Well, what I was trying to convey is the idea, that even though some people have no opinion, or could not careless about The Beatles, they still take the time to write it down.

Say for instance someone started a post about ancient Chinese pottery on here, I would know nothing about the subject and would have no opinion on the matter, whatsoever. So, I would not have anything to say about it, and probably most people would feel the same.

This is not true for The Beatles. They are so engrained into our rock culture, and that there is no escaping recognizing them in some way, even if it is to state you that have no opinion. It is like people are stating they are part of some subculture, because they do not have any opinion positive or negative, but they still feel compelled to make a statement.

How many post would we have under the topic "Breeding habits of Canadian Geese?"

It was not the negative or positive opinions I was pointing out, but rather the no opinion that people will still take time to write down . It seems that in most instances, if someone could careless on way or another, they just would not say anything.

I was not speaking of any one post, thread, or conversation, but that in some topics of discussion everyone likes to join in.

In this case, it still speaks of some acknowledgement that The Beatles have had some great influence in rock culture, even if it is to say I have no opinion, or I do not think they were that influential.

Mayfair wrote:It's like Coltrane or the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin or Mozart or Fahey or Feldman.

Feldman?

abcgroupdocumentation wrote: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.

This is a good point, but it seems a lot like saying that I NEED to own a two-disc special edition Citizen Kane DVD to TRULY enjoy and understand film-making, or that I NEED to have an original Van Gogh on my wall to TRULY enjoy painting.

I admit that I do enjoy some Beatles songs, and I could probably fill up a CD with songs that I like. I had a roommate who LOVED the Beatles, so I did go through a fairly recent period where I would listen to a lot of stuff as it would often play on the stereo. I enjoyed much of it, but found none of it to be as brilliant and groundbreaking as I thought it would be.

Maybe when I'm older, right? Or maybe, the Beatles just don't "speak" to me, and a lot of other bands from that era do more.

As far as "Oh, The Beatles influenced a lot of indie rock," I think a lot of indie rock is crap, too.

choppy wrote:

Mayfair wrote:It's like Coltrane or the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin or Mozart or Fahey or Feldman.

Feldman?

Morton Feldman!

horsewhip wrote: I NEED to have an original Van Gogh on my wall to TRULY enjoy painting.

You do however need to own an original Van Halen to TRULY enjoy the electric guitar.

placeholder wrote:

choppy wrote:

Mayfair wrote:It's like Coltrane or the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin or Mozart or Fahey or Feldman.

Feldman?

Morton Feldman!