Probably because they started out as a hair band. Technically, they were part of the whole cheesy “hair metal” crowd – Poison, Warrant, Winger, etc. Bon Jovi at least were able to evolve into a different sound/look. Most weren’t.
The most important point is that a musician is good enough to perform what he’s attempting to perform. This was one of the main problems with The Beatles - the drumming was terrible, and their harmonies were often poor. If this doesn’t matter to you, fair enough I guess, but for me music has to be well performed to be worth listening to.
I should make it clear that I have very different standards of “well performed” for a punk band and a classical orchestra.
Didn’t they write “Helter Skelter” as a specific response to the idea that they weren’t as “hard” as The Rolling Stones? Is that’s the case, it seems that one would have to argue that the Stones were the original metal band. Which would be stupid.
Agreed. Although “Paint It Black” is far closer to metal than “Helter Skelter”, it’s still fundamentally different.
According to Uncle Cecil, Paul McCartney was trying to out-rock The Who with “Helter Skelter”. I’ve heard elsewhere it was specifically intended to out-rock The Who’s “I Can See For Miles”, which McCartney hadn’t even heard but had heard described as The Who’s edgiest song yet.
It was heavier, but it wasn’t metal. Born to be Wild is the first true metal song.
Many incredible drummers have cited Ringo as one of their main influences. Beatles harmonies are often dissected and studied scholastically because they were innovative and far more interesting than the traditional “root, third, fifth” approach. Like others have said, not liking something is one thing; saying it is poor or terrible because you don’t like it shows a lack of understanding for the components you are criticizing.
Please. Please. For bands like Bon Jovi, Led Zeppelin or whatever, don’t use metal.
Use ‘hard-rock’.
Yeah, really. I have never understood the “Ringo sucks” sentiment. Ringo was (is?) an outstanding drummer–impeccable taste and technique. I think that some people equate anything that isn’t that Peart locomotive masturbatory drumming as unworthy. Just my speculation.
But the Beatles’ harmonies were bad? Um, that’s a new one. They’re considered one of the great vocal bands in pop music, and for good reason, and their harmonies were–seriously, this has to be cited? Their harmonies were bad to an extent that it affects your listening, Steophan? Wow.
Honestly? Yes. I’m talking about the singing, not the writing though. The problem for me is that, though Harrison and Lennon had decent voices, they didn’t mesh. I dislike McCartney’s voice anyway.
Groups like Simon & Garfunkel, or Crosby Stills and Nash, or The Everly Brothers, show how pop harmony singing can be done. Then you have probably the masters of pop harmony - The Beach Boys. I’ve not heard anything by The Beatles that comes close to them.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I believe you’re in a distinct minority. They are generally considered an outstanding vocal group, especially in terms of harmony, both in the writing and execution. Anyway, beyond that, I’ll leave your statement that the Beatles sang poor harmonies to speak for itself. I have been drawn into some bizarre arguments on this board, but that would probably be the new best example. So I will respectfully abstain and allow someone else to assume the daunting burden of taking “the Beatles sang great harmonies” side of that debate. 
It was McCartney’s answer to I Can See for Miles, by The Who, 1967. He was basically trying to out-Who the Who. IMO is is also not quite heavy metal, but closer than Helter Skelter.
From Wikipedia:
When the RENT movie first came, some people on a live chat were dissing it horribly. One chatter was dissing them really really bad, callling them every epitath in the book. Finally someone realized from something that was posted that the guy was Anthony Rapp, star of the movie.
He will never live that down.
I don’t play video games. If I just say “I don’t play video games,” I hope no one would take offence. If I said “I don’t play video games and any adult who does is a fat loser with no social skills who probably lives in his mother’s basement,” I expect people would take offence, and they should, because it’s an ignorant thing to say. It’s ignorant even though there are some gamers who fit the cliche.
Music is deeply personal to a lot of people. But if someone says “that’s just not something I’m into” most people will accept that. (There are a few obnoxious exceptions.) But when people start insulting fans of a band, casting aspersions, and making appallingly ignorant statements about bands, genres, and fan bases, It’s only natural that a fan’s dander goes up. I’m surprised anyone’s puzzled by this.
Yes. This is true. Because the drums are in the background of a band and not a melodic instrument, people tend to not really notice them at all unless the drummer is an extremely showy one. And then they get from that to thinking that a drummer that doesn’t stand out is a bad drummer, which is ridiculous.
A flashy, elaborate, “virtuoso” drummer would have been a disservice to a band like the Beatles.
I agree. A powerful, subtle, and immensely talented drummer the likes of Charlie Watts would have improved them massively though.
I don’t know if it’s true for most people, but I always hear the drums clearly, along with most other instruments. Maybe that’s why I have more of an issue with poor drumming though. I also dislike inappropriately flashy drumming, but the only place I usually hear that is pub covers bands.
The Bee Gees aren’t exactly my style, but I can recognize that they’ve written some decent songs, and are first class vocalists who harmonize better than anyone, including the Beatles. (Or were–I’m not sure what their status as a band is, anymore.)
When I started getting into music, the Beatles’ break up was still only a few years prior. As I did then, I still love that band in a way, but I’m also apt to change the station when they come on the radio, because I’ve just heard it all so many times. That is, in fact, my reaction to most “classic rock”, excepting the Doors and a few others who don’t get played that much. (Yeah, I know they do often play a few of their major hit songs, but that’s not the same as giving the band its due.)
I agree completely. Everything the Beatles did served the song, not the singers and not the players. As skilled as the Beatles were as musicians, none were really the sort of instrumental virtuoso that some bands showcase–and that was an absolute plus for them. The songs weren’t to show that they were good musicians (they were), the songs were the showcase.
I remember when I first read about how John suggested they draft Clapton as their lead guitarist when George stormed off during a particularly acrimonious phase of the Beatles. My reaction was how glad I was that they didn’t. And I enjoy Clapton’s work. Unlike his good friend George (who I feels is an underrated guitarist, a real composer of memorable solos and guitar work), Clapton was (is) a virtuoso, one of the generally recognized “guitar gods.” And that would so NOT be what was best for the Beatles. “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” is a terrific showcase of Clapton’s guitar work, and for a one-off instance, for a song titled as that one is–perfect choice. But I think Clapton in the band would have unavoidably pushed them in a direction where his instrument became prominent for its own sake, and not necessarily because it served the tune. And that would have disturbed the perfect storm that was the Beatles.
Same with Ringo, a tremendous drummer, but not a terribly flashy one. And that was perfect for the Beatles.
Now that you point that out, I not only agree, I think you may have identified one of the common factors of my favorite bands/performers.
Knowing more or less about music isn’t a guarantee to make one like it more or less. Music is simply about how appealing the sounds are to you. Sometimes your mind may sympathize or connect with the artist or the circumstances in which a particular piece was made, but it’s just as likely to be turned off by it.
For instance, I don’t like the Beatles, so it bugs me when they get lauded by people for their music. That’s why reason I didn’t like Imagine by Lennon. However, upon learning about the whole peace theme to the song, I started to not actively dislike it. I still don’t think it sounds that great, and a few instances I think Lennon’s voice cracks (or maybe that was on purpose), but because I’m liberal and the song has a liberal bent, I don’t hate it anymore. Now that doesn’t mean that someone who hates the song because they are conservative is wrong, but learning about music, or in this case, this song in particular, doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion, or even an educated opinion on it.
What is the criteria for you for an educated opinion about a song? If the tune doesn’t appeal to me, no matter how much education I get on it won’t make me like it
By the way, I liked the song even more once I heard rumors that some conservatives change the lyrics about religion from “and no religion too” to “and one religion too”. Sort of an “us vs. them” kind thing clicked in my head
Harder doesn’t mean better, and I’ve tried to avoid using the “better/worse” judgement in my posts because I believe music is simply about how appealing it is when you hear it. Just because Beethoven went deaf slaving over his piano composing these huge pieces requiring dozens of instruments doesn’t mean I will like his music better than a random teenage pop song.
For example, Black’s song is catchy even if the lyrics are insipid. I hate the lyrics, but the melody I don’t mind. I downloaded it and listened to it about half a dozen times yesterday. I still don’t like the singer and think the song is evil, but I enjoyed listening to it, if only to mock it. I can’t say I’ve done the same thing with any Beethoven piece lately
I agree. Probably my fault 
Completely agree. However, the problem starts when some people want to ask why the other person doesn’t like their music. I’m not going to lie at that point