960s – the average mediochre jazz tune uses more chords than this.

5

Good point. There’s also the “If Mom likes it, it must suck” demographic, and the “If anything was THAT popular, it must suck” people.

I personally never listen to my old Beatles albums anymore. But in my case, it’s because I can just cue 'em up in my head whenever I want.

6

Gaudere
Sorry – I assumed that at some point this would turn into a semi-factual debate

tracer

The “average mediocre jazz tune” does not necessarily use more than three chords.

Check out Take 5 – 80%+ of it is two chords.
Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue album is mostly based on modal improvisation over one or two chord harmonic patterns.

And let’s not even get into the slew of standards that run the “vi-ii-V-I” or “ii-V-I” progressions in jazz or the 4-chord “Rhythm” changes. (So-called for their borrowing of Gershwin’s “I Got Rhythm”) OK, four is more than 3, but doesn’t prove your point.

Then there is, of course, three chord blues.

Like I said before, the number of chords you use doesn’t make a difference in terms of where you are on the musical plane. Two-chord Miles Davis is great. Eight chord Beatles is great.

7

addendum –

Sorry. I was only thinking of the “B” part of the Rhythm Changes (III-VI-II-V) The A part is the above mentioned “iv-ii-V-I” or, rather “I-iv-ii-V.”

8

DAMMIT! Sorry for another consecutive post. the “iv” should read “vi.” Stupid Roman numerals.

9

Count me in the “overrated” camp. Yes, they had a fair amount of musical talent. Yes, they did some really innovative stuff for the time. But were they the greatest band ever, or even a great band at all? I don’t think so. It’s one of those, “they were good, but not that good” things.

On a personal note, the bottom line for me is that I just don’t like most of their music very much. It’s purely a matter of personal preference. There are a few songs they did that I really enjoy, but given the sheer quantity of music they produced, they had to stumble across my preferences once in a while. And we all know that George sucked and Ringo really sucked. Boom-BAP-boomboom-BAP! Yeah, rock on, Ringo.

10

Well, then, let me add to the OP. If you don’t like The Beatles, or think they are vastly overrated, who deserves the title of best POP/POP-ROCK band of all time? My favorite pop bands would have to be The Jam, The Soft Boys, The Flaming Lips and Radiohead. You can dispute the categorization, as it really is very liquid these days, but I think in terms of good, solid songs, and mass popularity, The Beatles still take the cake.

11

Some of the reasons people don’t like The Beatles (well, people closer to my age) amaze me, and remind me of a story my English teacher told me.
“My first year of teaching, I was going over Shakespeare in a Jr class. Finally someone raised his hand and said he thought this was pretty stupid. When I asked him why, he replied, ‘Because, he just uses a bunch of cliches.’”
Of course, they are cliches to him, because society and pop culture has been flooded with Shakespeare references, we can’t imagine a world without his works.
Well, back in the day, what exactly were The Beatles competing against? The Rolling Stones? Hardly evolutionary, they were a simply a blues band. Hmmmmm, The Turtles? The Five Americans? :wink:
Compared to what they were playing against, and compared to where they came from, the Beatles were influential. They were influenced by rock, country, and standards that Paul’s father listened to. They didn’t want one album to sound like another. And none of their albums did. They began as a lil “R&B combo” (To quote Paul) and by the time of Revolver and Sgt. Peppers, they were much, much more.
Furthermore, unlike most pop groups, they wrote all their own music. And the music was good. Sure, some of Ringo’s work wasn’t that great (“Don’t Pass Me Buy” still makes me laugh) but considering the fact that Lennon and McCartney did not have any formal musical training, the fact that they wrote their own music is pretty amazing. Anybody without training can turn out a crappy poem (See all the Glurge) but few people can create beautiful songs, fast songs, slow songs, ballads, and rockers. When Lennon and McCartney had was talent.
They were also innovative. Maybe “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” wasn’t earth-shattering, but it was certainly a good lil song. However, not too long afterward, Paul wrote “Yesterday”, and recorded with a string-quartet.
George Harrison was the first to regularly use the sitar in his music.
Sgt. Peppers was the first concept album. Furthermore, they recorded Sgt. Peppers with 8 tracks, and that’s it. They didn’t have all the technical wizardry that is regularly used now to turn out truly craptacular music.
There are even more accomplishments, but this is already rather long.

And George Harrison most definately is a good musician. Was he born with the talent to play the guitar? Probably not, he practiced every day until his fingers bled. Did he have any formal training? No, he learned by copying Carl Perkins and Buddy Holly. Can he hold his own against the likes of Eric Clapton? Yes, and he can and does. His song writing abilities matured until he produced love ballads like “Something”, and though this is after The Beatles, the entire All Things Must Pass album.

If influencing hundreds of musicians, (Including the ones listed and others like Sting), writing and recording over 200 songs, all of them different and unique in their own way, producing at least 2 albums a year, as well as 2 movies (well, there was a 3rd one for John), and touring nearly non-stop for four years, doesn’t make you the greatest band of all time, than what exactly is the criteria? What other hurdles did they have to conquere? What more could they have done? How much better did they have to be? I can’t think of a single album that compares to “Revolver” musically. I can’t think of a single song writer that can be compared to Lennon and McCartney.

Ok, end rant now. Sorry this turned out to be so long. Obviously, I have some strong feelings on the topic…

12

I won’t be shamed into thinking the Beatles are anything but overplayed musicans of fair-to-middling quality. I’ve never liked their music to begin with. It just doesnt’ appeal to me. It’s not earthshaking, it doesn’t confer enlightenment, it doesn’t raise the dead or heal the sick.

I’m all for them staying retired, out of the spotlight, and away from me.

13

I personally do not hate the Beatles, but I’m not a fan.

I respect the ground they forged and their talent as musicians/songwriters and the effect their music had on the bands I like now.

The reason I do not like their music probably mostly revolves around the fact that I did not experience it when it was new and groundbreaking. By the time I came around to exploring music, I knew all the Beatles names and what part they played in the band, as well as many song and album titles, before I had even heard a single song by them. They were declared the greatest and most influential band ever, etc. and I suppose that influenced my initial reactions to them.

Then there is the fact that by the time I got around to the music my parents listened to, I’d already been exposed to all the bands that had come after. Music had gone through some serious changes already and I was first and foremost influenced by the modern sounds I was used to hearing.

Case in point: When I hear a remake of a song, and then hear the original, I tend to prefer the remake. When I hear the original, and then the remake, it’s a little more even as to who I prefer (I do like music originating prior to my birth, despite what this post may make it seem), but it does lean a little towards the remake.

I’ve heard the Beatles compared to Oasis before, and frankly that has me scratching my head. Granted, I’m not a big fan of either, but the Beatles were at least innovative, Oasis just borrows from the past, and the Beatles in particular. Where is the comparison?

14

I’ve never liked the Beatles, and I generally prefer pop and rock music from the 50’s and 60’s. Why? To me, they simply don’t sound good. It always sounds rough and unfinished. So they were innovative… big deal, rap was innovative too and it sucks. They influenced a lot of pop bands… big deal. The Sex Pistols influenced nearly every punk/alternative band and let’s face it, the Pistols kinda reek. The Beatles influenced a lot of bands simply because they were new. They came in with a new look and a new sound and 99 out of 100 girls thought they were cute. But new doesn’t mean better. Many people love the Beatles. I really can’t stand any of their music. It just doesn’t sound good to me.

15

Wow, my mind boggles. I didn’t really think anyone would seriously dispute The Beatles’ signifigance. I can understand and accept people who dislike/hate their music as a matter of preference. After all, styles and tastes change. I can even understand the resentment towards the endless recycling of the Beatles[super]TM[/super] Brand over the past 30 years. In my own experience, one of the biggest Beatles fans I’ve known was a pretentious wanker who loved to make lofty pronouncements of their god-like status.

He also loved masturbatory, progressive art-rock but, whereas he succeeded in making me hate prog-rock, I still love the Beatles. The apparent simplicity of their songs masks complex harmonies and chord changes. They introduced the concept of albums as coherent works of art instead of collections of songs. Their work in the studio was pioneering. Perhaps the word “best” turns people off. Would anyone dispute the phrase “most influential band”? Also, what pepperlandgirl said. A very spirited defense! BTW, I get a big kick out of Don’t Pass Me By too.

pulykamell, I’m a big fan of The Jam, The Flaming Lips and Radiohead too. I’m listening to The Soft Bulletin as I type this. It looks like I definitely have to check out The Soft Boys.

Cheers,
Hodge

16

The Beatles are a very talented band, but XTC is much better and more imaginative than even the Beatles. XTC is the one band that truly would deserve all the hoopla that Elvis and the Beatles get all the time.

17

I knew we could count on PLG to speak on our behalf.

Pepper, you rock!

18

Some people are saying they don’t like The Beatles because by the time they heard them, they weren’t anything neat. Well, I was slowly introduced to The Beatles six years ago. Before that I of course knew who they were, but I didn’t know who they were. I listened to mainly Country (Thanks Grandma) and Classic ROck (70s and 80s) When I became interested in The Beatles, to me they were new. And now six years later, I have all the albums, books, posters, movies, interviews, that I can find. And they are still new to me. I listen to a wide array of music, from Sting to Enya, from Beethoven to Chuck Berry, from the latest pop crap (I like VH1, so shoot me) to Country. But to me, the pinnacle of all music is The Beatles.
You may not want to admit it, because you don’t understand it, but they were, and probably still are the most influential band of all time. They did things that nobody else did. They took a new and wholly different approach to music than anybody had before them. If not, why would so many different groups, from so many different genres name them as their biggest influences?
Comparing them to rap, because rap is innovative too, doesn’t make sense. Rap artists may influence each other, and maybe a few fringe musicians in other genres, but Rap’s influence is not felt throughout the musical scene.

And thank you poohpah chalupa and everybody else.
I wonder if pldennison is going to find his way to this thread?

19

What songs, specifically, sound unfinished? The songs from Please Please Me? They recorded that whole album in 10 hours, so if it sounds a bit rough, you can’t blame them. Do the songs from Revolver sound unfinished? Or Abbey Road? They spent hours and hours and hours working on each individual song. John Lennon would not that George Martin go home until he had “Strawberry Fields Forever” just right. (See Anthology 2)
Did they sound unfinished because they didn’t use the Phil Spector’s “Wall of Sound” that so many others in the 60s used? That didn’t sound good, and I never saw the appeal of that.
Did they sound odd because their music contained traditional themes of love and lost, but also other not-so-traditional themes? (“Dr. Robert”, “She Said, She Said” “Piggies” etc etc)?
Did they sound odd because it was the four of them, in a studio recording live tracks up until Revolver?
Some of the cleanest music I have ever heard has been from The Beatles. Perhaps it is fair to say they were slightly unpolished in the very beginning with Please Please Me and With The Beatles, but that’s as much as I can concede.
And what other music from the 60s are you comparing them to? Other members of the “British Invasion” (You know, the bands from England that were formed because of the Beatles) Or American bands like The Beach Boys (I won’t recount the famous story of how Brian Wilson reacted to Sgt. Pepper’s)?

20

I have to take issue with the statement that they were the Backstreet Boys of their time. Absolutely not. No way.

They were the O-Town of their time.

Add me to the list of “rammed down my throat so often that I now reflexively vomit, in the manner of A Clockwork Orange, every time I hear them”.

Any band who’s popular songs have almost all been remade into Muzak generally invokes this reaction from me.

Sergeant pepperlandgirl’s knowledge of all things Beatlish is indeed impressive (I guess), but I have to take issue with one point:

Why the heck not? Am I allowed to do a lousy job as long as I can prove that I didn’t devote sufficient time to the task? By that logic, Michelangelo could have finished the Sistine Chapel ceiling in two weeks instead of four years and said “Hey, whatsamatta you? I finsh da fresco ina da fortnight so it’sa not so bad, no?”