Am I the only person who thinks The Beatles aren't "all that"????

[jimbo fett]

I mean I enjoy their music but this semi-worshipping and super-hyperbolic praise that is heaped on them seems a little more than they deserve.

And before you think I'm too young or ignorant of their impact on music, I'm fully aware of their influence and innovations.

I just don't get the "god-like" status a group of pop musicians like them have manage to achieve.

[LuLu550]

1. too bad!

Maybe you just "had to be there." I don't get rap.

On edit: Hey, this thread has all the makings of a great flame war!
Where is Magic Rat and all those great smilies?

[jimbo fett]

5. Maybe so. I did come just a little late. They broke up when I was just

a few years old.

[meegbear]

18. I was 5 when they broke up ...

and I think they are "all that".

[jimbo fett]

20. Well, I knew I was opening a can of worms but I wanted

to solicit peoples' thoughts on them since whenever there's a thread about music on DU, The Beatles are invariably mentioned.

I didn't know if it was a product of the average age-level of DUers or whether it more than that.

[MrBenchley]

26. Consider

That before the Beatles came along, record companies dictated what music was put out...the thought that Frankie Avalon might write his own songs was ludicrous.

[LuLu550]

96. when I said "you had to be there"

I was thinking of the Beatles at Forrest Hills and Shea stadium...the Beatles were my very first concert...Electric!

[Nevernose]

2. Yes. Yes you are.

[reprehensor]

3. Yes, you are.

If you are 'fully aware of their influence and innovations' then I guess you just a little slow.

[Goldmund]

4. You're not the only person,

but you're still wrong.

And I don't think you "had to be there" and I don't even think it has anything to do with the innovations. I think their music is, on its face, great -- compositionally more than anything else. Forget the context, forget innovations (art is not science), forget the social upheval. It's the music, period.

[jimbo fett]

6. What is it about their compositions that sets them apart?

[Goldmund]

10. If I could answer that in words

then there wouldn't need to be compositions, would there?

[beawr]

16. Chord Progressions, structure, Diversity

I'm just going to address the earlier stuff:

Because they had John Lennon, who could come up with odd chord progressions on such seemingly simple tunes like "Eight Days a Week" or great riffs such as "I Feel Fine" or depth in a simple pop song like "Help"

Because Paul McCartney is both the greatest British Music Hall composer ever, but could also give us "Eleanor Rigby" and then come up with "All my Loving"

[Nevernose]

22. Let's not forget song writing (as in lyrics)

It was Leonard Bernstein who called them "the greatest song writers since the Gershwin brothers." Most of their stuff is very well written.

It has always amazed me that the same duo/band that could write "I Want to Hold Your Hand" could also write "Lady Madonna," "Two Of Us," "Rocky Racoon," "Across the Universe," and so many more.

[Goldmund]

97. And then...

"Helter Skelter" on top of that.

[beawr]

7. They had...

Timing on their side. Back then there were only three TV networks and radio was far less diversified.

However, they also had two of the 20th century's greatest song writers as well as George Harrison.

They were VERY DIFFERENT, and remained so.

They were funny

If you want a clue, watch "A Hard Day's Night" and see how these kids in their early 20's managed to also come across as natural in a movie, they had real personalities.

Also, my five year old son has been exposed to all sorts of music, but he insists on the Beatles.

[wakfs]

8. You had to be there...

...to know that The Beatles changed popular music for all time. There were the first to have huge hits of songs that they wrote themselves. They introduced the entire long hair thing. They influenced virtually ever other pop and rock artist that came after them. They were the first real rock stars since Elvis. They were the first artists to have concept albums, thus forever popularizing albums.

For good or ill, The Beatles changed all of popular music for all time.

[LuLu550]

12. they were a force for good, not evil!

and they changed not only music, but our culture, forever.
(can you tell I'm a Beatle fan??)

[SheepyMcSheepster]

9. i am not a huge beatles fan

i don't own any of their albums, but i hold them in high regard for their innovation, genre breaking and over all the good will they try to communicate. sure they were idolized by teens, but overall they seemed to be some of the most well behaved, respectful and greatful rockstars i can think of. what i respect the most about john lennon is that he pretty muched focused on love as his main them. all you need is love.

as far as the music goes, i find that they walk the line well between flat out catchy pop music and well put together entertaining music.

[Intelsucks]

11. You said it yourself...

You are fully aware of their influence and innovations...

I don't have any John Lennon or Paul McCartney shrines in my home, but I do have a lot of Beatles records.;)

[jimbo fett]

Nobody hardly ever mentions Ringo. ;-)

[GalleryGod]

17. Pro Percussionists Mention Starkey ALL the time!

:grouphug: Amongst his Peers he's at the top in Kudos

[jimbo fett]

37. I had to look that one up!

[Kamika]

13. well I partly agree

I'm just 21 so for me they aren't all that, but you gotta understand when they came they were the ONLY band that did music like that.. that's why they got their reputation.


btw some of their songs are pretty neat

[Kolesar]

14. I grew up listening to that band--they are in my soul now

I don't know what song was on what album or what years they all came out. I would say that their music has aged very gracefully, especially compared to the Who or the Rolling Stones. I mean who really wants to hear Squeezebox or Wild Horses again? I would rather hear the Beatles.

[GalleryGod]

15. In a word-YES!

:wtf: R.U. Smokin' ????:smoke:

[picus9]

19. Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: yes

[H2O Man]

29. The Beatles were....

Divine Messengers for their generation. They were the wisest, holiest, most effective Incarnate God Agents of the era that earthlings call "the 1960s." I declare that John, Paul, George and Ringo were mutant prototypes of a New Race of Laughing Freemen. Their music was an Evolutionary Agent sent by the Great God (tapping His toes to Ringo's drum) to endow humanity with the keys which held the mysterious power to create a New Human Species and end the wars that rage within you and without you.
Although the movie Yellow Submarine was not their production per say, (nor Did Jesus write the gospels) the flick gives a good idea how drab things had become when the blue meanies killed John, Malcolm, Martin, and Robert. The Beatles put the message into a format that made people realize that life is good, and that you can make a difference in the world. They rode an energy wave that just plain old made people happy. And they made the best music ever.

[LuLu550]

85. well put and welcome

anybody who loves the Beatles and writes like that is OK in my book!
:bounce:

[jimbo fett]

86. And did sunshine shoot out their ass?

[INTELBYTES]

21. I agree with you, but are you crazy??

These beatle fans are rabid!! How dare you point out that the band is highly over-rated.

I can't understand the devotion to this has-been band other than the historical significance. Yeah, some of their music is OK, but I'd trade you a beatles "white" album for a Van Halen "1984" album any day!

Ahh, but those so called "audiophiles" live in their own world. If clinging to an irrelevant band of the 60's sedates them, then far be it for us try to bring them into the reality of the present.

(How's that for flame bait?) :grr:

[jimbo fett]

23. Yes, I must be crazy. I think I'm gonna have to wear Kevlar.

I'm not with you on the "irrelevant" part, INTELBYTES. You're on on you're own there, mister.

[Intelsucks]

24. This poor excuse for a music critic is sitting across the room from me.

He knew he could get a rise out of me with this. Hey, I've heard some of his music... Believe me... You don't even want to know. :hurts:

[jimbo fett]

27. Okay, don't shoot bullets over my body for...

personal vendettas. ;-)

By the way, Intel does both "suck" and "byte".

[INTELBYTES]

36. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

My work partner belongs with the rest of you beatles fans, - somewhere in the prune eating, depends wearing, pureed food sipping, geritol twice a day, grecian formula, viagra dependent, geriatrics wing of the concert hall.

He is the same one that although in his late thirties has a fascination for the jurassic park bands, such as the rolling stones, the beatles, the who, the ramones,and all of their crusty ilk. Hey, there are times I enjoy hearing one of the historical greats, but ya gotta keep it in perspective. Most of his idols were drawing social security when he was still being breast fed.

I find the beatles music was only good for half-assed bands that couldn't write their own material to steal and revamp in their own morid version. That's almost like trying to improve hamburger-helper.

Yeah, ya'll stick to your "cob-web" music. As for me, the 80's music is the only viable music worth listening to.

[Intelsucks]

39. You forgot The Clash, Sex Pistols, Kinks, Black Sabbath....

The duran duran thread was for you.:P

[Nevernose]

25. Can you hear this?

It's the sound of me jumping out of my chair, through the computer, down the telephone line, and out on your end so I can throttle you.
:P :P :P :P :P

[Cooley Hurd]

87. Van Halen's "1984" was their worst DLR album...

Ugh! Couldn't you have mentioned the self-titled first album instead?

But to call the Beatles "irrelevant," makes me think you're not familiar with the influence the Beatles had on EVERY band that followed them (including Van Halen)...

[vi5]

28. No. I posted this a while back and got piled on. I'm with you...

My feeling is that they get undue praise for being the first to make things popular even if they weren't the first to actually do them.

They simply put an attractive face on a lot of trends. So they deserver credit for making some of them mainstream, but not for the innovation that they get credit for.

Plus they weren't near enough rock and roll for me. Give me the Stones any day.

[Intelsucks]

31. The Stones were the 'bad boys' of rock -n- roll.

Ounce for ounce, I think I would pick the Stones over the Beatles. I certainly listen to them more often.

[jimbo fett]

33. I think one reason that the Beatles get more respect than the Stones is

that the Beatles quit at the top of their game.

We never got to see them, as a band, evolve and eventually misstep as we've seen with the Stones.

Kind of the James Dean/Marilyn Monroe effect. Would Dean be nearly as revered had he made a movie years later that was horrible? Would Marilyn be nearly as adored had we seen her body age?

[beawr]

66. And I

Would pick The Who over the Stones

[XNASA]

30. I don't think that you're fully aware of their influence and innovations.

You're probably somewhat aware, or else you'd feel differently.

[vi5]

32. People always say this and it's condescending....

I am a musician. I am a music fan. I am an audiophile. My involvement in and knowledge of music I would put up against anyone out there.

I have read about the Beatles, I have listened to the Beatles and I have listened to people's arguments in favor of the Beatles.

I am still left completely cold by their music and while they did write some catchy songs, they are nowhere near the innovators people make them out to be.

The best was when someone credited them with creating multi-track recording.

[jimbo fett]

35. I agree. I have close to a thousand albums (on CD now) from all

genres and time periods. I've got everything from classical to funk, metal to new age, electonica to novelty.

And when I listen to Lenny Kravitz I know from whence he came - the Beatles. But that doesn't make me worship the Beatles.

[vi5]

38. Exactly.....

I play guitar, bass, drums, and have a decent knowledge of keys/piano/etc. I have been playing and learning music since I was 13 (I am 34 now) and like you I have several thousand albums in various formats and of various genres.

Yet people will purport to tell me that my lack of interest in the Beatles is simply because I haven't done the work or that I don't know much about music.

[Intelsucks]

41. Led Zeppelin III is Lenny's favorite album.

I don't know why I remember that... I read it years ago.

[XNASA]

40. You may love the Stones more........

But you have to admit, the Stones did their share of impersonating the Beatles in the 60's.

I mean, the Stones covered "I Wanna Be Your Man", not the other way 'round.

Don't even get me started on "Satanic Majesties".

I really love the Stones. And the Beatles are certainly not beyond critique. But if you're interesting in shredding Rock icons, you can start with Clapton or Hendrix as far as I'm concerned.

:evilgrin:

[vi5]

42. PersonallI think all classic rock should be shredded...

It all had it's place and it spawned some great music. But this whole notion of "It was so much better back then."

I'll agree. Clapton leaves me completely cold. Hendrix I can appreciate his weirdness but beyond that. Eh.

[XNASA]

47. Generally speaking, it was much better back then.

The radio was better. Artists were much more innovative.

But the best reason I can give, is that pop music was much less commercialized "back in the day".

[jimbo fett]

50. I'm not looking to shred. I just think that "It's only rock n roll" and

when you get down to it - everybody borrowed from somebody. I mean the Beatles borrowed from American music in their early career and the number of bands that borrowed from black Blues musicians is so long that I won't even try to list them.

It's not so much as innovation as evolution. The Beatles were an evolution. And important one, yes, but no more important than Zeppelin, The Clash, U2 or The Cure.

[Nevernose]

53. What should we replace it with?

Coldplay? Incubus? The state of rock 'n roll in the last couple of years has gone markedly downhill (or maybe just the state of local radio).

[jimbo fett]

57. Corporate radio is ruining popular music. Innovation is crushed. Thank God

for the internet. Otherwise I never would've heard bands like Royksopp or The Faint.

[Nevernose]

72. Hey, thanks

I just checked out the video for The Faint's "Agenda Suicide." Pretty good, I might just look around for more. A very Beatle-esqu video, BTW. Any suggestions on albums?

Royksopp, although pleasant, didn't seem too original to me; that it, I've heard about a thousand euro-tech groups that sound very similar (than again, I only listened to one song).

[jimbo fett]

73. Fischerspooner and BT on the electronic side. For more indie rock fare try

Guster, Badly Drawn Boy.

BTW, watch both videos for Royksopp: "Poor Leno" and "Remind Me". I think you can watch them at www.astralwerks.com.

[indigo32]

60. Heh you brought up part of the problem when you said

"maybe just the state of local radio" Local radio barely exists anymore unfortunately.

[vi5]

74. All I know is I don't listen to radio...

Perhaps that's the issue. I find many Beatles fans tend to refer to the radio a lot and the horrible state of radio.

I'm not someone who has ever listened to Radio. I find out about bands on my own or through friends or through live shows or through word of mouth or fanzines.

That's the problem. Popularity does not necessarily equate directly with quality or innovation and people tend to think that because the Beatles were the first to popularize something that they were the first to actually do it.

[Nevernose]

78. If "a lot of Beatles fans refer...to the horrible state of radio"

...wouldn't that indicate that they are higher on the musical hipness scale than, say, those who listen exclusively to Pop Country or Top 40, or even whatever your town's version of "Extreme Radio?"

I for one, have always loved the radio, and Las Vegas doesn't even have a college station anymore (I am reminded here of Elvis Costello's "Radio, Radio" -- another underrated songwriter), much less an "alternative" station. Las Vegas, in fact, doesn't even have much of a local music scene, despite what local bar owners would like us to think: it is apparently either lounge acts or crappy punk (not that I've anything against punk).

And, for the record, I've never been one to hype the Beatle's technical innovations. I don't know enough about production to prosyletize on it, and I can only play "Three Blind Mice" on guiter (although I play it well ;-)). I do know, however, that they were AMAZING songwriters, musically and lyrically -- their early stuff was mainly catchy, but their later stuff was incredible. Other folks have written stuff that good, but few have written so MANY good songs so consistently.

[Intelsucks]

43. Another Audiophile on DU! I found one!

There aren't very many around.:hi:

[vi5]

44. Not as much as I would like to be.....

Monetary constraints and all. But I had been keeping up with things for quite a long period of time. Sadly, parenthood and homeownership gets in the way of having the best systems money can buy.

[XNASA]

45. Do you mean audiophile as in "I love music".....

...or audiophile as in 'I enjoy reading "Home Stereo Review"???'

[Intelsucks]

48. Audiophile as in "I have a $15,000 audio system"

It took me 10 years to put it together, and I'm not finished upgrading yet.

[INTELBYTES]

49. hmmmm....audiophile

audiophile = one who clings to the past and/or are not able appreciate the current genre of music. Most audiophiles tend to live alone, neat freaks, drink high brow beers, and have no furniture other than a futon and an overpriced stereo in their living rooms. Most Audiophiles have one whole bedroom sectioned off just for their music collections. Most Audiophiles stick to the illusion that vinyl is better than CD sound. I think the majority of Audiophiles are Pisces.

:nopity:

[Intelsucks]

51. You just won't let it go will you......

n/t

[Nevernose]

54. Aren't you two IN THE SAME FREAKING ROOM?

Why are you arguing on an internet bb? Why don't you just swivel the chair around?

:evilgrin:

[Intelsucks]

56. That's what I was thinking.

n/t

[jimbo fett]

59. And now you're picking fights with me with your new post about DD.

Intelbytes... how do you work with Intelsucks? ;-)

[Intelsucks]

63. Very carefully.... If it wasn't for me, we would never hear any good music

:D

[INTELBYTES]

67. ssshhhh... intelsucks hears dead people....

nt

[jimbo fett]

68. Don't tell me... he likes Supertramp, America, Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd..

Alan Parsons Project, etc., etc., etc.....

[INTELBYTES]

70. He's not too hot on fleetwood,

but he sits in his rocker and listens to the rest of those fossil bands.

[INTELBYTES]

64. Dude, see what I have to work with?

He can appreciate a washed-up-has-been band, but can't appreciate Duran Duran, Loverboy, or Kajagoogoo? That's why we only communicate via internet. (the only thing good I can say about him is that he is a Clark fan). Other than that, totally useless!

[jimbo fett]

65. Crank up the Depech Mode. Or put EBN-OZN's "AEIOU Sometimes Y" on loop.

That'll get you some revenge.

[INTELBYTES]

58. Dude....

He's an audiophile... (we don't speak the same language!)

:freak:

[Nevernose]

61. Have you considered Esperanto?

Alternative suggestion:

Maybe get OUT of the same room. Walk down to the coke machine or something, take a little breather (but go out the back way, so your boss doesn't see you taking any extra breaktime). Better yet, go up to your boss and DEMAND separate offices, as well as a new benefits package and a raise -- it's okay, tell'em Argumentus sent you.

[INTELBYTES]

104. Hey, that worked!!

He even tossed in a company car! Thanks for the advice!

[RandomKoolzip]

62. I am a pisces and a record collector/music critic

but I give nary a shit about Audio quality. I think music sounds best coming out a boom box while I'm doing the dishes. My favorite band is Guided by Voices, whose best material was recored on a shitty four track with lots of tape hiss and drop-outs.

Plus, as the quality of sound recording has gone up, the actual quality of the musci being performed has gone down. The two are intimately related and it's no accident. Pro Tools, etc. allow for extreme laziness on the part of the musicians involved. The less money the record comany has to spend on retakes, the whims of the musicians, the "right room," etc the larger the profit, which is why hip hop gets such a huge promotioanl push these days: it takes zero or little investment to make a hip hop record, and the returns are HUGE. This si a lesson the record industry learned from Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd, etc. all the dinosaur acts of the seventies, who increasingly demanded more and more of the company's money for more and more elaborate productions and didn't always provide the big returns.

Piscean Audiophiles? Fuck that, gimme some scratchy demoes and I'm in heaven.

[Whitacre D_WI]

77. My basement and a 4-track is all I need.

Not that too many people have called my music "good."

[Cooley Hurd]

88. Two words: Sgt Pepper...

The innovation shown on that album was prolific. You may not be a Beatles fan, but you can't take that away from them...

[liberalmuse]

34. I was 6 when they broke up...

and I believe they are the greatest rock/pop band that ever was and will be. I've read many books and have seen documentaries, and I've been able to kind of get the feel of how important this band was in light of their rise in America only a few months after the devastating Kennedy assasination, and their impact during all that was going on in the world in the 1960's.

I've been into The Beatles off and on over the years, but even after a few years break from their music, I start listening to it and am astounded all over again. I don't think any other band can compare, or even come close to accomplishing what The Beatles did for music.

Their songs are diverse, and unlike other bands who get more mainstream with each album, The Beatles became edgier. Lennon and McCartney were pure genius together.

[RandomKoolzip]

46. Personally...

As a kid, like the very first years of my life, John Lennon as my hero...I was five years old when John Lennon got shot, and it totally devastated me. It's kinda weird, but since I was brought up by an anarchist conspiracy theory enthusiast (my father), I viewed the "hit" on Reagan a few months later as revenge. Weird, huh?

Anyways, getting back to the question at hand, viewing the debris of the 60's from our long-jaded eyes, it's almost cute what people used to do and say when the Beatles were mentioned. Tim Leary called them "supermen" a new race of laughing supermen, or something like that...David Crosby ststed that he thought "Sgt. Pepper" would stop the Vietnam War, simply because the power of its "good vibes" was so overwhelming.

And although we all now know that's bullshit, back then, you actually could BELIEVE shit like that. Optimism was like hydrogen; you could just breathe it in. After MLK, RFK, Watergate, Vietnam, Nixon, Reagan, 9/11, etc. it's hard to believe, but people actually thought they could change things. Weird, huh?

And the Beatles were the most visible symbols of that attitude. There was literally nothing like them before, sociologically, musically, politically. They took the Tin Pan Alley singer/writer/producer nexus and in its place installed the "band" model: a self-contained unit of writers, musicians, singers, all of whom were distinctive and expressive at what they did. This was unprecedented. It set in stone forever the band dynamic in Rock music.

Musically, there has been almost nothing since their breakup innovative that they didn't try first. Entire genres can trace their lineage back to a single idea the Beatles invented.

And apart from the history and theory, there's a plaethora of damn fine tunage here. "Don't Let Me Down?" Shit. All those odd chords, those unique harmonic domains...one note of "Strawberry Fields Forever" and you are transported to a magic time and place, if you give it a chance...Let's not forget that they used their unbelievable celebrity for positive purposes, too. There had never been musicains as famous as them before, and what did they use their newfound medium to promote? The idea of a universal love, a force for good that can change lives and overcome evils. Can you say that about Elvis? Elvis was not a concious artist.

The Beatles codified a language. Without them, NONE of the great classic rock or the best indie rock would have occurred.

Compare the Beatles with the groups who are considered the best music has to offer these days. Where is the cheeky sense of humor, the playfulness, the optimism in Nirvana or Radiohead, or whoever? It's been replaced with this dour sourpuss state of mind (which might more accurately reflect the times better, but still....)

Anyways, that's my 2cents.....

[Cooley Hurd]

89. The Beatles came to America a mere 2 months...

...after the assassination of JFK. Needless to say, they single-handedly lifted the sullen spirits of Americans with their songs and personalities. More than one historian has noted this...

I was 5 when they broke up and 15 when John was assassinated. I still remember clearly when Howard Cosell broke the news during the Monday Night Football game. I ran from the room and buried my sobs in my pillow. The tragedy of a man, who had slayed his demons, found new purpose in his life via fatherhood, and was murdered a mere few days after releasing a new album that celebrated his new life, was profound. I still miss him & wonder what he would've said and done about the latest Iraq conflict...

The Beatles deserved the accolades they've received - every single one!

[jimbo fett]

90. Well, he "found" fatherhood after abandoning Julian. Accolades!

[Cooley Hurd]

91. Hmmm... a bit judgmental, don't you think?

Were you involved in John Lennon's life during that time period? Were you witness to the circumstances surrounding the breakup on John & Cynthia Lennon? Didn't think so...

The air must be a bit thin up in your ivory tower... :eyes:

[jimbo fett]

93. No, but I read accounts by those involved including Julian and he

basically gave Julian the cold shoulder even when Julian was older and trying to reconnect with his dad.

[Cooley Hurd]

94. You should read accounts BY Julian in the mid to late 70's

John made every attempt to reconnect with him and include him in his new family. Julian acknowledged this, although he has since recanted because of disagreements between Julian & Yoko in regards to the estate...

My point being that John made mistakes when it came to Julian's early years because of the extraordinary circumstances in his life (i.e. "Beatlemania"), but did try to rectify it later on in Julian's life.

(PS - sorry about the "ivory tower" remark - I felt you weren't being fair about John's relationship with Julian)

[jimbo fett]

95. Correct me if I'm wrong but McCartney wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian because

he watched how lonely Julian was and he felt sorry for him but couldn't find a way of helping Julian without appearing he was interfering to Lennon.

Thanks for the apology. It's appreciated and accepted.

[Goldmund]

98. Great fucking post.

I almost said "megadittoes".

[randr]

52. Beatles were bad boys too

The fact is that at the top of their fame the snubbed their noses at the establishment, take a close look at the Yellow Submarine, and openly spoke out against the war. They also openly embraced the drug culture that was legally spreading around the world. After they broke up the Beatles they all continued to bring us the magic.

69. I'll second that

... especially in their Hamburg, Star Club; Liverpool, Cavern Days. They cleaned up later, but it was really just an act.
I read an interview once with Keith Richards in which he said when he was starting out and the Beatles were playing in those places that he used to be scared of them.

[LWolf]

55. Not at all.

There are as many opinions on music as there are people.

Some people think Brittney Spears is "all that." Some people like harsh, discordant, painful music. Some like hate lyrics. Some of us love a wide variety of sounds. As a child of the 60s, I thrive on classic rock and folk music. I also like blues, jazz, classical, and bits and pieces of many others. I love spanish guitar; the didgeridoo; the harp; the balalaika; the harmonica; native american flutes; drums of all kinds, and many other instruments and the music that is played on them. I don't care for synthesized stuff. I prefer live acoustic music, with musicians that can play actual instruments.

The beatles are one of the first groups in my memory as a child; along with Roger Miller. And I still love "King of the Road" and "Dang Me."

It's hardwired in the cranium. :shrug:

If I were to list the top five bands of the 20th century, the beatles would have to be in there somewhere.

My favorite beatles album? The White Album.

A few favorites? Some are beatles; one or two are Lennon on his own.

Imagine
Instant Karma
Here Comes The Sun
Yesterday
Rocky Racoon
Revolution
Hey, Jude
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Power to the People
Let it Be
Happiness is a warm gun
Norwegian Wood

And, of course, the highly intellectual, complexly layered,

"Why don't we do it in the road?"
:P

[mvd]

71. They are one of the groups that REALLY lives up to their hype

IMO, they are the best band ever, so nothing is too much. They had great singing, great writing, vibrant playing, and a great range - all the things needed to be truly great overall, IMO. To each his own. I've seen boards before on this subject, and you are in the minority it seems, but certainly not alone.

[CanuckAmok]

75. One observation about the Beatles:

I am a fan, and I really enjoy most of their work (I prefer the later work to the earlier bubblegum stuff). I'm not a cultist, and I don't even own all of their albums, let alone bootlegs, Japanese only imports, and other paraphenalia.

But I do think they had a period which was the single most creative time in 20th Century popular music.

One think worth noting when judging the 'genius' of the Beatles--their recording carer as a group spanned a mere six years. Think about how many hit singles, excellent albums and truly innovative steps they made in that short timespan.

Think about flash in the pan groups like Oasis and Radiohead, who beleive they're better than the Beatles--they've released a handful of albums, and they've been together for over ten years.

[jimbo fett]

76. Oasis and Radiohead are vastly overrated, IMHO. n/t

[Nevernose]

79. Both bands have one really good song

Though I still enjoy Radiohead.

[phillybri]

92. Add Nirvana and The White Stripes to that list....

:-)

[CanuckAmok]

100. Actually, Nirvana are the exception to the rule...

The released three GREAT albums in a very short period of time. They are one of those bands I always wonder "what if...?". I really like Dave Grohl's post-Nirvana work, too.

I know that's major flame-bait, so I'll stop here. I'm not comparing Nirvana musically to the Beatles, but I think they shared a common trait; the flame that burns twice as bright lasts half as long.

[SideshowScott]

103. Well Kurt Cobian was a beatlemaniac....

So that will tell you alot on my " Nevermind " is a rock classic..He would play Lennon's " Julia " at the recordings

[INTELBYTES]

80. Maybe the next time intelsucks puts on the beatles...

I'll switch the radio on to rush limbaugh and hide the remote!!

:spank:

[jimbo fett]

81. Sign him up for updates from Faux News, too, while your at it.

[INTELBYTES]

83. LOL, that will teach him!!

I'll use that next time he tries any of that Led Zepplin crap.

[RadioFlyer]

82. no!

I don't believe that everything the Beatles did was fantastic. I love their early stuff, and a lot of their mid-years music. I adore George Harrison's music. I am not a John Lennon fan ... sorry! Just not my cup of tea. I was in high school/college when Wings got started - really not a Wings fan, but Paul and John wrote some beautiful music together.

Their body of work is huge - some of it is brilliant, and some of it just isn't that good, IMO.

But, Van Morrison ... yes! But he also has some pretty mediocre, self-indulgent stuff, too. :-)

[Whitacre D_WI]

84. They're so overrated, they're underrated.

What I mean to say is, I love the Beatles. But they were far from perfect. Some people see this imperfection, and look at the adoration, and decide (reactionarily) that the Beatles suck.

They don't.

The Beatles were a damn fine band, but they did lay some stinkers on us. Yellow Submarine -- not the movie, which I rather liked -- was such a piece of crap, I mean it was eerily prescient of McCartney's worst slabs of poo with Wings. Actually (with a few exceptions), pretty much anything Paul wrote after "Rubber Soul" was garbage.

McCartney had a gift with melody; but once he discovered that gift, it was all over. His Little Richard ripoffs were outstanding, but then came "Yesterday."

"Yesterday" was an outstanding song on its own, but it opened the door to schmaltz. "Yesterday" succeeded; but it led, eventually, to "The Long and Winding Road" (or "The Long and Boring Song," whichever you prefer).

Where once Paul wrote "I'm Down" and "I've Just Seen a Face," he ended up writing "Martha My Dear" and "When I'm Sixty-Four," and he should be justly derided for that.

George was also an uneven composer, though toward the later years of the Beatles, he grew quite strong. Ringo -- he wrote "Octopus's Garden" and sang "Yellow Submarine," but was otherwise pretty damn cool. OUTSTANDING drummer (though he didn't get into that drum-solo bullshit of Moon, Bonham, and the like), and a pretty good singer.

Now, John Lennon. Yes, he wrote a few bad songs (I despise "All You Need Is Love" -- not a bad sentiment, just a bad song), but he also wrote some damn good ones. From the beginning of the Beatles' career to the end, he was the strongest songwriter (and I prefer his singing to the others').

"Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" rank among my 100 favorite albums ever. I'm sure "Please Please Me," "Help," "The Beatles" (white album), and "Abbey Road" would be in the top 200. I HATE "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

But back to my thesis -- the big problem is when people like me, who don't worship the Beatles as gods, decide that their mere humanity means that they were a shit band. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Beatles kicked serious ass, were innovative and influential, and broke up before they started sucking. If that isn't the definition of a great band, I don't know what is.

[jonnyblitz]

99. they don't do much for me aesthetically although I realize

and appreciate their contributions.

[mlawson]

101. Try this: make yourself listen to current top 40 for a few hours.

Then listen to the Beatles' song you hate the most. Which is better (worse)?

[INTELBYTES]

102. Good point!

That might even make me into a beatles fan.

[Zorro]

105. The Beatles are in a class by themself

If you can't see that, you might be a Republican.