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

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.

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).

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

Actually its Funkadelic's 'No Compute'.

I think I am less smart for reading that.

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

Yes, yes, but are the Beatles crunky?

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

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

New Pop was hated by most critics.

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.

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.

He labours the point a bit but I do find myself in agreement with quite a lot of it in theory (don't own a Beatles record except for a crap tape copy of Red + Blue I never listen to, and I heard Revolver once a long time ago). I think it's a consistent enough argument to be considered at least a little bit seriously.

I think what he fails to grapple with enough is the inevitability of (some) avant movements reaching the mainstream eventually, especially at a time of great(er?) flux like the 60's, and he also skips over the question WHY is white pop music automatically bad? It would seem that way at times through that article. Because it doesn't work for THE STRUGGLE (politically neutral or commercially compromised) and advance the cause of SERIOUS rock music? Okay it's rockism/popism all over again MAYBE. But still, a lot of Beatles tracks (but not all) DO have rather an empty, hollow feel to me and I wonder if he's not OTM at least once somewhere in that piece.

You're thinking of The Beach Boys circa 1968

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.

The Drifters were recording on better recording equipment in 1959. Tom Dowd, Atlantic Records' producer who institutionalized the 8track recorder (yeah yeah, Les Paul invented it), was shocked to learn that EMI/Abbey Road was only using 3tracks during The Beatles time.

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

Uh, John made a career out of both making up non-sense lyrics for the fun of it, and making lyrics that mock his fans that take his lyrics too seriously. I do realize that followers read too much into it and it spawned crap, but The Beatles themselves aimed to prevent that before it got started.

"Diluting" argument would need specific examples to be of any potential resonance to me. "Drawing on" argument describes almost all pop/rock musicians.

In their songs there is no Vietnam, there is no politics, there are no kids rioting in the streets, there is no sexual promiscuity, there are no drugs, there is no violence. In the world of the Beatles the social order of the 40s and the 50s still reigns. At best they were influential on the secret dreams of young girls, and on the haircuts of young nerdy boys.

The jukebox's contents cover a ten-year period between Gene Vincent's "Be-Bop-A-Lula" from 1956 and The Lovin' Spoonful's "Daydream", released in 1966, whereupon Lennon stopped adding to the box. Largely by American R&B artists, they are songs that Lennon admired and many of them influenced his own writing.

Bobby Parker "Watch Your Step" 1961

There was a documentary based on this jukebox. The producers went to all the artists included in the jukebox and spoke with them about influencing Lennon. When they got to Bobby Parker, they opened with him playing the opening riff to Watch Your Step, which of course, is the riff from I Feel Fine.

But yeah, as I was saying, Watch your Step more than ripped off the riff form Ray Charles...the entire song is Ray's blueprint for arrangements during his Atlantic years.

(I also love that John is quoted calling John Sebastian [Lovin' Spoonful] a "damned tunesmith" due to his self-percieved non-songwriting abilities...which the last song on the jukebox of course, spawned Goodday Sunshine)

x-post

Why don't we can do it in the road?