Anyone not like The Beatles?

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 13-05-2011 06:59PM

This must be the beatles songs you never hear on the radio or mentioned often,B side to let it be-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbbI3mZnSz4

SEPT 23 1989 · 13-05-2011 08:45PM

Thread Closed:D

walshb · 13-05-2011 08:49PM

omen80 wrote: »

Don't like their early stuff but they got good towards the end. The Doors, the Stones and CCR were much better bands though.

Stones better than the Beatles?

cml387 · 13-05-2011 08:54PM

This is an argument between elephants and whales.There is no common ground.

If The Beatles didn't exist,there would have been some other musical phenomenon during the sixties to break the ground The Beatles broke.

Their fame comes from the fact that they made it big in the states.

After the assassination of Kennedy they breezed into NY as a breath of fresh air in 1964 and never looked back.

Were they uniquely talented?

I often wonder where they'd have been without George Martin as their producer.

That said,I'm a big fan.

Android 666 · 14-05-2011 10:56AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Signed Mark Chapman.

He was actually a todd rundgren fan. He shot John Lennon because he thought he was a 'phony' like the people Holden Caulfield talked about in The Catcher in the Rye. It goes back to Lennon singing 'Imagine no possessions' on, em... Imagine.

I'll have defend Paul McCartney here while I'm posting. His bass playing was always superb on the Beatles records. Always locked into the groove but usually full of nice little fills and runs and if one good thing came of the Remasters was the ability to hear with clarity how good a bass player he really was.

It's very easy to dismiss him now based on his 80's output (Frog Chorus etc...) but he is one of the few of the fookers from that generation trying to actively engage with his muse and keep trying to produce something interest, look at the Fireman albums and some of his more recent solo output - it might be patchy at times but at least he is constantly trying to keep it fresh - could the same be said of the Stones? He probably is a cnut in real life but he'll have my respect as an artist.

Pride Fighter · 14-05-2011 11:06AM

I hate their music but have just found out that without George Harrison, the films the Life of Brian/Withnail and I would never exist. Those films would never be were it not for the beatles being successful.

I'll allow their musical faux pa for making me laugh so many times, and nearly killing me when I try the Withnail and I drinking game;)

aisog · 14-05-2011 11:12AM

Love the Beatles! Don't however like that remix or digitally remastered album that was brought out a few years ago!

Jamie Starr · 14-05-2011 11:39AM

I perfectly understand someone not liking them- everybody has different tastes in music, and there's bands I don't really like that other people seem to love. People need to stop arguing about that side of things.

What I don't get why people slam their significance as a band though, when they obviously were one of the most important bands ever. You can say that musically, symbolically or as individuals, they weren't your cup of tea, but I don't think you can dismiss them in terms of historical influence musically, symbolically or individually. They achieved far too much for that.

On a final note, most of the Beatles didn't think the Beatles were the be all and end all of music.

"We used to believe the Beatles myth just as much as the public, and we were in love with them in just the same way. But basically we were four individuals who eventually recovered our own individualities after being submerged in a myth. I know a lot of people were upset when we finished, but every circus has to come to an end. The Beatles were a monument that had to be either changed or scrapped. As it happens, it was scrapped. The Beatles were supposed to be this and supposed to be that, but really all we were was a band that got very big." - Lennon

"It just annoyed me that people got so into the Beatles. "Beatles, Beatles, Beatles." It's not that I don't like talking about them. I've never stopped talking about them. It's "Beatles this, Beatles that, Beatles, Beatles, Beatles, Beatles." Then in the end, it's like "Oh, sod off with the Beatles," you know?" - Harrison.

You can also see it in the way that, when they broke up, after just 7 or 8 years of recording, they were all pretty eager to do their own thing, rather than hang on to past glories. McCartney, the least critical of them all about their time together, still didn't start doing Beatles tunes live again until the 90s. So in a way, even the Beatles didn't think the Beatles were that great.

And in the end
The fuss you make
Is equal to a shit
You take.

Azureus · 14-05-2011 12:33PM

Love the Beatles, although they do take up an insane amount of my ipod memory.
The fact that they sing stuff like Run for your Life in such an upbeat way is fantastic

Example for people who dont know it;
''Well I'd rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or I won't know where I am

Well you know that I'm a wicked guy
And I was born with a jealous mind
And I can't spend my whole life
Trying just to make you toe the line

Let this be a sermon
I mean everything I've said
Baby, I'm determined
And I'd rather see you dead

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end'a little girl''

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 14-05-2011 12:42PM

love you,love you,love you,love you,love you *love guitar riff

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

Latchy · 14-05-2011 12:50PM

Android 666 wrote: »

He was actually a todd rundgren fan. He shot John Lennon because he thought he was a 'phony' like the people Holden Caulfield talked about in The Catcher in the Rye. It goes back to Lennon singing 'Imagine no possessions' on, em... Imagine.

He shot John Lennon because he was a nutter looking for instant fame and He got it just as Oswald knew he would be forever in the history books

I'll have defend Paul McCartney here while I'm posting. His bass playing was always superb on the Beatles records. Always locked into the groove but usually full of nice little fills and runs and if one good thing came of the Remasters was the ability to hear with clarity how good a bass player he really was.

Yes his bass playing on many Beatles records is superb on songs like ' I Saw Her Standing There , The Night Before , Dr Robert , Fixing a Hole , Getting Better ,Polyethene Pam ,Get Back and many others .

cml387 wrote: »

I often wonder where they'd have been without George Martin as their producer.

That said,I'm a big fan.

No doubting how big an influence he was in the studio with them which is evident on their first 6 albums and he knew how to get the best out of them , individualy as well as a group with the studio technology available then . I think he played the Harpsichord solos on Hard Days Night and In My Life .

aisog wrote: »

Love the Beatles! Don't however like that remix or digitally remastered album that was brought out a few years ago!

Hear what your saying but having listened to most of digitally remastered albums ,have to say that there is more clarity on vocals ,bass and guitar licks that you would not have picked up on the original mono/stereo recordings and there's a whole crispness to the songs making it feel like they (Beatles ) were recorded more recently in the studio then back in the 60s .But I think it's good to be able to appriciate all on mono/stereo and digitally remastered format

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

What I don't get why people slam their significance as a band though, when they obviously were one of the most important bands ever. You can say that musically, symbolically or as individuals, they weren't your cup of tea, but I don't think you can dismiss them in terms of historical influence musically, symbolically or individually. They achieved far too much for that.

On a final note, most of the Beatles didn't think the Beatles were the be all and end all of music.

The Beatles , especially Lennon as you said were the first to admit that the whole Beatles image was based on a myth which is why Lennon felt the need to escape that image .But the music itself has stood the test of time .

You can also see it in the way that, when they broke up, after just 7 or 8 years of recording, they were all pretty eager to do their own thing, rather than hang on to past glories. McCartney, the least critical of them all about their time together, still didn't start doing Beatles tunes live again until the 90s. So in a way, even the Beatles didn't think the Beatles were that great.

I think it's a credit to McCartney that he brought the music out again to a whole new live audience as well as the oldies and the musicians he has on stage with him know their stuff , which is as good as your are going to get without the other original 3 members because once McCartney stops touring ,it will just be tribute bands left to carry on .There are there are some great tribute bnads out there who know the whole Beatles chords and sheet from , Please Please me to , Let it be .

Voodoomelon · 14-05-2011 12:58PM

The Beatles freak me out, i find them quite dark.

Freddie59 · 14-05-2011 01:05PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

You know way more than me on this subject, but to me it's simply a matter of taste. I find much of the Beatles music very boyish and sometimes cringeworthy. I find most of the Stones stuff damn cool - but hey, that's just me!

I did prefer the Stones myself. The music had a much more raw, progressive edge to it. But a lot of Beatles tracks (like Back In The USSR) are great. The use of the then-new stereo sound on most of their tracks is very, very clever. There is no two ways about it - they did change music. But there were many bands who were on a par with them creatively (The Move comes to mind straight away). And as for the comment about 'dinosaur music'.............:rolleyes:

annascott · 14-05-2011 01:11PM

I hate the Beatles early stuff - too catchy bouncy. When they found drugs and got a bit 'cooler' they were wonderful.

Rolling Stones sold 'sex'. The Beatles never did.

Lone Stone · 14-05-2011 01:15PM

I think i like one or two of tunes of i heard, but no apart from that i dont like the Beatles /runs away

Dexterm99 · 14-05-2011 01:27PM

I used to think they were crap but got the 1 album and now like much of their music but not all. There is such a range of styles and I love some of their stuff that the purists hate (yellow sub)

losthorizon · 14-05-2011 01:34PM

Biggins wrote: »

Moody Blues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9muzyOd4Lh8

...And I was born before the 70's.

"om" You're right. Saw them in concert about three or four years ago In Nottingham. I travelled especially over to England to see them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-lGKnIbNbw

Latchy · 14-05-2011 02:00PM

sugarman wrote: »

They were never "rock & roll", they were the first boyband imo & only reached the heights they did because everyone liked them for the sake of liking them & fitting it.

By that logic people only like some boys bands for the image and 'fitting in ' nothing to do with the music and in the Beatles case , songs they wrote , sang and played on ?

If you care to read some of the posts on here you'll find out easy enough why they reached the great heights they did .

Brian Wilson on hearing the 'Rubber Soul ' album was so knocked out by it he went into the studio for months on end to record and produce the great 'Pet Sounds ' album .You cant get more influenced than that .

Fitting in ? .....pfft

bayern282 · 14-05-2011 02:07PM

Trouble for me with Beatles songs is overfamiliarity, you've heard them and know them all by rote, this takes something of a lustre off the music for me.

I studiously avoid ant Bank Holiday top 500 on the radio where you;re guaranteed to hear Bo Rhap, Stairway to Heaven, Teen Spirit etc.

Get more pleasure out of music that's undiscovered or only people in the ''know'' like.

Day in the Life, Best Beatles Song

Aldebaran · 14-05-2011 02:15PM

bayern282 wrote: »

Day in the Life, Best Beatles Song

Close, but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9s1I1TZqJg

losthorizon · 14-05-2011 02:29PM

People are putting on the tag "boyband" retrospectively when at the time no such term existed. Anyway in the early 60's virtually all groups including the stones, the animals etc wore suits it was just a continuation of what had gone on before. It didnt signify anything. As the 60s progressed groups and singers get ride of their matching clothes and wore what they wanted and not what their managers gave them.

Im a great fan of music of ths period especially 1967 -1972. Im surprised nobody has mentioned the byrds or what I consider to be one of the best albums of the decades Forever Changes by Love . Someone did mention Cream -another great band

Havermeyer · 14-05-2011 03:09PM

sugarman wrote: »

At most, they're an average on par with the likes of KOL with todays music.

LoL.

That is all.

Computer Sci · 14-05-2011 03:14PM

A bunch of frauds, and terrible musicians to boot. They were a manufactured puppet duo with the cheesiest ditty songs. And a few things I have never understood is why they went from been some clownish mop top band with the most annoying antics – particularly on stage and in their films – , to some supposed “deep, insightful, rock, psycadelic and soulful” etc. duo in the space of about a year – that seems to be a bit put on in my honest opinion.

Then there is one of the most hypocritical men in history – aka. John Lennon. Yeah peace and love man and all of that nonsense……….the same man who abandoned a young woman and child, who had to live out a modest life, despite Lennon’s wealth…..then there’s the leaving England for America because of the tax system…….or having a whole apartment floor in the middle of Manhattan (air conditioned and all) devoted to holding fur coats – yeah “imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can?”. :rolleyes:

To be honest they were a mediocre group that got lucky thanks to marketing and business cunning of their original manager.

14-05-2011 03:23PM

Clever marketing may have helped propel the Beatles to fame, but it wasn't what made their music great.

That was George Martin. An absolute genius of a producer who invented a whole bunch of production techniques that are still used to this day. Tommorrow Never Knows was the first song ever to used looped samples, for example.

Also, his talent for creating orchestral arrangements to suit the music was exceptional. For example, Eleanor Rigby.

One of the best examples of his clever production and arrangement techniques elevating a song from good to great is I Am The Walrus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va69l2Zel80

Grass between the tracks · 14-05-2011 03:27PM

2 more bullets. That is all.

Nolanger · 14-05-2011 03:37PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

So, does anyone hear not like them, and if not, do you have a reason?

Always preferred The Tremeloes to The Beatles' early stuff. They were the band Decca signed instead.

Thomas828 · 14-05-2011 03:40PM

Hmm... about the only two Beatles songs I don't like are "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Ob-la-di Ob-la-da". "I Saw Her Standing There" is only let down by a rubbish guitar solo.

losthorizon · 14-05-2011 05:52PM

For me the Beatles are up there. Norwegian Wood being my favourite Track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY5i4-rWh44

But this time period was a time of great creativity (mid 1960s - early 70s).

You had the Stones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx07A9LWBJA

Love with possibly the best album of the 60s if not of all time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yVBMUXr4xo

Cream the greatest trio of all time?

The who

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

The Byrds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS6OhC-4Zyw

Or even Traffic

Caravan - Beautiful and Brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIwaYwbjF3M

Moody Blues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0crAPp3k8M

Plus countless others like Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, The Small Faces, The Kinks etc. What I loved about the time was the mixing of genres - the Byrds for instance stared off as a pop group, drifted into rock , folk, psychedelic and ended up as a country rock band. It was a trip. Their music like all bands of the time was always evolving.

LETHAL LADY · 14-05-2011 06:53PM

I love The Beatles. Take them for what they were. Do not over analyze their music. Great songs. Nothing can compete since. I love The Beatles.:D

Latchy · 14-05-2011 06:57PM

losthorizon wrote: »

Im a great fan of music of ths period especially 1967 -1972. Im surprised nobody has mentioned the byrds or what I consider to be one of the best albums of the decades Forever Changes by Love . Someone did mention Cream -another great band

I'm a big fan of both and the Byrds are up there with the Beatles ,even for their 12 string guitar licks alone . My Back pages and Crossroads are in my top 20 of 60s classics

Computer Sci wrote: »

And a few things I have never understood is why they went from been some clownish mop top band with the most annoying antics – particularly on stage and in their films – , to some supposed “deep, insightful, rock, psycadelic and soulful” etc. duo in the space of about a year – that seems to be a bit put on in my honest opinion.

That mid 60s transition happeneed to all the groups , not just the Beatles and it says something about their creativity that they could switch musical gears to suit the times with such gems as Strawberry fIelds and Rain .......then go on to Abbey Road /White Album ......hey man , it was acid and the summer of love time :cool:

To be honest they were a mediocre group that got lucky thanks to marketing and business cunning of their original manager

Brian Epstein was the Simon Cowell of his day excpet Brian had talented musicians on his hands who could write their own songs, sing without the need for lessons and could play their own instruments .:cool:

Now tell me of an artist or group that didn't have or doesn't now have PR/ marekting and a team of other people promoting them ?

Because regardless of who you are , you sure dont make in the business on talent alone ,even Elvis had Col Tom Parker and an small army of people to to promote him so that's another bit o nonsense kicked into touch .

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I love The Beatles. Take them for what they were. Do not over analyze their music. Great songs. Nothing can compete since. I love The Beatles.:D

Great post

Anyone not like The Beatles?

Comments