Hell yeah I just wanted to see if there was someone else on this site who hates the Beatles, I'm happy I found out I'm not the only. not trying to be a dick just stating my opinion I think they're really over rated too, and boring I realize they were groundbreaking in their time, but I wasn't alive back then so NAH!!!!!!!! not my style. It realy is hard to find people who dont like them though

Written by Nighthowls on 10.09.2009 at 07:24

Hell yeah I just wanted to see if there was someone else on this site who hates the Beatles, I'm happy I found out I'm not the only. not trying to be a dick just stating my opinion I think they're really over rated too, and boring I realize they were groundbreaking in their time, but I wasn't alive back then so NAH!!!!!!!! not my style. It realy is hard to find people who dont like them though

No, it's not hard to find people who don't like them, on this thread those who like them are less in number then those who don't.

I came across this on the net, this guy sums up exactly what I think of the Beatles in a very long essay he wrote, you can read here in full http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html, this is the most interesting part:

"The Beatles most certainly belong to the history of the 60s, but their musical merits are at best dubious.

The Beatles came to be at the height of the reaction against rock and roll, when the innocuous "teen idols", rigorously white, were replacing the wild black rockers who had shocked the radio stations and the conscience of half of America. Their arrival represented a lifesaver for a white middle class terrorized by the idea that within rock and roll lay a true revolution of customs. The Beatles tranquilized that vast section of people and conquered the hearts of all those (first and foremost the females) who wanted to rebel without violating the societal status quo. The contorted and lascivious faces of the black rock and rollers were substituted by the innocent smiles of the Beatles; the unleashed rhythms of the first were substituted by the catchy tunes of the latter. Rock and roll could finally be included in the pop charts. The Beatles represented the quintessential reaction to a musical revolution in the making, and for a few years they managed to run its enthusiasm into the ground.

Furthermore, the Beatles represented the reaction against a social and political revolution. They arrived at the time of the student protests, of Bob Dylan, of the Hippies, and they replaced the image of angry kids with their fists in the air, with their cordial faces and their amiable declarations. They came to replace the accusatory words of militant musicians with overindulgent nursery rhymes. In this fashion as well the Beatles served as middle-class tranquilizers, as if to prove the new generation was not made up exclusively of rebels, misfits and sexual maniacs.

For most of their career the Beatles were four mediocre musicians who sang melodic three-minute tunes at a time when rock music was trying to push itself beyond that format (a format originally confined by the technical limitations of 78 rpm record). They were the quintessence of "mainstream", assimilating the innovations proposed by rock music, within the format of the melodic song.

The Beatles belonged, like the Beach Boys (whom they emulated for most of their career), to the era of the vocal band. In such a band the technique of the instrument was not as important as the chorus. Undoubtedly skilled at composing choruses, they availed themselves of producer George Martin (head of the Parlophone since 1956), to embellish those choruses with arrangements more and more eccentric.

Thanks to a careful publicity campaign they became the most celebrated entertainers of the era, and are still the darlings of magazines and tabloids, much like Princess Grace of Monaco and Lady Di.

The convergence between Western polyphony (melody, several parts of vocal harmony and instrumental arrangements) and African percussion - the leitmotif of American music from its inception - was legitimized in Europe by the huge success of the Merseybeat, in particular by its best sellers, Gerry and the Pacemakers and the Beatles, both produced by George Martin and managed by Brian Epstein. To the bands of the Merseybeat goes the credit of having validated rock music for a vast audience, a virtually endless audience. They were able to interpret the spirit and the technique of rock and roll, while separating it from its social circumstances, thus defusing potential explosions. In such fashion, they rendered it accessible not only to the young rebels, but to all. Mediocre musicians and even more mediocre intellectuals, bands like the Beatles had the intuition of the circus performer who knows how to amuse the peasants after a hard day's work, an intuition applied to the era of mass distribution of consumer goods.

Every one of their songs and every one of their albums followed much more striking songs and albums by others, but instead of simply imitating those songs, the Beatles adapted them to a bourgeois, conformist and orthodox dimension. The same process was applied to the philosophy of the time, from the protest on college campuses to Dylan's pacifism, from drugs to the Orient. Their vehicle was melody, a universal code of sorts, that declared their music innocuous. Naturally others performed the same operation, and many (from the Kinks to the Hollies, from the Beach Boys to the Mamas and Papas) produced melodies even more memorable, yet the Beatles arrived at the right moment and theirs would remain the trademark of the melodic song of the second half of the twentieth century.

Their ascent was branded as "Beatlemania", a phenomenon of mass hysteria launched in 1963 that marked the height of the "teen idol" mode, a extension of the myths of Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. From that moment on, no matter what they put together, the Beatles remained the center of the media's attention.

Musically, for what it's worth, the Beatles were the product of an era that had been prepared by vocal groups such as the Everly Brothers and by rockers such as Buddy Holly; an era that also expressed itself through the girl-groups, the Tamla bands and surf music. What the Beatles have in common with them, aside from almost identical melodies, is a general concept of song: an exuberant, optimistic and cadenced melody.

The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton and Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but no less original). The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul McCartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence). Overall, the technique of the "fab four" was the same of many other easy-listening groups: sub-standard.

Theirs were records of traditional songs crafted as they had been crafted for centuries, yet they served an immense audience, far greater than the audience of those who wanted to change the world, the hippies and protesters. Their fans ignored or abhorred the many rockers of the time who were experimenting with the suite format, who were composing long free-form tracks, who were using dissonance, who were radically changing the concept of the musical piece. The Beatles' fans thought, and some still think, that using trumpets in a rock song was a revolutionary event, that using background noises (although barely noticeable) was an even more revolutionary event, and that only great musical geniuses could vary so many styles in one album, precisely what many rock musicians were doing all over the world, employing much more sophisticated stylistic excursions.

While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avant garde music, thus elevating rock music to art, the Beatles continued to yield three minute songs built around a chorus. Beatlemania and its myth notwithstanding, Beatles fans went crazy for twenty seconds of trumpet, while the Velvet Underground were composing suites of chaos twenty minutes long. Actually, between noise and a trumpet, between twenty seconds and twenty minutes, there was an artistic difference of several degrees of magnitude. They were, musically, sociologically, politically, artistically, and ideologically, on different planets.

Beatlemania created a comical temporal distortion. Many Beatles fans were convinced that rock and roll was born around the early 60s, that psychedelic rock and the hippies were a 1967 phenomenon, that student protests began in 1969, that peace marches erupted at the end of the 60s, and so on. Beatles fans believed that the Beatles were first in everything, while in reality they were last in almost everything. The case of the Beatles is a textbook example of how myths can distort history.

The Beatles had the historical function to delay the impact of the innovations of the 60's . Between 1966 and 1969, while suites, jams, and long free form tracks (which the Beatles also tried but only toward the end of their career) became the fashion, while the world was full of guitarists, bassist, singers and drummers who played solos and experimented with counterpoint, the Beatles limited themselves to keeping the tempo and following the melody. Their historic function was also to prepare the more conservative audience for those innovations. Their strength was perhaps being the epitome of mediocrity: never a flash of genius, never a revolutionary thought, never a step away from what was standard, accepting innovations only after they had been accepted by the establishment. And maybe it was that chronic mediocrity that made their fortune: whereas other bands tried to surpass their audiences, to keep two steps ahead of the myopia of their fans, traveling the hard and rocky road, the Beatles took their fans by the hand and walked them along a straight path devoid of curves and slopes.

Beatles fans can change the meaning of the word "artistic" to suit themselves, but the truth is that the artistic value of the Beatles work is very low. The Beatles made only songs, often unpretentious songs, with melodies no more catchy than those of many other pop singers. The artistic value of those songs is the artistic value of one song: however well done (and one can argue over the number of songs well done vs. the number of overly publicized songs by the band of the moment), it remains a song, precisely as toothpaste remains toothpaste. It doesn't become a work of art just because it has been overly publicized.

The Beatles are justly judged for the beautiful melodies they have written. But those melodies were "beautiful" only when compared to the melodies of those who were not trying to write melodies; in other words to the musicians who were trying to rewrite the concept of popular music by implementing suites, jams and noise. Many contemporaries of Beethoven wrote better minuets than Beethoven ever wrote, but only because Beethoven was writing something else. In fact, he was trying to write music that went beyond the banality of minuets.

The melodies of the Beatles were perhaps inferior to many composers of pop music who still compete with the Beatles with regard to quality, those who were less famous and thus less played.

The songs of the Beatles were equipped with fairly vapid lyrics at a time when hordes of singer songwriters and bands were trying to say something intelligent. The Beatles' lyrics were tied to the tradition of pop music, while rock music found space, rightly or wrongly, for psychological narration, anti-establishment satire, political denunciation, drugs, sex and death.

The most artistic and innovative aspect of the Beatles' music, in the end, proved to be George Martin's arrangements. Perhaps aware of Beatles' limitations, Martin used the studio and studio musicians in a creative fashion, at times venturing beyond the demands of tradition to embellish the songs. Moreover, Martin undoubtedly had a taste for unusual sounds. At the beginning of his career he had produced Rolf Harris' Tie Me Kangaroo with the didjeridoo. At the time nobody knew what it was. Between 1959 and 1962 Martin had produced several tracks of British humor with heavy experimentation, inspired by the Californian Stan Freiberg, the first to use the recording studio as an instrument.

As popular icons, as celebrities, the Beatles certainly influenced their times, although much less than their fans suppose. Even Richard Nixon, the American president of the Vietnam war and Watergate influenced his times and the generations that followed, but that doesn't make him a great musician.

Today Beatles songs are played mostly in supermarkets. But their myth, like that of Rudolph Valentino and Frank Sinatra, will live as long as the fans who believed in it will live. Through the years their fame has been artificially kept alive by marketing, a colossal advertising effort, a campaign without equal in the history of entertainment.

Their history begins at the end of the 50s. Buddy Holly's Crickets had invented the modern concept of the rock band. Indirectly they had also started the fashion of naming a band with a plural noun, like the doo-wop ensembles before them, but a noun that was funny instead of serious. Almost immediately bands like "the Crickets" began to pop up everywhere, most of them bearing plural nouns. Insects were fashionable. The Beatles were the most famous.

Assembled to bring to Europe the free spirit, the simple melodies and the vocal harmonies of the Beach Boys (the novelty of the moment) more than for any specific reason, the Beatles became, despite their limitations, the most successful recording artists of their time. While acknowledging that neither the Beatles nor the Beach Boys were music greats, it must be noted that both were influential in conferring commercial credibility to rock music, and both inspired thousands of youngsters around the world to form rock bands. The same had happened with Elvis Presley. Although far from being a great musician, he too had inspired thousands of white kids, among them both the Beatles and the Beach Boys, to become rockers.

The "swinging London" of the 60s was a mix of renewal, mediocrity, conformity, non-commitment, cultural rebirth, tourist attraction and excitement, a locus of rebellion drowned in shining billboards, of young men with long hair and girls in mini skirts, of wealth and hypocrisy about wealth, a city of indifference. La dolce vita, English style. The Beatles were the best selling product of that London, a city full of ambiguity and contradictions. "

^ I agree to a few things written there but still, it's like an evil conspiracy theory with this guy - people take things sometimes way too seriously. Yes, there were a lot of bands better than the Beatles in the 60s, Beatles got the cake, so be it.

People who do not like to read such long articles, need to go listen to Frank Zappa's We're Only in It for the Money where Zappa mocks the Beatles and the flower power generation. There ain't a crueler bashing than that.

Last week I played The Beatles Rock band game. It's ok. It isn't as exciting as the other games, most likely because their music isn't that exciting, but it's still worth a try, though I wouldn't really buy it. I guess this one's just for real Beatles fans.

I don't like The Beatles, but Helter Skelter is a fucking awesome song.

Of course -if you had only ever listened to Metal- that Beatles' songs sound a little tiny and "ordinary" but just try to rewind 47 years and locate in time and space.. They were outer-space sound for young people then, they recorded albums like Sgt. Pepper and Revolver without computers, without the electronic technology we have nowadays.. Just think about it..

Written by tulkas on 07.10.2009 at 02:40

Last week I played The Beatles Rock band game. It's ok. It isn't as exciting as the other games, most likely because their music isn't that exciting, but it's still worth a try, though I wouldn't really buy it. I guess this one's just for real Beatles fans.

not exciting?!?! well i guess it's not common for me to hear something like that so u shocked me



I just ordered my remasterized box set for christmas!!! i'm really happy...can't wait!!!

Sorry, they just don't move me as much as other stuff. Sure, they have their songs and everything but... meh. Unless I'm on acid trip or something, haha

Well I KNOW this has nothing to do with the conversation right now but I am currently in Hamburg, the city that launched The Beatles!! and I just needed to brag a bit about it!!!

Beatles bring back good memories i cant bring myself to think about...

Written by Icarus on 03.12.2009 at 04:20

Beatles bring back good memories i cant bring myself to think about...

it happened to me once before but only with the song "in my life"...time helps, believe me

...and in the end the love u take is equal to the love u make


btw my box set arrived!!! i'm so happy!!!!

Written by Icarus on 03.12.2009 at 04:20

Beatles bring back good memories i cant bring myself to think about...

Don't be afraid of your memories, otherwise you'll never move forward... See them for what they are, another time, that's no longer with you. but better times may come, I'm sure of it...

I love the beatles, even though they sold out having all their songs on every commercial and movie nowadays, but i really dont blame them cause there all dead and dont conrtol there music, so i still love them

Written by [user id=36287] on 03.12.2009 at 15:43

but i really dont blame them cause there all dead

Are you sure, last I heard there were still two.

Didn't Michael Jackson own the rights to their music? Now that he is dead, who controls their music?

I just recently discovered The Beatles for myself, I was almost completely unfamiliar with their music besides the main hits which I don't care about. White Album, although pretty inconsistent, has some amazing songs on it - While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Sexy Sadie, Blackbird, I'm So Tired... My personal favorite is Happiness is a Warm Gun, a really disjointed song in a way, yet still has this great, a bit sinister, overall feel to it. One of the most frequent songs on my playlist these days.

Say no to the bashers and enjoy the music. Who cares if they were conformists or unoriginal or whatever.

The White album is my favourite of theirs.

People who don't like the band are okay with me. But people who don't like the band and are basing this assumption on their "hits" is ridiculous. The Beatles epitomise the often-seen scenario where the popular songs are the worst musically.

My favourite Beatles songs are Blue Jay Way, Helter Skelter, Only A Northern Song and Tomorrow Never Knows. But they have many brilliant tracks.

Written by [user id=2084] on 13.12.2009 at 07:22

Didn't Michael Jackson own the rights to their music? Now that he is dead, who controls their music?

Yep he bought 50% of the rights or something like that...i'm not like the best at that stuff hehe...but i do know that paul was really pissed because of this, he was planning to buy them first

...and yes...there are still 2 beatles alive

The Beatles are among my favourites because of the wide range of different sounds their songs could achive and also becasue they are really good musicians. I used to thought, many years ago, that their music was simple and boring, but, nah, their music is awesome, really complex and always enjoyable.

I think it's quite sad that so many people biase the Beatles 'cause they're... the Beatles. They have written so many great songs and John Lennon was a marvelous singer

Written by Don Martin on 16.04.2010 at 13:02

I think it's quite sad that so many people biase the Beatles 'cause they're... the Beatles. They have written so many great songs and John Lennon was a marvelous singer

I prefer Ringo's voice.

I absolute LOVE the Beatles!

And fuck me, i read that entire article above... and despite the bile and spite it had to admit they wrote good chorus's. That's what it's all about with the Beatles for me, in the car, at work listening to the radio and a Beatles song comes on i can sing along with it. Goes way back to Theatre's of Ancient Greece does the Chorus. The Dionysion rites: argued by many to be the pinnicle of cultural expression. It all evolved around the crowd's participation in the chorus.

The Beatles also bring back great memories too.. Revolver been my favourite album, even endorsed by the Vatican.

Written by the stranger on 21.04.2010 at 01:11

Written by Don Martin on 16.04.2010 at 13:02

I think it's quite sad that so many people biase the Beatles 'cause they're... the Beatles. They have written so many great songs and John Lennon was a marvelous singer

I prefer Ringo's voice.

Ringo's? But he occasionally sang, and these songs are just him having fun and having a laugh with the others - Octopus garden is the best example.

Written by [user id=17278] on 22.04.2010 at 00:31

Written by the stranger on 21.04.2010 at 01:11

Written by Don Martin on 16.04.2010 at 13:02

I think it's quite sad that so many people biase the Beatles 'cause they're... the Beatles. They have written so many great songs and John Lennon was a marvelous singer

I prefer Ringo's voice.

Ringo's? But he occasionally sang, and these songs are just him having fun and having a laugh with the others - Octopus garden is the best example.

Yellow Submarine and With A Little Help From My Friends are excellent examples of how a good singer he is.

^ yes, his got nice vocals, I was just surprised by your statement, that's all.

Why am I just discovering the Beatles thread?! I've been a member of this site for so long and never came into this thread, damn.

I own the boxset from Apple that just came out in 2009. It's great because I was brought up with The Beatles, but never owned anything.

The Beatles are bigger than Jesus

(Sorry, John, this cost you your life)

Written by TheBigRossowski on 11.08.2010 at 23:57

The Beatles are bigger than Jesus

(Sorry, John, this cost you your life)

But it's true. I've heard a Shipibo dude (Shipibos are a group of the Peruvian Amazonian Basin) play Hey, Jude with coca leaves. The places the church haven't been able to reach, the Beatles have.

I know a lot people they hate the band and even me! in early time . but as some of you mentioned it before i love them now due to their similarity and not to be so serious like the other proud bands such as Linkin Park right now!!!
in my opinion its the popularity's key to be in free mood like them just like the other rock band legendary " Pink Floyd" .

Written by Saeed_p on 22.06.2011 at 13:33

i love them now due to their similarity and not to be so serious like the other proud bands such as Linkin Park right now!!!

The Beatles and Linkin Park being compared for similarities. Now I've seen it all.