Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Anyone not like The Beatles?

1235710

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,059 ✭✭✭Buceph


    I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like,
    I love you most of all, my favourite vega-tables.


    Could be onto something there :D

    Pure poetry. Who else could make nonsense mean so much.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Like all classic music - you grow out of them and then you grow back into them. The Beatles don't change, you do.

    ps...point taken - not into anything before Rubber Soul myself apart from the harmonica on Love Me Do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,448 ✭✭✭✭Cupcake_Crisis


    My dad is a HUGE Beatles fan, so I grew up with them always playing in the background, but I never really got into them. If they come on the radio I'll listen and sing along, but they're not on my iPod or anything like that. I've had people tear strips of me for not thinking they are the best band EVERRR!.

    They're grand like, just not my cup of tea!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    cant stand them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    The beatles recorded a shít load of music, a lot of it fairly generic type stuff.....but when it was good, it was spectacularly good! Hey jude, come together, penny lane and eleanor rigby spring to mind in particular.
    Anyone who can't find a half dozen or so brilliant beatles songs just hasn't listened to enough of their music. 50 years on and still sounds fresh, there aren't many bands will ever be able to claim that.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    --Kaiser-- wrote: »
    Shocking lack of musical taste in this thread. Probably from people who've never heard The White Album or Sgt. Peppers.

    Ignoramuses all

    Musical taste is a personal thing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 933 ✭✭✭hal9000


    Buceph wrote: »
    Go ahead, don't like their music. But at the same time don't say it's ****e and don't say it hasn't been hugely influential. That just shows you up.

    I don't like Michael Jacksons music, in fact I hate it. I don't like Jackson the person, I don't like his messianic cult status and I don't like his fans telling me I can't not like him. But if I said to anyone into their music that Michael Jackson isn't talented, didn't write hugely influential songs, didn't write some of the definitive pop songs, and that he was just "****e" I'd be laughed at and dismissed.

    There are a couple of artists whose contribution to modern music simply can't be denied. Music that you can directly trace its influence to where we are today. You can do that with Jackson and you can do that with the Beatles. You're free to not like the music, but to deny the enormity of the music is plain ignorance.

    :rolleyes: wow you didnt get my post at all or didnt bother reading it. I said I didnt like the beatles , I never denied their cultural influence, infact I pointed it out. My point was people could not accept me not liking the beatles and thank you for proving my point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    I don't like the first few records, but as they kept going I liked them more than more.

    I think Wings are better to be honest...*Hides from abuse*


    The band The Beatles could've been..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,760 ✭✭✭summerskin


    the fact that lennon wrote Imagine after having beaten his first wife numerous times show him to have been a total hypocrit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,595 ✭✭✭bonerm


    The band The Beatles could've been..

    Either way they weren't as good as the Britpop bands like Def Leppard and UB40.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    I am not a big fan of The Beatles, but always loved the song Come Together, must have listened to that song thousands of times, often put it on repeat and listened to it over and over, don't know why that particular one of their songs is my favourite, but it is. This is a true story. Last week I was dreaming and in the dream I was singing that song and for the first time ever, it hit me how the song could be sung by a woman in the middle of bukkake. I woke up immediately and just thought: 'No way!' Not a clue why I never heard the lyrics that way before. I wish I hadn't had that awakening as now the song is ruined as when I hear it, I just picture a pornstar with cum in her eyes singing the chorus and then a bunch of scruffy hippies, men with flat tops, guys cumming coca cola, dirty toes, a man cracking the pornstar's spine and a monkey getting fingered. Damn dream ruined my favourite Beatles' song.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Yes - they don't have sole rights to the "Greatest Music of all Time" tag - In my opinion "Exile on Main Street" outclasses any Beatles album you care to mention. That said "Automatic For The People" (REM) is a definite frontrunner too.

    I rate The Beatles because they were consistently top class for at least 5 albums straight.....and this thread as per usual has reawoken my curiousity....thanks OP I've now got Abbey Road on in the background.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭optogirl


    summerskin wrote: »
    the fact that lennon wrote Imagine after having beaten his first wife numerous times show him to have been a total hypocrit.


    In Cynthia Lennon's book 'John' she recounts him slapping her once. I'm not saying this is acceptable but it's not quite beating her several times.

    Also he did turn over a new leaf upon maturing and post-Beatles so I don't think his song writing necessarily relfects hypocrisy.


    On the other hand he did say one of his regrets in life was not having sex with his mother so all in all he was a bit of a complex dude. . .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 912 ✭✭✭endabob1


    Lemegeton wrote: »
    i never liked them. i understand and respect their influence and how important a band they were.
    but their music always bored me

    This is precisely my feelings, I'm a huge music fan & I respect their place in musical history but apart from a handful of songs I find them bland and boring.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    As you get older, I think you tend to find all the arguments about who is the best of what to be just not worth it and just to accept music on a less competitive subjective level. Possibly it's this reasoning that allowed me to actually listen to the Beatles m,ore in recent years.

    That said, anybody that likes rock music can't hardly say that the Beatles were not innovative (far more so than the Stones or the Who even though I like both these bands far more than the Beatles) even if they don't like the tunes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Mad about them as a kid, as I got older just got sick of them. The Double White was my all time favourite and I would still listen to it.

    Also fan of Lennon and Harrison solo and still like some of their tracks.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I find the comparisons with the Stones a bit mad. The stones had maybe three years of decent songwriting in them(with a lot of filler). They've been a hackneyed cabaret act every since. Richards hasn't come up with a new chord sequence in nigh on 40 years. Musically speaking compared to the Beatles they weren't and aren't even in the equation. I like the stones BTW :D

    As for their ability as musicians? When they started they were a skiffle group, the idea of mainstream virtuoso guitar heros like Clapton etc was not really a thing, with the exception of the Shadows. A band was more an ensemble piece or just as backing for the singer(just like The Shadows). The idea of a guitar band of songwriters playing their own stuff was novel and they and the Beachboys really popularised it(famously the A&R man at Decca turned them down thinking guitar bands were out of fashion).

    Lead breaks in songs were there to musically compliment the song, not the song being a vehicle for the guitarist, drummer or bassist to show off their chops. Also their stuff sounds simple, but it's usually anything but. Yes you can play Yesterday or Blackbird with a few simple chords, but try and play it the way he did in the first place. McCartney is one of the best bass players of his generation and changed a lot of rules in that area, yet he's not obvious. Ringo? Bonham he may not be, but I'd rate him a lot higher than a lot of drummers around at the time. He's gotten a bad rap IMHO. Lennon is one helluva solid rythym player. Harrison? I defy you to imagine any Beatles song with a different lead break. 90 times outa 100 he nailed it and never went into self indulgence. OK two examples from the same song Rain. first Ringos drumming;

    Second McCartney bass

    OK so try playing that, then try inventing it in the first place, then do that in 1966.

    Their progression from album to album, year by year is staggering. They rattled the stuff out, nigh on two albums a year. Plus singles. The rest were mostly paying catchup. Wilson of the Beachboys has stated one of the reasons for his breakdown was realising he just couldn't keep up with them. Though without wilson we wouldn't have Sgt Pepper. Then Pepper comes out and every mainstream band is falling over themselves to go "psychedelic"(the stones embarrasingly so) less than 8 months later(with a mini album in the middle) the Beatles release the (double) white album, with a blank cover and not a psychedelic song in sight and change the game again.

    One of the main reasons I like The Beatles is they knew when to stop. Both in the studio and as a band. Lennon was largely a spent force by 1970(by 68 really) and McCartney is the Steven Speilberg of music, immensely talented, but tends towards twee and needs someone to reel him in. They had maybe one last good album in them both(and if they let Harrison in) but beyond that no IMH. Luckily they didn't go the Stones (and others) route and flog the same dead horse, at this stage the ossified bones of a dead horse for the last 35 years. Look at U2 and the static they get. I reckon they'd get a lot less static even in Ireland if they'd called it a day after Acthung Baby. know when to stop lads.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,059 ✭✭✭Buceph


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Ringo? Bonham he may not be, but I'd rate him a lot higher than a lot of drummers around at the time. He's gotten a bad rap IMHO.

    I'd rate Ringo quite highly as a drummer. Despite being the quiet man of The Beatles (George eventually found his voice) his drumming is yet another unique factor to the Beatles. I honestly don't think I've heard another drummer like him. He doesn't play a beat, he plays as though the drums are a musical instrument. (For want of a better word.) Whenever he hits a tom he's not adding a beat to bob your head to, he's putting that tonal note into the soundscape. I think he's a brilliant drummer, and vastly underrated in general, let alone amongst Beatle fans.

    And I'd never actually heard Rain before. Jaysus, it's great. It had me flicking through my albums to see which one it was on and how could I have missed it before (damn B-Sides to singles.) I can see it fitting in perfectly with Revolver (and if it was on Revolver I think that'd tip that album completely in my mind to "Greatest Beatles' Album" although I'd rate it either first or second anyway.) Very similar sound to it as Tomorrow Never Knows (backwards lyrics, drone, looping, drawling vocals) so I can see why they left it off.

    Still, The Beatles, I thought I knew them. Silly me. :rolleyes:


    Edit: As for your Stones comment, Their Satanic Majesties is my favourite Stones album (although I haven't listened to the rest of them enough, just their greatest hits really.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭kraggy


    Can't stand them.

    Think they're the most overated thing in the history of mankind. Or maybe Megan Fox is.

    Not sure. No interest in either of them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Reading the above comments (very musically informed in this thread) it just came to me. The Beatles more or less invented the whole idea of an album. Back in the day, singles were the be all and end all, an album was a money spinning collection of the singles with a couple of duff tracks thrown in. Possibly around "Revolver" time that all changed. Even the title is a hint, those of us who remember vinyl know what an LP used to do on a turntable...
    revolve


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I find the comparisons with the Stones a bit mad. The stones had maybe three years of decent songwriting in them(with a lot of filler). They've been a hackneyed cabaret act every since. Richards hasn't come up with a new chord sequence in nigh on 40 years. Musically speaking compared to the Beatles they weren't and aren't even in the equation. I like the stones BTW :D

    As for their ability as musicians? When they started they were a skiffle group, the idea of mainstream virtuoso guitar heros like Clapton etc was not really a thing, with the exception of the Shadows. A band was more an ensemble piece or just as backing for the singer(just like The Shadows). The idea of a guitar band of songwriters playing their own stuff was novel and they and the Beachboys really popularised it(famously the A&R man at Decca turned them down thinking guitar bands were out of fashion).

    Lead breaks in songs were there to musically compliment the song, not the song being a vehicle for the guitarist, drummer or bassist to show off their chops. Also their stuff sounds simple, but it's usually anything but. Yes you can play Yesterday or Blackbird with a few simple chords, but try and play it the way he did in the first place. McCartney is one of the best bass players of his generation and changed a lot of rules in that area, yet he's not obvious. Ringo? Bonham he may not be, but I'd rate him a lot higher than a lot of drummers around at the time. He's gotten a bad rap IMHO. Lennon is one helluva solid rythym player. Harrison? I defy you to imagine any Beatles song with a different lead break. 90 times outa 100 he nailed it and never went into self indulgence. OK two examples from the same song Rain. first Ringos drumming;

    OK so try playing that, then try inventing it in the first place, then do that in 1966.

    Their progression from album to album, year by year is staggering. They rattled the stuff out, nigh on two albums a year. Plus singles. The rest were mostly paying catchup. Wilson of the Beachboys has stated one of the reasons for his breakdown was realising he just couldn't keep up with them. Though without wilson we wouldn't have Sgt Pepper. Then Pepper comes out and every mainstream band is falling over themselves to go "psychedelic"(the stones embarrasingly so) less than 8 months later(with a mini album in the middle) the Beatles release the (double) white album, with a blank cover and not a psychedelic song in sight and change the game again.

    One of the main reasons I like The Beatles is they knew when to stop. Both in the studio and as a band. Lennon was largely a spent force by 1970(by 68 really) and McCartney is the Steven Speilberg of music, immensely talented, but tends towards twee and needs someone to reel him in. They had maybe one last good album in them both(and if they let Harrison in) but beyond that no IMH. Luckily they didn't go the Stones (and others) route and flog the same dead horse, at this stage the ossified bones of a dead horse for the last 35 years. Look at U2 and the static they get. I reckon they'd get a lot less static even in Ireland if they'd called it a day after Acthung Baby. know when to stop lads.

    The great thing about Paul McCartney was that he played his bass like a lead guitar, not simply playing notes vaguely following the chord progression.


    Lennon famously said of Ringo when asked if he was the best drummer in the world "He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!".

    Maybe not the most technically gifted, I still think he put down some of the most effective beats ever recorded


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭Andy-Pandy


    The Beatles where great but there was four of them, there's only one Neil Young.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    summerskin wrote: »
    the fact that lennon wrote Imagine after having beaten his first wife numerous times show him to have been a total hypocrit.

    He never beat his first wife.Read her book if you doubt me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    optogirl wrote: »
    In Cynthia Lennon's book 'John' she recounts him slapping her once. I'm not saying this is acceptable but it's not quite beating her several times.

    Also he did turn over a new leaf upon maturing and post-Beatles so I don't think his song writing necessarily relfects hypocrisy.


    On the other hand he did say one of his regrets in life was not having sex with his mother so all in all he was a bit of a complex dude. . .

    Not immediately the word that sprung to my mind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    Buceph wrote: »
    I'd rate Ringo quite highly as a drummer. Despite being the quiet man of The Beatles (George eventually found his voice) his drumming is yet another unique factor to the Beatles. I honestly don't think I've heard another drummer like him. He doesn't play a beat, he plays as though the drums are a musical instrument. (For want of a better word.) Whenever he hits a tom he's not adding a beat to bob your head to, he's putting that tonal note into the soundscape. I think he's a brilliant drummer, and vastly underrated in general, let alone amongst Beatle fans.

    And I'd never actually heard Rain before. Jaysus, it's great. It had me flicking through my albums to see which one it was on and how could I have missed it before (damn B-Sides to singles.) I can see it fitting in perfectly with Revolver (and if it was on Revolver I think that'd tip that album completely in my mind to "Greatest Beatles' Album" although I'd rate it either first or second anyway.) Very similar sound to it as Tomorrow Never Knows (backwards lyrics, drone, looping, drawling vocals) so I can see why they left it off.

    Still, The Beatles, I thought I knew them. Silly me. :rolleyes:


    Edit: As for your Stones comment, Their Satanic Majesties is my favourite Stones album (although I haven't listened to the rest of them enough, just their greatest hits really.)


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a_8F6gflxQ

    Nice drum solo from Ringo on The End too.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Buceph wrote: »
    And I'd never actually heard Rain before. Jaysus, it's great.
    No way? Glad to put that song your way :) Always reminds me of Oasis in a way. Then I read somewhere Oasis were called Rain early on... Hmmm...
    Very similar sound to it as Tomorrow Never Knows (backwards lyrics, drone, looping, drawling vocals) so I can see why they left it off.
    They left it off for contract reasons. Well kinda. In the UK until 68 IIRC they were limited in how many album tracks they could take as singles/had to have a certain number of singles per year. Plus they themselves thought it a bit stingy to put too many singles on albums. Apparently the same reason Strawberry fields forever and Penny lane aren't on Pepper and Hey Jude's not on the white album(and the B side's a different version revolution). Mad or wha? :eek:

    Like Buceph noted earlier they were doing all this in the 60's against serious fcuking heavy hitters. Look at their contemporaries. Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, The Strolling Bones, The Doors, Beachboys, The Who, The Byrds, The Animals, Cream, Yardbirds, Grateful Dead, Zep, the Floyd, the Kinks FFS, the Velvet Underground and that's before we're even sniffing at the whole fantastic Motown explosion kicking up the airwaves. And the vast majority of their contemporaries rated them hugely. I think it was Clapton who said at the time, there was them and then there was everybody else. When God says that ya listen :D

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭The Left Hand Of God


    The Beatles, like Elvis were just lucky to have been around at the time of a super emerging technology, TV.

    There were equally amazing song writers and bands around at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I think they were great but a lot of their considered greatness is down to the era and the advent of TV.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭pappyodaniel


    Everything's been shoite since Roy Orbison died.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,236 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a_8F6gflxQ

    Nice drum solo from Ringo on The End too.

    First song by the Beatles that I've listened to in a long time. I didn't notice much of a solo.

    "Ringo Starr was adequate. No more than that."

    The Beatles were 'easy listening' for me. I would listen or dance to them but I wouldn't pay money to buy their records or go to gigs.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    don't worry about albums or the like

    find any other single with the quality of Strawberry fields/Penny Lane


Advertisement