How can you hate The Beatles?

How can you hate The Beatles?

Is there a more likeable group than The Beatles?

Attached: beatles_6.jpg (750x422, 54K)

Other urls found in this thread:

musicradar.com/news/guitars/paul-mccartney-names-radiohead-and-zutons-among-favourite-bands-157435
youtu.be/2V2abwkiRvk
youtube.com/watch?v=_4jeMWI6pP8
youtu.be/vl9188EPdLI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They're boring as fuck lol

my dad was friends with paul and george
used to book flights and shit for them for their solo careers
said they were the most insufferable humans imaginable
fuck the beatles
the asians are where its at

They were just the poor man's Monkees.

They're terrible because John Lennon beat his wife

this but unironically

im asian

>Is there a more likeable group than The Beatles?
Radiohead

Being popularisers of so many music writing conventions can only condemn this band to a 'this has been done far better by bands that came later' status.

lol

>radiohead
>scrawny edgy contrarians that dress like they bought stuff out of a thrift store
>more likable than Beatles

ok

musicradar.com/news/guitars/paul-mccartney-names-radiohead-and-zutons-among-favourite-bands-157435

>trusting anything that Faul says

their singing voices make me want to die a painful death.

>one person likes radiohead
great argument buddy

THE

yes there is

youtu.be/2V2abwkiRvk

Only millenials and super late gen Xs like Radiohead

FACT

Only baby boomers, millenials and super late gen Xs like The Beatles

I'm asian

They're like the common cold. Inoffensive compared to many other things one can suffer from (which is also what makes them so boring), but still a constant pain in the ass.

Ya but their whole career was based of creating watered down versions of trending music like rock and roll, folk, pychadelic, solo careers focused on easy listening. They are basically a christian rock band whose relegion was commercialization and idoltry.

Yeah thanks for elaborating. They didnt even pioneer most of the styles they dabbled in; if at all. Generic ass pop band if people weren't such suckers for the very thing.

>Is there a more likeable group than The Beatles?
Black Sabbath.

t. Yoko

To be honest we dont have much choice. They are an institution backed by billions of dollars, like star wars or pick a relegion of choice. Every 5 years there is a campaign to grab the youth. For most here it was rockband, Im older and for us was the anthology tv event. Yellow subarine anyone? This was always music for impressionable young minds. Boring and inoffensive. Does anyone really even like the beatles? Did we ever have a moment to consider the question. Its all about love. Can you be any more of a pacifier to the masses. Its like christianity in the form of music.

What's especially frustrating is the orchestral improvisation interlude in a pop hit "A Day in the Life" for which they're praised to high heavens, when they've clearly done it to be sensational.

I also hate that they are considered the archetype for a band when they essentially disbanded and stayed together only in name. Paul and John would live in a studio high on drugs and George Martin would take any music idea they had and complete it for them with studio trickery and orchestral musicians. Its was essentially a solo Paul project post Sgt Pepper, which isnt even a very good album. Most of the signature drum sound is paul's playing. The early beatles at least had a sound since they stuck to thier own instruments.

I hate how their entire legacy is double speak. Every flaw has a myth created to counter it. If you listen to ealy recordings they are not tight at all, yet they are supposedly so tight from playing 8 hours a night in Hamburg. Beach Boy records have higher musicianship because they used the wrecking crew to record everything and the beach boys only sang on recordings.

Do you have any sources for that? I'm intrigued by the stories, not by the band's material.

Not sure which point specifically you are refering to but listen to these this. Sounds familiar?
youtube.com/watch?v=_4jeMWI6pP8
I was raised on the Beatles my dad is a musician and all that jazz. I know them deeply like a lapsed catholic. One day they are great to me the other complete shit. Wrecking Crew did great doc you see all the "bands" who the played for.

youtu.be/vl9188EPdLI
This is also interesting. When you're not even the best drummer in your own band.
I was referring to George Martin doing their work for them in a way and the industry push they've received.

But they're not. What they were doing was really cutting edge at the time. So many pedals exist today specifically because the beatles wanted a certain sound that wasn't available previously.

I agree with a lot of things you guys are saying but I can't resist finding much their music extreamly well crafted and they sure had an special ear for melody
Pls dont bully

>special ear for melody
No one is denying that here.

>What they were doing was really cutting edge at the time
Perhaps in the studio, although George Martin is an equal part of that as the band itself.

This is just complete horsehit. Even if you wanna say they shamelessly capitalized off of the time's trends (which they didn't) trying to argue that it was a "watered down" version of what was already gone is just so absurdly offbase considering they were primarily known for bolstering up the faltering pop music landscape. Psychedelic music wasn't even a thing in the mainstream before them. What exactly is Tomorrow Never Knows a "water down version" of? And while you're at it maybe do the same thing for something as simple as I Wanna Hold Your Hand? What is that a water down version of? It's not Rock and Roll, too melodically complex. It's not a holdover from the teen idol area. It has touches of the girl groups and R&B of the the time but is far too heavy and structured to be classified as that. What is that definitive Beatles sound aping off of???? Please tell me because I do not know.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

>What exactly is Tomorrow Never Knows a "water down version" of?
Do you realize who their contemporaries were? Soft Machine, The Mothers of Invention, Procol Harum, Caravan, The Velvet Underground, Silver Apples, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Terry Riley, Harry Partch, etc. Or do you think they revolutionized classical music as well with an orchestral improvisation in the middle of a chart topping hit? They brought many of these elements to the pop realm and to a wider audience, for better or worse.

I'm not by the way.

No no no. Not equal and not even George deserves the credit. They had a team of engineers in lab coats. You dont understand how big a venture beatles inc were. There is a scene of some nutty scientist type flushing toilets and recording it doing all sorts of crazy stuff. It was a division of the company and the Beatles used all the R and D sounds in their PRODUCTS. I dont think you understand the music industry or any other for that matter. Often, only a few acts will generate enough money to float the entire roaster of acts. The Beatles were a cash cow that paid to produce other bands albums and ventures. I unironically know more than you ever will try to pretend to know. You can pick your few examples to shoot holes in my statement. Go for it, but Ill blow you out of the water if you really want to debate this. I grant that paul mc cartney is an excellent melody writer and comes from the tin pan alley tradition. Writing songs is a lot of work and they worked hard in the beginning. Lots of great standard songs. This is what they will ultimately and deserve to be remembered for. Paul knows this and thats why it is a point of contention in the crediting of the songs. Pauls knows when the dust settles, Yesterday will still be a standard and Lennon Mc Cartney will be seen as another Gershwins, Hammerstein, etc. He wrote good songs when he was young and not up his own ass, yes. The rest is nonsense and marketing. Now, you seem to frame music in recorded history only. This is your first mistake and also the first indication that you are not worth my time. Psychedelic music, like all music is a live performance artform. You seem to already touch on how it wasnt mainstream which kinda proves the point, so you may also be a retard. Taking what is trendy and making it mainstream is what the Beatles were doing from Rubber Soul onward. Once they became too drugged out to craft songs with bridges. Cont.

THAT

I understand the music industry very well, but I haven't researched enough about the Beatles. Their music just isn't for me, that's why. Thank you nevertheless.

cont.
A good musical composition can be recognized from just being notated. A strong melody and chord changes. This was early beatles. They even had campy re arrangements of their music in the movie HELP to drive the point of how good the songs were. What is tomorrow never knows user? Its 1 chord. Basically a rap music track that th Beatles had nothing to do with. Its all production. Again they had a team of noise makers and recording engineers. Those 4 fuckers are just faces of the company like any set of politicians.

Anybody who hates The Beatles is my ENEMY!

What are you, proud of that?

matter as well add star wars, coca cola, christianity and mc donalds for the grand slam.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand either of your responses.

What, exactly, are you trying to say?

Think nothing of it. The Beatles just aren't for me, that's all.

Only some of them were contemporaries. Several of those artists, though around were not even close to established at that point. You are assessing their worth with their "contemporaries" by conflating the entire decade with to one point in time. You need to go into it with a scalpel and see month by month, from 1964-1967 what was going on, what singles came out. You would clearly see that the beach boys and the beatles were absolutely at the forefront of this. These other bands largely showed up at the start. You would be better off mentioning less well known bands for the point you're trying to make like the turtles, 13th floor elevators, etc, because those bands were actually far earlier to the scene, pretty much contemporaneous with the beach boys and the beatles give or take a month or two. Most of what you listed wasn't realeased until mid 67. revolver was 1966 and so was pet sounds, but recording for both started in early 1965, nearly two years before all of those other artists. I'm not here to say the beatles are infallible and the most innovative ever (though you could make this argument), but the beach boys started producing psychedelic music several months prior to the earliest song on revolver being recorded, which was still over a year ahead of most of the other artists you mentioned.

Nearly all of the pop groups in that list came after Revolver was released, or was made concurrently with it like Mothers of Invention (unless you want to be real fucking pedantic about Freak Out's release date). And obviously I'm not trying to fucking claim The Beatles were ahead of Stockhausen, I'm saying that combination of pop music and recording techniques used well outside the realm of pop music that they were working in is exactly what their genius is. You're comparing a pop act with an avant-garde composer and faulting them for not being as forward thinking. Do you not realize how fucking retarded that is? You're saying what they took was trendy. I'm saying they took something from the periphery and made it trendy. It was a risky move and they succeeded because they could back it up with legitimate songwriting talent. I don't consider that "watering down", it's just influence and appropriation, which is what all musicians do.
>why are you judging pop music by pop music standards waaaaaaa
And you call out Paul McCartney for being up his own ass.

Yeah no shit The Beatles weren't recording engineers. Yeah no shit Tomorrow Never knows is all done over a C chord. These aren't clever things to point out. They were still the creative force driving all the production in that track. They had complete creative control over everything they released up until their break-up. I actually agree that their initial genius was in crafting modern pop standards, I just think they took that same creativity and applied it towards the album oriented rock direction that the music industry was recording towards. This fucking dramatic "hurr da coca cola of moosik" analogy is so disengenous and you know it. The marketing force of "The Beatles" has always been external to the music itself and I agree that it's kind of disgusting, but trying to wrap them up into all that as creative forces is such a damn cheap shot.

Im on the internet venting an unpopular opinion hur dur. You think I fail to recognize what Beatles are? Im not going to go online and say what I love about them. Im not a woman. Why the fuck would I need positive popular opinions validated? I want to shit on the beatles with other people and find new ways to articulate what I dont like about them and the world as a whole, so I can parrot those points later on and seem all that much smarter. Get with the program. We are on a Cambodian basket weaving site for christ sake. I really dont need to hear about how great they were on here.

>You would clearly see that the beach boys and the beatles were absolutely at the forefront of this
At the front of what? Chart topping singles? This is good and important for people who chose that entertainment at the time. Whether I personally enjoy it, shouldn't concern you very much, as I haven't said very much beyond that on the subject.
>I'm not here to say the beatles are infallible and the most innovative ever (though you could make this argument), but the beach boys started producing psychedelic music several months prior to the earliest song on revolver being recorded, which was still over a year ahead of most of the other artists you mentioned.
I'm glad you're not doing that, although psychedelic music (rock and pop) is hardly the most imaginative music of the decade. Yet again, psychedelic music doesn't interest me much at all. And making a case for a single band being "the best and the most innovative" is absurd, and I think we agree on that.
> I don't consider that "watering down", it's just influence and appropriation, which is what all musicians do.
I'm not comparing genres, but you'd have to be unreasonable (which you aren't) to conclude orchestral improvisation in the middle of a hit song was anything more than sensationalism.

Still don't like their music, lol

>but you'd have to be unreasonable (which you aren't) to conclude orchestral improvisation in the middle of a hit song was anything more than sensationalism
It's a clever device they used to bridge Lennon and McCartney's parts of that song. I think it shows a nice willingness on their part to think outside the box of pop music conventions but no, I don't ascribe that much to it beyond that, and I don't think most others do. I think there's much more to that song that makes it interesting, I don't know why you're dwelling on that aspect of it.

>my dad was friends with...
>...said they were the most insufferable
pick one

Story time.