Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
anyone disagreeing? No, didn't think so.
I love this "Im too cool for The Beatles" attitude people have, its hilarious.
and I'm not trying to be too cool for the beatles as some may sugest I think its a bit pretensious and niave to think some one dosent really enjoy much of the beatles.
I hate them.
But they were a creative band. They were talented. And they did change music forever.
That being said I still think they're overhyped.
But they were far from shit. Or shite...
being a twat and all
This is thread is a joke, posted whilst the boards weren't working, I didn't think anyone would be able to reply. I don't actually like The Beatles and you lot can argue all you like, but I wasn't doing it simply irritate people.
I'm off to bed
Regardless of whether you think they were shit, you have them to thank for a lot of the music you listen to these days. So many bands were influenced by the Beatles that it defies belief.
If I were you, I'd also listen to their albums, rather than make fucking ridiculous statements based on only the songs you've heard on the radio etc. You haven't even bothered to say why you think they were shit or what it is about their music you don't like. In short, you come across like a twat.
if someone doesn't like the Beatles that makes them a twat?
like them aswell
His not backing up his words with a reason makes him a twat. In my opinion.
are a rebel rouser.
but i've never heard a song by them where i thought 'wooww this is amaazziinng' or anything. I think that the majority of people who listen to them now and are not nearly old enough to appreciate their original relevance and are listening more for some kind of feeling of saudade? perhaps? I guess you could describe them as a jack of all trades/master of none band - there are better psychadelic bands, there are better pop bands, there are better rock bands and so on and so forth.
They were an excellent band who wrote excellent songs. Just because I wasn't around to appreciate their significance doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good song when I hear it...or appreciate their significance for that matter. Indeed, their significance is only really understood looking back at the last 45 years of music. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that everyone who does, only listens to them for nostalgic reasons.
and are still influencing generations of new bands... were shite.
What a wind up.
you don't have to look at bands that came after they broke up to see their influence.
not just musically, in terms of the impact they had on society and the scope of their impact.
i mean, NEARLY EVERYONE ON EVERY CONTINENT knew who all four members were and some of the songs.
They Paved the way for manufactured pop/ boybands as we know them, Concept albums, Psychedelia, they invented recording sounds and technology still in use today, and they wrote hundreds of songs.. No beatles= likely no sampling today = no dance music.*
*Now i am not saying they originated these things, but given the size of the global platform they had, they certainly popularised them in a way no one else could have, opening the door for others to fully explore ideas they only dabbled with.
We could argue that if the beatles were theroretically pulled out of time, that these things would have all happened anyway, but the fact of the matter is you can't do that, so when you look at the history of musical ideas, you will see at the beginning of many of them , The Beatles, Like it or not.
Pink Floyd were a rhythm and blues band up until late 1966.
of Tomorrow Never Knows, a song released before they'd even gone into the studio.
I don't see Sgt Pepper as a psychedelic record. Sure, Fixing A Hole, Within You Without You and Mr Kite are pretty colourful, but other than that, it's very much just pop.
Magical Mystery Tour is the Beatles at their psychedelic best. Just because instead of taking the loud, wild, mental path of Piper..., and decided on the more relaxed psychedelia of Strawberry Fields, MMT, Fool On The Hill etc., doesn't make them any less progressive.
i appreciate what the beatles did, but they arent the above all and end all of music. Neither were the Stones...
im more a Kinks and The Who fan at heart.
Anyone who says the Beatles were shite is either posing or knows nothing about music. Just ignore the wee child and he might go away.
And my argument is? Name one Beatles song as perfect as...
The Lovin' Spoonful - Summer In The City
The Zombies - Time Of The Season
Gram Parsons - $1000 Wedding
The Who - My Generation
The Rolling Stones - Wild Horses
No, we just get some awful scouse bollocks about Strawberry sodding Fields...
even DONOVAN - Season of the Witch kicks the crap out of 'Long Winding Roads'
I want you (she's so heavy)
tomorrow never knows
have you even listened to those songs?
you have to be taking the piss yeah?
I can name a million songs better than all of those, except for my generation.
hey - here's a REAL thread topic: lennon's solo stuff was all shite (up to - partially - the imagine lp, and that's excluding the crappy title tune)
Let's all calm down shall we?
the beatles are good. end of. if a band nowadays released the songs they did (with the "hip" sound of today) you would be on your knees. A good song is what's important. Not it you play it like Franz Ferdinand or MGMT.
I love people who don't bother reading threads like this before they post in them.
and it's wrong
And generally modern music is so cold that I can't listen to a lot of it. So many daft genre names too - minimalist techno, eurorock, nu-rave, 2-step, grime, one beat jungle, glowstick trance orgasmaniatric dub step, blah blah blah.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some Luddite. It's just that I can't think of a single new artist from say the last three years who have come out and genuinely stirred me out of this funk I'm in vis-a-vis the modern scene. I blame Bloc Party, Franz Ferdinand, etc, for while they're pretty good musically they've inspired an entire generation of over-stylized 80's-obsessed pricks trading more on cheekbones than melodic ingenuity or anything remotely resembling substance. If there's one thing the 80's taught us, it's that the 80's were shit.
Then, I put on, say, 'She Said, She Said,' or 'Girl,' and it's amazing to hear the tonal shifts, the sheer quality of melody, the almost classical sense of space and dimension, wrapped up in these shiny three minute nuggets of pop. I'm amazed that music written 20+ years before I was born appeals me to me far more than the latest NME or even DiS endorsed assembly-line art rock band. The Beatles offered so much inventiveness, originality, wit and fun that it still shames most of the output of today's scene - guitar and non-guitar bands/artists alike. They are still so far ahead of the game I don't really see how anyone who claims to know much about music can call them 'shite', even if you don't particularly like them.
I get depressed when I read in the NME or something how Coldplay are making huge leaps forward in music or Bloc Party are redefining Indie for the 21st century or Hadouken are this generation's blah blah blah. I think: 'Try going from Love Me Do to Tomorrow Never Knows in THREE FUCKING YEARS and then I might listen to you without laughing.'
Only band I personally think comes close to them is Radiohead.
We need another Vietnam.
I'm aware this thread is a joke but frankly I don't give a shit.
You are completely right. I'm not sure about the Radiohead thing, because I wouldn't say they were as accessible as the Beatles - particularly their early grungey shit.
But yeah, you know what you're talking about.
I was thinking more of their willingness to change and experiment, to shake things up a bit.
because radiohead can successfully do different sounds, they can move their direction yet still be good at what they do.
This thread's a joke!
I don't get why people are being such dicks about this.
You must be really hard to pretend to have such extreme views! Can I be your man friend?
This is what the beatles do in many songs and what sets them apart from other artists.
My mum brought me 'I wanna hold your hand', 'she loves you', 'a hard days night' etc, you guys have no idea...yeah sure it was 'pop' and a phenomena...but whereas nowadays the next big thing is tedious and mainstream, back then it was actually the exception.
Saying that the beatles were jack of all trades whereas other bands were more authentic and thus you imagine, more cool, is mistaken, because in those days 'youth culture' was not established, the beatles were the band that broke through youth and pop to be THE dominant movement.
It is the repetition of next big things that make you guys think it is less worthy....the beatles were not repetative.
Their early simplistic beautiful love songs were not detestable, they were actually liberating....because kids from all over could sing (say) 'I love her' or 'all my loving' without intimate knowledge of the blues tradition or somesuch. it was simple and everyone could sing it...and HEAR the lyrics that they were trying to sing.
The Beatles made records that matched peoples modes, quiet pretty love songs, racuaous screamers, thoughtful introspection. People didnt need to know anything about america or politics or movements to appreciate it, the music fitted the moods of ordinary people, taking it apart and analysing it by your own taste now is a silly way to judge them. Had it occuired to their detractors that they weren't actually despised by theior contempories, by doing most genres really well, AND inventing much musical stuff (or being the pioneers) they turned people on to other genres that they got used to through the beatles. I also love the zombies the kinks and the rolling stones, but none of them were as fertiley inventive.
Srsly consider a 'simple' early hit 'She loves you' and think about how unconventional a song it actually was. Their song structures broke many conventions, maybe that was george martin as well. Basically if you find yourself bel;ittling the beatles influence, check to see that you are not just considering musical lineage. THe types and structure of beatles songs was unusual and very influential. some of the time structures were unusual and they introduced a theatricality based on cresendo and contrast, they played with stereo more. Orchestration was reintroduced into songs that were not like the motown soul sort of orchestration, it was orchestration for rock not soul.
Sorry im rubbish at this, im not a music critic at all but i am a lifelong fan of the beatles, and no one has ever had as many songs that i think are fantastic.
You also have to look at anther aspect....the idea that 4 young men....rather than just glowering or accepting the patronising that their elders and 'betters' tv hosts gave them, they actually gave back, they answered back....not with a 'we just dont care man' sort of thing, but with a wit that gave many the impression that young men had opinions too (you may laugh now considering how much more sophisticated we have all become but....at the time it was breakthough stuff)
Plus the first music video....watch 'cant buy me love' in dick lesters film of them 'a hard days night'
HANG ON...what else is going on in a hard days night? do i detect a bit of pythonesque ridiculousness and surrealism going on there....hang on do we also detect a bit of regional (scouse) on upmanship against london (or the working class v the upper?)
blah blah blah
They wore their own clothes, they were actually challanging and quite punky in their influence at first, because they were 'shocking' to the forces of squaredom.
Much like the Fact 9/11 was committed by a group of terrorists.
The people who attempt to disprove both these facts seem similar in their mindset, in that they know they'll cause a knee-jerk reaction, because their wrongness brings a reaction from everyone else.
...have openly admitted to being influenced by the Beatles, and I love Boards of Canada, so that makes the Beatles alright by me.
True though, they did also write some wank songs - though the shit ones were mostly by Paul. And Ringo.
When i was watching the beatles anthology and he revealed this little nugget, it made me feel pity for nearly every other band ever.
EVERYONE writes wank songs. It's ridiculous to equate the quality of a band to their weakest song(s). This is especially true given the amount of material bands released back then - not just The Beatles here - and released in so little time. I don't see how anyone can dismiss the capacity to release scores of brilliant songs in a short period of time because a few weak ones were thrown in too. People apply the modern-day expectations of recording a "perfect" album every two or three years to early rock music, and it just doesn't work.
than John's. McCartney was also, even at his worst, still able to produce some of the best melodies you'll ever hear.
Check out 'Fool On the Hill.' Not his best, but by no means a bad song. Best line? 'But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down.' Check out the way the melody dips at the end, with 'sun going down...' You can actually see/feel the sun slipping behind foreboding thunderheads.
I defy you to name a single songwriter this decade who can do that, who can, through words, music and melody, produce such a vivid image in your mind.
Anything which encourages strong heated opinions is fair game.
I just wish people would do this more IRL - the UK might not be in such a mess as it's in now.
you my friend are wrong very wrong.
and I feel bad for you...but then you say something this moronic...
How many more times do I have to say it? I made the thread when the boards weren't working and no-one could reply to posts. Now that the board is working again everyone is getting on their high horse telling me how much of an idiot I am, when this isn't even my opinion. It really is quite sad how wound up people get about The Beatles, should it be this easy? I say no.
I am too busy to verify threads for sarcasm though.
I'm not expecting you to detect sarcasm, I wasn't talking about you anyway. I do have an issue with many of the other users, that have simply slated me for not liking a band. It really shows how sad and pathetic some people are.
It's nothing to do with me, most of these users have no idea who I am. Anyone that makes a thread of this nature on the music board always gets slated, it's just the nature of (some) stupid, up tight music fans.
You didn't give a reason why you thought they were shit. And honestly, did you really think to yourself that people wouldn't react to a statement like that about the Beatles?
I don't think it proves anything about the nature of people on here. The Beatles were so huge and so popular and influenced so many bands that you must have known that people would react to what you said. I think if you'd at least let us know why you think they were rubbish then there might have been at least a little grudging respect for you, since you would have stated your opinion and backed it up with (hopefully) sound reasoning. To brashly say that the Beatles were rubbish is just inviting a shitstorm like this and makes you akin to all these stupid, uptight music fans.
he couldn't invite a shitstorm, because the boards weren't working, it was a joke thread, not as in "the beatles are shit, LOL" but "nobody can reply, LOL".
I don't get whats so hard to understand about it.
then it seems utterly pointless and stupid. And about as funny as woodworm in a cripples crutch.
who gives a shit?
loads of other people could have started this thread and yes it's likely to cause some reaction, but in this case:
"Shut up galacticstar3ruption"
"you would say that though, being a twat and all"
"you are the worst poster ever"
"everyone hates you"
"Frank you really are a penis sometimes!"
although most of those pointless outbursts were from one charming small willied twump
When other people don't like them, it makes me feel sad.
but they didnt do anythign Pink Floyd and the Who and Big Star hadnt done before
No Kinks mentioned so far. Easily as versatile as The Beatles and they frankly piss all over The Who. The Stones are good, no doubt, but for my money if we're talking 60's English music it's got to be The Kinks and The Beatles top two placings. Pink Floyd's early stuff is alright, but 'hadn't done before' is quite a disturbing comment - Revolver came out 65/66, and left pretty much all competition behind.
responsible for inventing time travel?
have you heard the "Dusted In Memphis" bootleg?
passable songs with musical ideas stolen from trendy underground contemporaries, blanded up a bit and thrown out to an ignorant mainstream who devotedly lapped it up
AWWWWW, HERE IT GOES
b) making this thread just for the sake of it was a fucking stupid idea
...indeed, thought they were gods and bought glasses with Lennon's signature on them. I can't say that magic has stuck for me. I think it's perfectly fine to state that you respect the Beatles as one of the most important and influential musical acts, and yet at the same time, admit you're no longer interested in them. I have refined my tastes a little since my early days and now I tend to listen to bands that were of course influenced by the Beatles, but have established their own distinctive sound. So no the Beatles aren't "shite", but you don't have to love them nontheless.
revolver is ace tho
,,i also thought that was a widely held view
what's the matter with them?!
They know nothing
they aren't shite but they are given more attention than is necessary. They delivered a pretty impressive and influential body of work over a short period of time but there was also a lot of filler in there too. Shame they quit the live gigs as that would have determined if they were a great live band or just great songwriters with a good producer at the right place in musical history. Buffalo Springfield was starting to do similarly interesting stuff with an American angle at the same time.
There is way to much blind worship and columns given to them in music mags.
Great band but diluted by over exposure....
...I respect them, but I no longer have the love for them, I once did.
that if you don't like the Beatles, it's only to be 'cool' or piss other people off. They're not gods, they're just another band that happen to have been very successful before any other bands were very successful (and therefore became influential). I know as many top notch journalists and music fanatics that dislike them as don't, and could argue until they are blue in the face where they've nicked ideas from people etc, just like any less deified band.
I'm not a sheep, I've heard thousands of bands from all eras and I'll like what I choose, thanks very much.