I prefer JLS, Westlife, and Take That
(no not really)
EDIT: but I doo prefer the Stones
Surely the beatles are the x factor versions of their generation. Generic pop music which all sounds the same, that people who only listen to music that is on the chart shelf at hmv are fans of. No real meaning or thought put into any of the songs, everything produced for the sole reason to get more publicity and money. No?
As I couldn't be arsed to type it up how do you like these apples?
Many of the Band's influences were American in origin. Chuck Berry was perhaps the most fundamental progenitor of the Beatles' sound. They recorded covers of "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Rock And Roll Music" early on and many other Berry classics were in their live repertoire. Chuck Berry's influence is also heard (in altered form) on later recordings such as "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey" (1968) and "Come Together" (1969) (when "Come Together" was released, the owner of Chuck Berry's copyrights sued John Lennon for copyright infringement of his song "You Can't Catch Me", after which the two reached an amicable settlement, the terms of which included an agreement that Lennon cover some Chuck Berry songs as a solo artist).
George Harrison had a fondness for American rockabilly music, particularly that of Eddie Cochran and Carl Perkins. The band's early stage show featured several Perkins tunes; some of these (notably "Honey Don't" featuring an early Ringo vocal) would eventually make it to vinyl. Moreover, Harrison's guitar work remained highly influenced by rockabilly styles throughout the band's tenure.
The Beatles' distinctive vocal harmonies were also influenced by those of early Motown artists in America; early Beatles staples included faithful versions of Barrett Strong's Motown recording of "Money (That's What I Want)" and The Marvelettes' hit "Please Mr. Postman".
No. But good try
Im with the anti Beatles crowd too. Muse or Radiohead is a bit more like it.
Like almost all bands of the 60's they were ripping off riffs and heavily influenced by the less popular and considerably less commercially exposed black musicians of the time.
Tell me it ain't so? Same as Elvis the "white man who could sing the blues".
Elvis was heavily influenced by black blues and early rock'n'roll, as were the Stones. However, I'm really struggling to think of who they're ripping off with [i]Love Me Do, Please Please Me, From Me To You, She Loves You, I Ant To Hold Your Hand, All My Loving, Can't Buy Me Love, A Hard Day's Night, And I Love Her...[/i]
All of which were written between 1962 and 1964. I honestly challenge anyone to find any other songwriters out there who were writing similar work that the Beatles could have been deriving their own work from.!
Ok, so the Beatles did covers, yes those covers sounded like other people. But you really think that stuff is typical of the Beatles?
Why not do some thinking for yourself instead of just copying stuff from the web?
Muse! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I love how music is subjective, and I don't mind that people pretend to dislike things like the Beatles. But Muse?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Listen, I'm not a great beatles fan, and I even hate Scousers.
But there is a load of crap being typed here tonight
All music is influenced by other music (dur!)
Yes of course I am in fact musically illiterate. My mistake.
Joolsburger - your argument makes no sense. Of course the beatles had influences,nobody starts bands in a vacuum. The point is that chuck berry is still doing the same thing he did in the fifties. The beatles went from she loves you to "a day in the life" in about 4 years. No one has ever
Matched them for innovation in pop music in such a short space of time. No one.
any way the stones were still better and they ripped off waaaay more people. fact.
Yes of course I am in fact musically illiterate. My mistake.
Well, you've yet to show any evidence to the contrary, i have asked you for your ideas, but so far you've just given me someone else's
As said above, almost all music came from somewhere else in some way.
Can't stand the Beatles myself. Never felt any connection to their music and I've listened to enough of it. Loads of other music out there I personally find better.
As others, not a Beatles fan but saying they are rubbish and derivative is always going to be tricky if you think about what other bands were doing. Remarkable thread.
Thoroughly enjoyed sc-xc and I quite liked muse when they started.
You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm happy not liking them and you seem to be a real fan. Your vehemence is a bit scary to be honest, would you like a cup of tea?
No probs with that. The point was that it is ok not to like them, but you cannot say they were rubbish. Without at least some evidence they they couldn't play, sing or write, show that they were musically talentless
[i]any way the stones were still better[/i]
and had a song written for them by Lennon and McCartney..
I don't like them much, there's a few songs that are decent but mostly they just don't make any impression on me, it's background music at best, same with the Stones and various other iconic bands. But I think about half the bands I like would have sounded pretty different without them so I owe them that.
I will say this though, I reckon if they were to come along now, few people would notice. A product of their time IMO.
The point was that it is ok not to like them, but you cannot say they were rubbish.
Indeed.
What I find annoying is statements like 'they were rubbish' when quite evidently they had more talent in their little fingers (including Ringo) than the poster of the comment. Musical (s)nobbery at its best 🙄
Entertaining thread however and I'd be very interested to hear from the anti-Beetles lot as to who they think are the iconic bands or individuals who have shaped contemporary music 🙂
Your vehemence is a bit scary
I'm very sorry if i scared you. Tell me which phrases you found most frightening and i'll try not to use them again in discussions with you.
Im with the anti Beatles crowd too. Muse or Radiohead is a bit more like it.
Oh, please, there's thirty years between The Beatles and Radiohead and Muse, and you can hear Beatles influences in a great many more modern bands, like Muse, although their most recent stuff is totally a Queen knockoff. And you could argue that Queen lifted a lot of ideas from the Beatles later more extravagant music, like [i]Tomorrow Never Knows[/i]. Prior to the Beatles, it was standard practice for bands to get their songs and music from songwriting factories like Goffin and King and other Brill Building inhabitants, and the British equivalents. The Beatles broke that system. It frankly doesn't matter if they were getting influences from blues or wherever, the fact is they were writing, recording and performing and having hits with [i]their own songs[/i]. That was new, and established the principal for rock bands who followed them. It honestly doesn't fracking matter one iota whether any of you lot actually [i]like[/i] them, they established a principle for others to follow that changed pop music forever. Anyone who says they were rubbish, however, is showing they're musically illiterate. There's plenty of music out there I don't [i]like[/i], but is certainly not rubbish; it's just not to my taste. I don't 'get' [i]Trout Mask Replica[/i], for example, but I'd be a frakkin' idiot to call it rubbish. Say you don't like something by all means, but if you're going to call The Beatles 'crap', or 'rubbish' or whatever, let's hear [i]your[/i] songwriting efforts to prove how much better you can do it. I'll happily admit that Lennon and McCartney were better as a team than they were as individuals, in fact I reckon Ringo wrote two songs that were better than pretty much anything McCartney wrote on his tod, [i]Photograph, Back Off Boogaloo[/i] and [i]It Don't Come Easy[/i] are long time favourites, [i]Another Day[/i] being the only McCartney solo song I actually like. There's little music that's actually [i]rubbish[/i], just stuff you don't like, and God knows, there's plenty of [i]that[/i].
I am so glad I am not the only one who hates the beatles they are ****ing shit end of, their music is piss poor and should be destroyed so I don't ever have to accidentally hear it. They make my piss boil I hate them so much.
Feel better now that I shared that with you all
John Lennon's been dead 30 years and yet people seem to think this is worth arguing about? Bizonkers.
And Mantastic, you've just proved my point. Clot.
DezB, I agree! and just think some loser is going to have to read it all!
What this thread shows us is that no music critics or indeed normal people are posting on this thread.
It's a bit sad when people think their personal taste equals a global truth.
Waderider, have you read the thread?
The Beatles ARE over-rated.
Lennon:McCartney are not the gods of writing - FACT
Listening to the Beatles will not gaurantee you a place in heaven or make you a better person - FACT
Loving the Beatles probably means you're too dull to have ever listened to other music - FACT
Charliemungus, do you spend to much time posting drivel on this forum and not enough time listening to music?
It's just that I (amongst others) haven't expressed my personal taste on here, let alone claim it as a global truth. I wondered where you got your idea from.
But i can't answer your question unless you tell me how much time is 'enough time' listening to music.
Please don't frighten people Charles Mungus. 🙁
sorry, and it's Charlie, not Charles
Not liking the Beatles is an affectation, something that people do to somehow appear interesting or different - like singlespeeding, not owning a telly or facial tattoos. 😉
No one really believes you, you know. 😀
You'll be saying you don't like Abba next......
Count zero, sadly I didn't get your point as I don't have enough free hours to read a post that equates to a novel. They are shite-fact
All is said
I don't see anyone banging on and on about other great Liverpudlian bands
Woody - Member
"What I find annoying is statements like 'they were rubbish' when quite evidently they had more talent in their little fingers (including Ringo) than the poster of the comment. Musical (s)nobbery at its best"
Ah, I see- so you can't criticise a band unless you're more musically talented then them? Fair dos, that's 99% of people disqualified from having any opinion about any music but if those are the rules...
"They were rubbish" is a statement of opinion, that's all. Now I am aware that there are people out there who can't recognise a statement of opinion unless it has "In my opinion" right beside it but that's their problem.
Octopus's Garden=Classic
Yellow Submarine=Awesome
Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da=Choon
😀
I love this song... really couldn't give a flying fk what any of you's think on the matter.
Some of you... enjoy.
The rest... mleh. 😛
All music criticism on here is just bunkum, it's just verbose justification for not liking something. I dislike most of the beatles output, especially the pop stuff, I'm allowed to dislike it yeah? This is still a free country?
That being said if I had a choice between Beatles and Oasis then I would be the greatest beatles supporter ever..
Woody - Member
The point was that it is ok not to like them, but you cannot say they were rubbish.
Indeed.What I find annoying is statements like 'they were rubbish' when quite evidently they had more talent in their little fingers (including Ringo) than the poster of the comment. Musical (s)nobbery at its best
Entertaining thread however and I'd be very interested to hear from the anti-Beetles lot as to who they think are the iconic bands or individuals who have shaped contemporary music
OK, so you think I'm a musical snob because I dont share the same musical taste as yourself? That seems like musical snobbery to me....
Just because a band is seen as iconic and to have shaped contemporary music... well that doesn't mean that everyone should like them surely?!
The spice girls had a massive influence and were seen as iconic, representing both women and britain across the world... doesnt mean they were amazing and I should like them.
You snobs... feel free to rip into as many bands as you like in the hope it'll offend my musical preferences, it'll be impossible as I understand that just because I like it... well that doesnt mean that everyone else should does it?
😀 What a beautiful morning for checking this thread hahaaaa
Oh yeah, and in your anger you appear to have made an assumption that I have no musical talent.... you know that is subjective and down to opinion too right? I could bang twigs on wheelie-bins and certain cultures would consider me as more talented than the beatles. Music is a form of art, and one man's Da Vinci is another man's Damien Hurst.
wow, reading that back once i've had coffee and woken up... it appears as if i was angry when writing it, i really wasnt, was dozy, wrapped up in a cold room eating eggs and toast and my eyes weren't open.
my point about the spice girls still stands 😛
All I need to know is:
Do people really think Helter Skelter is "rubbish"?
