Why Don't You Like 'The Beatles'?

I love The Beatles...and when people shrug them off, and compare them to that of "just another Boy Band", 'N SYNC, Back Street Boys, or Jona's Brother's, I really have to laugh, as it's apparent those people haven't got the slightest clue regarding the evolution of Rock Music.

I'll try to break it down for those of you who are truly misinformed...

No offense... :)

Since the 1950's, Rock and Roll has been a progression. During the 60's The Beatles opened the doors, and influenced all aspects of pop culture/rock music for the duration of that decade, which in turn had a profound effect on everything that came after. In saying this, you would not have The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, The Byrds, The Hollies, and the thousands of bands that seemed to explode onto the scene who were in many ways influenced by The Beatles. ie: Many of the hard rock/metal and punk bands of the 70's grew up in the 60's listening to The Beatles, and were either directly, or indirectly influenced by them during their youth. The Beatles music touched everyone, and some of those 70's bands would include Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, The Ramones, Yes, The Sex Pistols, Deep Purple, The Buzzcocks, Led Zeppelin, etc...and those bands in turn influenced just about every genre/sub genre that's evolved since. If we were to remove The Beatles from this progressive equation, you wouldn't have many of the aforementioned bands, as it was The Fab Four who gave many of them the incentive to pick up a guitar, and write their own music in the first place.

The fact that The Beatles were only a fully functioning band, and a world wide phenomenon for a little over 7 years...and are still being talked about nearly 40 years after their demise says something with regards to their impact on rock and roll, and pop culture in general.

I grew up in the 60's, and the Beatles influenced everything from music, fashion, art, and even the way some kids spoke at the time! Other bands like The Stones always looked up to the Beatles back in the 60's. They tried their darnedest to be as creative, and write their own material. In that aspect, Jagger and Richards only wished they had half of Lennon and McCartney's talent, as they couldn't go on playing blues covers forever. In fact the Stones first hit was written by the Beatles, 'I Wanna be Your Man'.

So many bands in the 60's tried to look like and sound like the The Beatles; Paul Revere and the Raiders, Count Five, The Byrds, Blues Magoos, Hermans Hermits, Manfred Mann, The Kinks, the list is endless. Even the Rolling Stones copied their look in the beginning. EVERYbody did to some extent.

When it comes to the music side of the influence thing, the Stones can hardly be called original, as they primarily ripped off American bluesmen anyway. Even Keith Richards admitted that every lick he plays, he stole from Chuck Berry!

At the start of their career, The Beatles did borrow a lot of things from the likes Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Little Richard too. But they were more subtle about it, and payed more attention to writing original songs, geared towards the new style of rock or 'Beat Movement' which they themselves had started. What the Stones might have influenced, was the 60's Garage band scene, along with the 60's British blues movement, The Yardbirds, John Mayalls Blues Breakers, Fleetwood Mac, The Pretty Things, Savoy Brown, Chicken Shack, etc. I think the Stones and The Kinks really helped put that movement into gear, and have always been very blues based in their approach, with the exception of some of their more experimental late 60's psychedelic material. Then before long, they realized they weren't quite as imaginative as the Beatles in that regard, and went back to a more blues/rock approach again.

The Beatles on the other hand went after a much larger fan base/demographic, not only the young influential fans of the 60's Rock, Pop and Beat Movement...but many of the 'Mom & Pop' 20-30 something's could also relate.

We can also talk about studio and recording techniques / trickery, ie; Sgt Pepper. The Beatles and George Martin really set the marker high on that one! Even though many of these studio techniques were used previously by people like Les Paul, Phil Spector, Frank Zappa &The Mothers of Invention/Tom Wilson, The Beatles really had the imagination, and writing skills to convey this new medium properly.

Take a look at the Stones 'Their Satanic Majesties Request', those guys were always trying to play 'catch up' to the 'Fab Four'.

The Beatles dropped their 'She Loves You yeah yeah' style in the summer of 1965 when they released Help (the album, not the soundtrack), along with Rubber Soul the same year. Not one song on either of those LP's resembled the Beatles style of "yeah yeah yeah" from a year or two earlier. The Stones were primarily blues and R&B from day one and only explored new areas and experimental territory because the Beatles did. Even on 'Out of Our Heads', 'December's Children (And Everybody's)' both released in 1965, the Stones had very little to offer as far as something new and fresh, and were still basically regurgitating old R&B riffs, with a couple exceptions.

It wasn't until 1966 with the Stones release of Aftermath with songs like 'Stupid Girl', 'Lady Jane', 'Mothers Little Helper', had the Stones begun to experiment, but the bulk of that album was still R&B. The 1st truly experimental Stones album was 'Between the Buttons' in 1967, where all the songs were experimental, and they tried hard to shed their R&B style. It was released a year an a half after the Beatles had already accomplished shedding their earlier style. Everybody followed the Beatles back in the day.

The fact that people are still debating this age old 'Beatles vs Stones' thing, or even still discussing The Beatles in an open forum decades after their demise such as this says something about just how influential/brilliant the Beatles really were. Hell, I've even seen people here in Y!A ask silly comparative questions like "which do you think is better...MCR or The Beatles". What's up with that? I'll tell you what...it's called staying power! Do you really think any of the current bands will be held in such high regard in 40 years time?

If the Stones had broken up in 1969/70, I seriously doubt they would have had the same impact on music the way the Beatles have all these years later. It's obvious that The Beatles have had more staying power and influence than any 60's band...and it was the 60's that shaped rock and roll, and made it what it is today. The Beatles back catalog has been a source for inspiration / material by everyone from Jazz musicians to Classical orchestration. Heck even 'Circ Du Soleil' has based an entire show on the Beatles music 37 years after they broke up.

Obviously I am a Beatles Fan. Not only was I there, I was also paying attention. If it wasn't for the Beatles opening the doors and starting the whole British invasion...quite simply, most of what you listen to today would not exist.

I'm not saying that The Beatles were extraordinary musicians that played with any sort of virtuosity...because we all know they weren't. But they did have something nobody else had back in the 60's...and that's called originality!

FYI...I am also a metal head, jazz head, punk head, prog head, blues head, classical head etc. As I've mentioned, rock music is a progression, with each generation being influenced by its predecessor. Removing The Beatles from history would be like removing a key organic compounds from the building blocks of life; CHNOPS – carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur. If we were to eliminate one of these essential ingredients, we would no be here, or life would not be as we know it.

Well...that might be a bit excessive...and it's only meant as a crude analogy...but at least I've gotten my point across.

They're honestly overrated. The only song I really liked from them was "Hey Jude," but other than that, I can't bring myself to jump on the bandwagon and love them too. Their music is just not fit for my taste, and everyone should have something they like and don't like. You shouldn't have to make people agree with you just because they are popular. There were many amazing musicians back in the day, but they happened to remain legends because they know a lot of people and built connections to become mega famous.

There is a nice course that can show you the best singing tips - Best Tips to Improving Your Singing Voice: ( http://learnhowtosing.kyma.info/ ) You can learn how to: Improve Your Singing Voice, Sing With Amazing Control, And Gain A Full Octave In Your Vocal Range. Discover How To Become A Better Singer In Just Days: ( http://learnhowtosing.kyma.info/ ) In just few minutes a day, You Could Start Singing With Incredible Control, Power, Pitch, And More Freedom Than You Ever Imagined. The Superior Singing Method is exactly what you need! The Superior Singing Method is like having a personal vocal instructor showing you exactly how your voice works, and how to work with each muscle group in your voice to get the results you want. Discover how to become a Better Singer in just days: ( http://learnhowtosing.kyma.info/ )

Im a fan of The Beatles, however, im not a big fan of their early stuff, I get bored of simple 2-3 minute songs easily, and those first 2-3 records are not really to my taste. It was only after I started listening to Revolver did I get into them.

Not everyone is going to like the Beatles, everyone has their own taste, and some people just don't like the vibe from Beatles songs, which are for the most part life affirming and poppish as some would say.

I am a much bigger fan of The Beatles experimental albums, and will say that I would not ever own the first Beatles records.. just according to my taste... Just because they are the Beatles does not mean you have to like every song they made, nor like them at all.

The Who

Even though I'm in my 40's, their music just never appealed to me, probably because it was over-played on the radio back then ( I tend to dislike over-played music and music that everybody likes). However I do like a handful of their songs that are very rare and hardly got any air play.

To the person above: Your musically ignorant if you cant accept that people have different taste in music. (:

Well to be honest ok, I do like Eleanor Rigby but I have to say when people ask who was the best band ever? It always seems to be The beatles and sure, they came along at the right time when music kinda sucked and they were great compared to all the other bands but seriously they arent the best band ever, what about Pantera, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Radiohead, Slayer, Black Sabbath etc etc..

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and thats fine, if you like them you like them but I don't see what the big thing is about them.

I'm not a HATER as such, I'm just not a fan.

However, Pattern Juggleeeeer stole my god damn reason!!!!!! Ahh!!

Umm I guess I better attempt to put it in my own lovely way XD

I've never heard a song of theirs that made me feel like "F*ck, YEAH!!" Not like Queen, or GNR, or Led Zeppelin for that matter. I suppose they just don't grab me, so to speak!!

Apart from Hard Days Night 'cause I LOVE that song!!!! ITS BEEN A HARD DAYS NIIIIIIIIIGHT YEAH IT DAMN WELL HAS!!!!!!!!! XD

Ahem...I'll stop :)

---

"Oompa Loompas dancing around to it or little troll midgets." HAHAHAHA Shred you are so right, hahahaha XD

I personally like The Beatles but I think the biggest reason is because music has changed so much over the years and its just not in people's tastes anymore.

I'm not a huge fan of The Beatles, but I'm not a hater, either. Just indifferent, I guess. There are songs that I really like, but most of their songs evoke an "eh" reaction from me. I've never heard an album of theirs that just made my jaw drop. To each his/her own.

Reasons why I hate "The Beatles":

- Their music really isn't that much different from the numerous other bands who played during their time.

- They are commercialized to hell and back. Marketing was their best friend and I can never love a band who gets glorified to the point when people listen to them to fit in because its what is "in".

- I see an uncanny parallel between the Beatlemania of then and the hysteria we see in fans of bands we have today like Jonas Brothers. No, you can't say Jonas suck because music is all relative. To a Jonas fan their music is the best thing.

- They made like 20 albums... hello, marketing? You gonna tell me they actually made quality songs, each thought out and full of meaning? Doubt that.

- I listen to their music and I can't feel any energy or passion in it, no fire. Its like... something you hear while shopping or in an elevator, sorry. It really makes me feel sleepy.

- I found John Lennon extra irritating for his ideological beliefs which he brought into his music. Even when my favourite band makes a political song I don't listen to it.

- The fans: criticism is usually taken very badly. Just like Jonas fans.