I think we need to add Radiohead fans to this list.
I know you’re joking, but this is the exact sort of comment that I was ranting against.
It’s interesting about the Beatles though. When they all did solo work, they did pretty well and had some catchy tunes (save for John Lennon - I just could never stand his voice). When they were the Beatles, all I ever heard was shrill singing, simplistic music and even more simplistic lyrics. I guess, one of the reasons that I don’t like them is that they have been elevated to such an incredible degree that they are now musical gods among men, and when I hear them their music sounds anything but godly.
I hold this same opinion about artists like Van Gogh - I think sometimes people latch onto the Beatles, Nirvana and Bob Marley and other musical “cults” (if that is the correct word) not because of the music they make, but because of the people who make the music (or art). They are more interested in the personalities and the stories behind those personalities than the actual product they create.
Well, at least you knew I was joking…
My own children call me a “Dave hater” (DMB). Hey, it’s not my fault that the guy couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket.
My problem with the Beatles is the 60s quality sound. It just bugs me. Same thing with 80s synth. It’s just something about the sound that all the great lyrics, good singing and excellent playing can’t get over. I honestly feel a little bit inferior to not be able to get past it–it’s like not being able to get into Shakespeare because of the old language.
How much music of theirs am I supposed to listen to before I can dismiss them? I’m not going to sit down and have someone dissect hours of a band’s many albums before I decide I don’t like it
Truth be told, I haven’t heard many Beatles songs either all the way through. But of the ones I have, I don’t like. I’ve heard enough Nirvana in clips and snippets that I know I don’t like them. I’m not saying they are objectively bad on some kind of music ranking, but I don’t care for them. Even if they aren’t music for angsty teenagers, that’s all I’m going to hear when I listen to them and it’s going to turn me off. My mental image of rock and roll is “loud”, for rap it’s “talking”, for country it’s “rednecks”. That may not be fair, but when I hear music in those genres, I’m going to think that and it’s going to be almost impossible for me to like it despite the imagery.
Kargyraa ftw!
I just watched Genghis Blues last night!
If what you’re really saying is “I don’t like them,” you have a legitimate complaint.
But if you’re saying, directly or indirectly, “I am superior to you for not liking them,” I’m not surprised if they get angry. If you’re saying, “They’re really not all that good; there’s really not all that much to them besides hype; you’re deluded for liking them as much as you do”—you may well be the ignorant one.
As a musician and collector, I detest music snobs immensely.
Unfortunately, this “dismissal” of whole genres of music due to your own biases and predjudices exposes you as an “intellectually vapid, musically ignorant or a close-minded idiot.”
Any support for your argument was completely torpedoed by your admission of musical bigotry.
This sentence sums up why some people dismiss your opinion, IMO. Certainly, strictly speaking, music appreciation is a subjective exercise. We all like what we like. That said, it is possible to study music–musical theory, composition, etc. And there is something that at least approaches objectivity among musicians and critics and composers. Some music is formulaic, some is repetitive. And some music is clever, with interesting compositions, using sophisticated techniques and methods. This is not just a matter of liking what you hear, though of course that’s part of it. There are specific compositional techniques the Beatles employed that were friggin’ breathtaking. They wrote some chord progressions that were, by themselves, gorgeous and so beyond the conventions of rock and roll that it still boggles the mind.
The Beatles were capable of writing music of simple, energetic elegance (that can be even harder), as well as of brilliant sophistication. It is, of course, a-okay to say, “I don’t care, I still don’t like them.” But there’s a reason the Beatles are still studied in classes on musical theory and Britney Spears is not.
So, I don’t have any anger over your reaction. But–and I hope you take this as explanation and not as anything hostile–the sentence I quoted from you is indicative of a complete lack of understanding of their music. It’s why you may get some of the reaction you get. You can say you don’t like Shakespeare–lots of people don’t–but when you dismiss it as trash, that’s when you raise eyebrows and make people think your opinion is baseless and uninformed.
This is just a fleshing out of the “you just don’t understand” condescension I referred to earlier.
The Beatles fans come out of the woodwork.
So it begins.
Usually in a thread like this you would give an example. Either a link (if it happened on this board) or a description of the conversation.
There is nothing inherently “angry” about singing the praises of a band, nor even in an argument over whether the band is “shrill and simplistic.”
From what you have posted in this thread, it seems likely that you are mistaking that for anger, as well as perhaps trying to incite anger by calling fans of music you don’t like “cults” and “rabid”, which have a clearly negative association.
I suspect this is part of the reason you get a lot of hostility from Beatles fans. Your not saying that you don’t like the Beatles, your saying that people that claim to like them are deluding themselves. Your not saying you don’t like them, your insulting people that do and then puzzling over why they get hostile in return.
Well, as a compromise, may I suggest a tuvan group doing covers of western music? I really like their cover of Led Zep’s When the Levee Breaks =)
Why? I took Stratocaster’s explanation to mean it’s one thing to not like something because it isn’t your cup of tea, and quite another to not like something and say they are talentless hacks.
Plenty of people understand Shakespeare very well and still dislike his work, same with the Beatles. There is a respectful way of stating your opinion, and then there’s saying, “I hate the Beatles, and everyone who does like them is a fucking idiot who knows nothing about music.”
I don’t see how that’s saying “you don’t understand.”
“Beyond the conventions of rock and roll” (in other words, highly original) may be an objective assessment, but “friggin’ breathtaking” or “gorgeous” are certainly subjective opinion.
There’s a decent point in there somewhere, which is that one can analyze objective elements of music and find things that were original or influential about it. But you can’t tell me the Beatles are objectively “breathtaking”. That’s an emotional reaction.
Frankly, I have a bigger emotional reaction to Pearl Jam, and that doesn’t mean my feelings are “wrong”.
Well, with due respect, as directed at the comment from you that I quoted, yes. As Indygrrl said, though, the point is that people can understand the music full well and still prefer something else. But when someone calls the Beatles shrill, talentless hacks, that commentary resides toward the “clueless” end of the spectrum. It goes beyond the “not my cup of tea” territory, and wanders into the “I don’t understand this music” region. So, again, yes. The answer to why people tell you in particular that you don’t understand a particular category of music could well be that you don’t understand it.
And the “So it begins” comment–sheesh. Take yourself pretty seriously, do you?
Defend your music with vigor. Look at what happened to disco.