Have any musicians (read: musicians, not journalists, critics and bloggers) voiced an actual dislike of The Beatles?
Frank Zappa said they were "okay" but that he preferred The Rolling Stones in an interview from the 80s, and Lou Reed liked Lennon and was a notorious troll anyway so don't say them.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
Scaruffi BTFO
I'm sure King Elvis Presley I had a negative thing or two to say about them at some point.
OP posted at: 11:32:20
>Scaruffi BTFO xD
>11:33:31
(You)
"When [bands] did try to get 'arty,' it was worse than stupid rock & roll," Reed says in the interview. "What I mean by 'stupid,' I mean, like, the Doors... I never liked the Beatles [either]. I thought they were garbage. If you say, 'Who did you like?' I liked nobody."
Lou Reed
So mysterious
There was a post punk band called "The better beatles" dedicated to performing shitty soulless covers of their songs out of spite.
I agree
There's nothing worse than pretentious counterculture "psychedelic" rock and I'll take rock and roll any day
But it's been established Lou Reed was a massive troll and shouldn't be taken seriously.
>out of spite.
[citation needed]
The Beatles are the highest selling music group of all time
Their music is designed to appeal to as many people as possible. You can dislike them or their music, but I don't think anybody feels bad while listening to a Beatles song because they could just make melodies that connected with people no matter what
Well anybody with ears know that The Doors suck ass
Not a musician but
When asked in an interview if he was willing to defend his assertion that the Beatles "ruined rock 'n' roll," Waters insisted, "Oh, I hate the Beatles. They did, they killed rock and roll."
The Beatles did kill rock and roll
They legitimized it. They were one of the first rock groups to be taken seriously as artists by critics and musicians alike.
"Nordin has stated that he considered the Beatles “an oppressive influence,” and pSmith has said their goal was to “[strip] the songs of their sacred status.”
I got this from Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt
youtube.com
>frank zappa and john lennon jam
>yoko ono ruins everything as usual
And that's what kills rock and roll
The Beatles tried as best they could to combine rock with older traditional European forms and so pointed the way to the progressive and art rock that would eventually have to be killed by punk
In taking rock and roll and moving it toward a direction that made everyone forget what it originally stood for, the Beatles are responsible for the fragmentation and subsequent death of the genre
shes literally the definition of a talentless hack
t. underage mcspud
Joy Division would've been a bigger and better influence on mainstream rock than the Beatles ever were had their tour of the U.S. happened
Well it makes sense
The Velvet Underground is really the opposite of the Beatles. The Velvets' music was simple, the Beatles' were complex. The Velvets were controversial and the Beatles were safe. Their entire approaches are different
The Beatles wanted to "legitimize" rock by combining it in an obvious, gaudy way with older,"artier", already legitimized forms
The Velvet Underground took the ameteurish energy of 50s rock and roll and used it as a jumping point for experimentation that was on the cutting edge of the avant-garde in their own time. They ignored tradition and kept everything that made rock and roll special in the first place, except they amplified it
Frank Sinatra only likes the song "Something". Otherwise he very much dislikes The Beatles
Joy Division isn't pop music so it wouldn't have appealed to as many people as the Beatles did. This is the most Sup Forums and most retarded statement I have ever seen.
Also Joy Division is boring shit.
Dylan criticized Sgt. Peppers when it came out
>U2 [from Joy Division's label] isn't as popular as the Beatles by contemporary standards
To add to this, the Velvets are not only innovative in pop music they were one of the most innovative art music of their time too. Their music is really one of the earliest fully formed expressions of postmodernism
Seconding this, fuck the Joy Division.
>Joy Division isn't pop music
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
how were they postmodern? legitimate question.
> Velvet Underground
> Not try-hard counterculture
don't be stupid user
I would have thought frank would have liked oh darling
Mainly because they cross the line from "high" and "low" arts with their unstudied, amateurish approach. Modernism has a tendency to try to "move forward" while still accepting traditional divisions, postmodern music is eclectic and anti-traditionalist
Velvet Underground were at least experimental enough to make it sort of acceptable to be as tryhard as they are.
he actually liked Paperback Writer best.
people just hate the beatles because their influence permeated everything, it has nothing to do with the outstanding quality of their work. Also Zappa liked the stones better because he was a rhythm and blues guy at heart, and because he was familiar with the more complex classical music that already offered harmonic complexity that the beatles had. If I recall though he was a fan of the Beach boys harmonies.
Lou Reed thought they were joke and the Doors because he was a very literary person and wanted a higher caliber of lyric.
john waters needs to stick with masturbating to bart simpson and keep his shitty opinions to himself
Holy shit i hate people like you. Go back to wank yourself to death listening lulu
Tom Waits didn't hate them particularly but he didn't like 60s music in general as it was coming out. tbqh Tom Waits was a wrong generation kid in his youth.
Rock and roll was originally seen as an underclass music. Legitimatizing it IS killing it in many people's eyes. Whenever a part of youth culture is made mainstream it a lot of people will argue it loses steam.
The Velvets will never come close to the surrealist genius st the heart of songs like, "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite"
Lou Reed at heart is a gutter punk with thick fingers and a stifled imagination
>
>muh simplification to force two bands be the opposite.
Beatles song were genious displays of pop music songwriting with unforgetable melodies and simple structures condensed in two to four minute songs. Simple as that. Beatles had both complex and simple music, but always good with no useless redundany. Maybe your standard of simole music are six minute songs with two chords and the same melody and edgy lyrics about hookers, trasvetites and drugs.
The beatles themselves would claim to be more known that jesus, they were no free of controversies. Both bands were cutting edge, with the beatles being more influential in the whole production and even recording of music. The velvet had the kewl looking clothes, kewl looking attitude and kewl sounding music. Ill give you that, nothing more.
>The Velvets will never come close to the surrealist genius st the heart of songs like, "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite"
I'm curious, what do you think makes Mr Kite so genius?
It's worth pointing out in this discussion that The Beatles were more working class growing up than TVU or The Rolling Stones.
God bless them for that. Music either gets killed or gets old and becomes a parody of itself. Better be killed
English is not your first language is it
No, I'm not saying that the Beatles are bad. I love the Beatles. Everyone loves the Beatles. Their music is really some of the best pop ever made.
I'm saying that their attempts at legitimizing rock were generally bad and not very well thought out.
No, it is really that not understandable??
it sounds very purely out of one's head, the sound college's many layers and lurching, carnival ride vaguely sinister mood, its like a simulation of something from another time, like I think Lennon like any good actor would get into the frame of mind of actually being that character, the ringleader almost and taking the listener on a heady ride, but mainly the ambience and atmosphere/overlapping chimes and guitars and calliope all swirling together but in the midst of a pop song
That makes sense
>VU
>being try-hard anything
their entire reputation is contingent on the fact that their music is effortless you fucking worthless spic
>Their music is really some of the best pop ever made.
>Hello
>Hello Hello
>I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello
>slamming the doors
literally most modern pop is better than that dad rock garbage
They had rules within the band (no blues solos for example), so no, that's not what their reputation is built on. I'm not the user you're responding to and wouldn't call TVU tryhards but they certainly did try. The difference between them and tryhards was that they succeeded in putting their money (music) where their mouth was.
They had rules within the band (no blues solos for example), so no, their output wasn't effortless. No, I don't think they were tryhards but they did certainly try to be different from other bands of the day. The difference between them and most of other groups with similar philosophies is that they succeeded.
what is going on here
Lou Reed also claimed Yeezus was a masterpiece
Lou Reed also said Lulu was better than anything the VU made
he's a troll
While not really about their music, I remember reading a quote from Mark Everett of Eels where he called John Lennon a hypocrite because he advocated peace while being a wife beater.
Melanie Trump?
who cares, musicians are fucking idiots