Is there anyone here who genuinely dislikes or hates The Beatles as a musical entity?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (157 of them)

I got poxy fuled but I wrote a long bit about the only thing Oasis really taking their queues from Beatles-wise was the wretched "Nananana's" of "Hey Jude". Oasis never wrote a "Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite!" or a "Day In The Life" or anything close to Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour or anything the Beatles ever did. It's a fallacy created by the national press circa 1996.

― wogan lenin (dog latin), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Louis, buy the first four Spirit albums, seriously.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:06 (seventeen years ago) link

x-post

Isn't that partly what 'beetlebum' was about?

― Pete W (peterw), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Blur were closer to the Beatles stylistically than Oasis, bt no one ever says that. Parklife is very similar to, say Sgt Peppers than Definitely Maybe.

― wogan lenin (dog latin), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:13 (seventeen years ago) link

"Hey Jude" na-na-nas: C/D

classic

― Euler (Euler), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:13 (seventeen years ago) link

Nick, hey, I really, really like Forever Changes and Electric Ladyland, but it didn't immediately occur to me to stick 'em in. Obviously I like more than 3 60's artists, but I'm just saying that there's a lot of junk there too, and perhaps less gold than in other eras. Didn't you see Hendrix and Love on my 60's list?

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:22 (seventeen years ago) link

Blur were a lot closer to that whole "Boyband +" steez that saw what most pop critics would term the Beatles "golden years", they were more... presentable?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:33 (seventeen years ago) link

Blur had a zest for experimentation, however, that associates their music much more closely with that of late-period Beatles, much more so in fact than Oasis, whose 'experimental' urges extended to the odd radio static interlude.

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:37 (seventeen years ago) link

Was the 60's the last time pop and rock really had equal critical, commercial and artistic status?

― fandango (fandango), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:39 (seventeen years ago) link

2002

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:40 (seventeen years ago) link

GTFO

― fandango (fandango), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Blur were a lot closer to that whole "Boyband +" steez that saw what most pop critics would term the Beatles "golden years", they were more... presentable?
-- Dom Passantino (juror...), August 11th, 2006 4:33 PM. (Dom Passantino)

Blur being called a boyband was as laughably unfair as Oasis being called Beatles heirs.

― wogan lenin (dog latin), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Blur were as much a boyband as The Beatles were. Oasis weren't.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Dom, yes and as Louis says their attitude towards dipping their toes into different genre pools was almost the same as the Beatles, even down to the musichall pastiches.

― wogan lenin (dog latin), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Plus "Chemical World" was way way way more Beatles-y than any Oasis track without even sounding like the Beatles.

― wogan lenin (dog latin), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:49 (seventeen years ago) link

I know which one of 'em Smash Hits gave a shit about when I was 14-15, and which one of them had four members with distinct and tangible personalities (OK the drummer was borderline but he FLEW A PLANE)

xposts

― DJ Mencap (DJ Mencap), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:50 (seventeen years ago) link

I like the early Invasion Beatles (up through "I Feel Fine" I guess) and the BBC album that came out with all their R&B/rockabilly covers, but "Rubber Soul" and everything after is unlistenable to me.

Blur were closer to the Beatles stylistically than Oasis, bt no one ever says that. Parklife is very similar to, say Sgt Peppers than Definitely Maybe.

Coincidentally, I dislike the Beatles and don't care about Oasis (love the big coke-album single that starts off with helicopters), but I hate Blur with a surprising passion. Except for "Song 2" which is still kind of fun.

― milo z (mlp), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Would a boyband have written 'Essex Dogs', however? Blur may have spent the early part of their career as a boyband, but, like the Beatles, they grew up to become a rock group. Horribly oversimplified I know but I hope you catch my drift.

xxpost

Song 2 is one of their worst songs, although I too have a guilty liking for D'ja Know What I Mean (one of the few Oasis songs I can listen to through).

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Friday, 11 August 2006 14:52 (seventeen years ago) link

Oasis -> McCartney & Ringo
Blur -> Lennon & George

― danzig (danzig), Friday, 11 August 2006 15:10 (seventeen years ago) link

found! the person who ~~hates~~ ~~mildly dislikes~~ thinks they were a bit overrated: http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

― fandango (fandango), Friday, 11 August 2006 15:14 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, anybody who could conscionably give Revolver 5 out of 10 is a braver man than I.

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Friday, 11 August 2006 18:30 (seventeen years ago) link

Was the 60's the last time pop and rock really had equal critical, commercial and artistic status?

Dom said 2002; I'd also add 2003. Also: let's not forget the golden year of 1984.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 11 August 2006 19:17 (seventeen years ago) link

I believe pop actually pulled ahead for a few weeks in spring '84. Fortunately, I wasn't around to see it.

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Friday, 11 August 2006 19:20 (seventeen years ago) link

"fortunately"? Fie on you.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 11 August 2006 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link

She's Electric has that Ringo-song vibe

Actually its Funkadelic's 'No Compute'.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy (Kerr), Friday, 11 August 2006 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link

Christ, if you scan down that History of Rock Music thing far enough the guy's basic point becomes that the Beatles did not do enough lengthy free-form jams and therefore cannot be considered avant-garde.

I think I am less smart for reading that.

― Sean Braud1s (Sean Braudis), Friday, 11 August 2006 19:34 (seventeen years ago) link

John Lennon's freeform jam with a tape-machine near the end of The Beatles doesn't count, then...

― Louis Jagger (Haberdager), Friday, 11 August 2006 19:37 (seventeen years ago) link

No offense dude, but terrible thread idea.

― deej.. (deej..), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

The Beatles were a really good rock and roll band. There's plenty of evidence of that on their early records and a decent amount on the later records. I would think that calling them klunky essentially amounts to the position that rock and roll is itself inherently clunky (and therefore that electric blues and country and western is also klunky).

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost
the premise of that Italian novel linked above seems to be

them beatles woz shit cos they wusnt CREEM or LED ZEP and they are bestbandzeva they ROXXXXOOOORRRRSS

― winter testing (winter testing), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:27 (seventeen years ago) link

I would think that calling them klunky essentially amounts to the position that rock and roll is itself inherently clunky (and therefore that electric blues and country and western is also klunky).

Yes, yes, but are the Beatles crunky?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:29 (seventeen years ago) link

no, more clinky rinky dinky

who said we never talk about what music actually sounds like ???

― winter testing (winter testing), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:31 (seventeen years ago) link

I must be desperate for ILM action to have opened this thread.

For those who don't know, you can't bring liquids on planes now.

― Sir Dr. Rev. PappaWheelie Jr. II of The Third Kind (PappaWheelie 2), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:33 (seventeen years ago) link

For me, the clunky bits come more from some of the "experiments" and music hall stuff than from the rock and roll.

― js (honestengine), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:34 (seventeen years ago) link

PappaWheelie, the roffle you provided made it almost worth it.

― Ruud Haarvest (Ken L), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

I like both bands but I'm a little awestruck that someone could find the Beatles clunkier than the Velvet Underground.

― Sundar (sundar), Friday, 11 August 2006 20:56 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not a big Beatles fan myself. Agree with the Lex on most points. I like most of the White Album and Abbey Road, but that's about it.

― Johnathan Redgers (Pearl Hooch), Friday, 11 August 2006 21:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Ah, I like the beatles but probably own only a few of the albums and don't have any compulsion to listen to them or buy the others.

― winter testing (winter testing), Friday, 11 August 2006 21:26 (seventeen years ago) link

they make me feel crazy in a bad way - so yes, i really hate them.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Friday, 11 August 2006 21:33 (seventeen years ago) link

do you mean like Charlie Manson?

― winter testing (winter testing), Friday, 11 August 2006 21:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Also: let's not forget the golden year of 1984.

New Pop was hated by most critics.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 11 August 2006 21:50 (seventeen years ago) link

I dislike the Beatles except for like 4 songs from their psych period.

I understand that they were *objectively* one of the best rock bands of the 20th century. I know they had the *best* songs recorded by the *best* producer with the *best* recording technology of the 20th century. I will not argue that they were a great band.

I had an arguement about whether or not you could dislike the Beatles without being willfully contrarian(sp?) just for the sake of it. The best analogy I can make is that the Beatles are like a soup that you just don't like. I know the soup is kick ass, I understand and respect other people liking the soup because the ingredients are fantastic. I just don't like the soups ingredients and I have no desire to eat that soup.

There is nothing about the people in the Beatles that interests me. I would have no desire to know those people if they were just random people off the street. The only thing that interests me is their marketing, I could take or leave anything else about them.

― Disco Nihilist (mjt), Friday, 11 August 2006 22:05 (seventeen years ago) link

I reject your soup analogy.

― Public Radio (public_radio), Friday, 11 August 2006 22:13 (seventeen years ago) link

The soup analogy is good. Particularly if its cream of tomato soup, the gloupy orangey stuff made by heinz. Because, I never think "oh yes, I'll have tomato soup today, must have tomato soup today, must stock up on lots of luscious tomato soup because its the best and most tomatoiest thing I've ever tasted". No, I think " tomato soup . s'alright but I had it every saturday lunchtime when I was a kid, and god do I know what tomato soup tastes like..., its fusion food for me all the way. egg and bacon ice cream oh yes indeed". But then you do have Tomato soup, when the kids say " daddy we have to have tomato soup because its the bestest and most tomatoiest thing we've ever tasted " and you realise the kiddies are corrrecto, nothing beats that chord change in "I wanna hold your hand".

― winter testing (winter testing), Friday, 11 August 2006 22:40 (seventeen years ago) link

I think I am less smart for reading that.

That's not his point at all and furthermore he's quite OTM in some ways (although obviously naive in others).

I personally can't stand the self-important "deep" lyrics that the Beatles brought to later pop music.

― xave (xave), Friday, 11 August 2006 23:24 (seventeen years ago) link

That Scaruffi page is a horrah.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 11 August 2006 23:33 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, wow.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 11 August 2006 23:38 (seventeen years ago) link

All this, and no mention of John Waters yet.

― wrapped up like a DOUche in the middle of the NUT (donut), Friday, 11 August 2006 23:41 (seventeen years ago) link

i wonder if the idiosyncrasities are due to the translation or the original article? anyone read it in Italian? Is it as fruitcaked?

― winter testing (winter testing), Friday, 11 August 2006 23:41 (seventeen years ago) link

He's still right about the Beatles' "innovations" having been pursued by others, usually better.

― xave (xave), Friday, 11 August 2006 23:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 57 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.