Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:You might be in the wrong forum.

I have suspected that all along.

horsewhip wrote:Or maybe I just don't like the Beatles? I like a couple of songs, but mostly I feel that they're the most overrated band of all time. Give me the Stones, Kinks, Who, or Pretty Things (or pretty much half of the bands on either Nuggets box set) over the Beatles anyday. I love 60's music, just not the Beatles.

I guess what I mean is that how do you know if you like them if you do not even own any of them? I know this is a question that has come up before on other crap/not craps. "Well why would I buy their records if I know I don't like them?" is often the answer... but we are not talking about Weezer or Asia or Quarter Flash. It's the Beatles. Their body of work changed the face of not only pop music and the related genres but also modern day recording (and made way in one way or another for all the above mentioned bands, by the way). If you are in a band that writes and performs all your own music, you are in some way knowing or unknowingly influenced by what they did. They changed the rules. As a music listener or as a music historian, I can not believe there is no use for a $10 purchase of one or all of their records...at least one. It's like Coltrane or the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin or Mozart or Fahey or Feldman. Their importance seems worthy of at least investigation to the level of owning and living with their music.

My opinion.

I actually have listened to many Beatles albums, and I just don't get that much enjoyment out of them. Sorry. I just don't see much point in owning their albums if I don't listen to or enjoy them.

Johnny 13 wrote:Zero. I wish I could manage to never hear them again.

I am keen on the Kinks tho.

Seconded. I've never been able to get into the Beatles. Obviously they were important, but my money's on the Kinks. Those reissues of the first 6 or 8 Kinks albums are funking awesome.

Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion but there is sooooooo much music by the Beatles. To write them off entirely is just naive and lazy in my opinion.

You might not like certain eras of the Beatles, but to say that their whole entire output is unappealing seems strange if you like any rock or pop music put out in the past 30 years, especially if you like the Kinks or the Pretty Things or half the Nuggets material.

Indie rock bands also...so many of them are undeniably influenced by the Beatles. I used to be one of those guys that would say, "the Beatles were good but we've had 30 years to improve what they did." Ironically, at the time of such proclamations, I owned nothing by the Beatles, and suspect that most people who write them off, are in the same boat.

Better yet, owning one record by the Beatles doesn't even come close to being able to make an informed judgement. Maybe owning 6 albums might...maybe.

Mark...I'm with you...they're just too far reaching to blow them off.

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:You might not like certain eras of the Beatles, but to say that their whole entire output is unappealing seems strange if you like any rock or pop music put out in the past 30 years, especially if you like the Kinks or the Pretty Things or half the Nuggets material.

Indie rock bands also...so many of them are undeniably influenced by the Beatles. I used to be one of those guys that would say, "the Beatles were good but we've had 30 years to improve what they did." Ironically, at the time of such proclamations, I owned nothing by the Beatles, and suspect that most people who write them off, are in the same boat.

I think that the bands that I like typically owe more to the Velvet Underground than the Beatles. I know a lot of Beatles songs, cause I hear them everywhere, and none of it seems to grab me. It is cute, or lame, or whatever.

What is considered to be a good Beatles song? I cannot think of one that I do not change the radio station to escape. I tend to not enjoy the bands that obviously do love the group (Material issue, etc..)

I do like the two Wings songs that everyone likes tho.

The ironic thing about asking people anything about their opinion of The Beatles, is even if they say they could careless, or have no opinion of the Beatles, they still take the time to express their opinion.


One another note; I believe that if you only listen to the radio to get your opinion of a band, you are not going to get an accurate representation of a band. Such as the only song in my town I hear on the radio from Wilco these days is "Heavy Metal Drummer." However, this song in no way reflects the rest of "Yankee Fox Trot Hotel," or the whole scope of Wilco's music catalogue.


One disclaimer:
If the one song from a band sucks so bad, you might be able to deduct that the rest of everything else they have to offer sucks also. Otherwise that one song never would have seen the light of day.

Johnny 13 wrote:What is considered to be a good Beatles song?

I am no Beatles fanatic, but "I'm So Tired," "Long Long Long," "I'm Only Sleeping," "Rain," and "For No One" are all, in my opinion, extraordinary songs. There is an awful lot that I hate about the Beatles' output, but there is more that I thoroughly enjoy.

brad lepik wrote:The ironic thing about asking people anything about their opinion of The Beatles, is even if they say they could careless, or have no opinion of the Beatles, they still take the time to express their opinion.

That was the question wasn't it? We all have opinions about everything, and my side seems under represented here. I hate the president too, but I don't chime in all the time, cause there is no shortage of people making my points for me.

Saying I dislike the Beatles reveals no secret power over me. I have heard the songs forever, not just on the radio. They are popular like McDonalds, and Olive Garden, which a bunch of people think are great too. I don't feel the need to eat there, when there is something better across the street is all.

brad lepik wrote:The ironic thing about asking people anything about their opinion of The Beatles, is even if they say they could careless, or have no opinion of the Beatles, they still take the time to express their opinion.

Isn't this true of any opinion you would ask a person for? You ask someone for their opinion, the person in turn gives their opinion, favorable or unfavorable. Where's the irony?