Am I The Only Person That Just Isn't Into The Beatles?
- Thread starter Kestra
- Start date
I really don't know how anyone can consider the Beatles a "rock and roll band". Yeah, they were a massively successful pop band, but I think I can count the genuine rock songs they released on one hand. No self-respecting rock band I can think of would put out stuff like "Octopus' Garden", "Honey Pie", "Bungalow Bill", "Yellow Submarine", "Penny Lane", etc. And there's not one single actual rock song on Sgt. Peppers.
i much prefer Queen. i think the Beatles're over-rated too.
Depends on how you define "rock." Even the Stones and the Who, two bands that no one would dispute are rock'n'roll bands, had songs like the ones you've named during the '60s, ditties that don't fit the classical "rock" definition. For the time, the Beatles were firmly within the rock genre. It's only in retrospect, in seeing how the genre developed, that the Beatles don't quite fit.
I despise Queen. Blech.
Hmm.
Not a huge Beatles fan per se, but I don't underrate their importance on the shape of rock and pop music as it is today. In their time they were pretty amazing. I am going to have to make an effort to really listen to their back catalogue.
One reason I wasn't a fan was the muddy sound - a friend of mine had the albums and played some. I've heard a little bit of the cleaned up stuff and I might give that a go. The songs just seemed so crisp.
In Australia, we had a lot of bands cover Beatles songs in the 60s and 70s, and those artists, while they went on to have big careers, owe their start to those covers.
ETA: a band I was in, we did a hard rock version of 'Day Tripper'. That was a lot of fun! It really rocked! I just laid down a four-on-the-floor bassline and it too off of its own accord. And that's part of their magic. You can cover a lot of their songs in different styles. Think of all the different styles you've heard their songs in, and you'll see what I mean.
Not a huge Beatles fan per se, but I don't underrate their importance on the shape of rock and pop music as it is today. In their time they were pretty amazing. I am going to have to make an effort to really listen to their back catalogue.
One reason I wasn't a fan was the muddy sound - a friend of mine had the albums and played some. I've heard a little bit of the cleaned up stuff and I might give that a go. The songs just seemed so crisp.
In Australia, we had a lot of bands cover Beatles songs in the 60s and 70s, and those artists, while they went on to have big careers, owe their start to those covers.
ETA: a band I was in, we did a hard rock version of 'Day Tripper'. That was a lot of fun! It really rocked! I just laid down a four-on-the-floor bassline and it too off of its own accord. And that's part of their magic. You can cover a lot of their songs in different styles. Think of all the different styles you've heard their songs in, and you'll see what I mean.
Last edited:
Going off what I have and remember (meaning I'll miss some songs):
Come Together
I want you (She's so heavy)
Back in the USSR
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Birthday
Helter Skelter
I Saw Her Standing There
Twist and Shout
Please Please Me
From Me To You
Revolution
Keep in mind that plenty of bands have acoustic songs or songs that borrow other elements are are still rock bands, but I didn't include those songs in this list. Rock isn't really that narrow of a category.
Personally, I'd rather strip any metal/hard rock band that comes out with a power ballad of their rock status. I'd definitely kick Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Def Lepard, Poison, and even GNR (what's rock about Patience?) out of rock if we go by your category. I'd also kick Green Day out for Good Riddance and a third of the Warning album. Eric Clapton for Change the World. The Rolling Stones for their attempts at writing country, etc.
The Beatles may not be for everyone, but I'm a huge fan. I don't love EVERY song, but over all they are the greatest band ever, period. I am loving the new remastered albums, they are great. Every disc I buy I find/hear things I never heard before. Everything is so defined and clear. Every voice and instrument stands out, it's just fantastic. I'm getting them all, except the really early stuff, which to me do not sound all that much better, due to how they were recorded in the first palce.
And Ringo was a GREAT drummer, no disrespect to John Lennon, but Ringo had some great licks. I'm hearing more and more from him on the new discs, and I am more impressed with him on each one.
And Ringo was a GREAT drummer, no disrespect to John Lennon, but Ringo had some great licks. I'm hearing more and more from him on the new discs, and I am more impressed with him on each one.
I used to like them when I was a kid but now I find them a bit boring. They might be influential and they might have been "important" but they're not amazingly talented musicians or songwriters (though they're not bad songwriters at least). I still enjoy hearing a few of their songs occasionally but they're really quite overrated.
They're even more overrated than The Beatles! Same deal with most of the well known 60s-70s generic blues rock/classic rock groups. There's something in particular about the Rolling Stones that puts me off though. It's like listening to nails on a chalkboard. I don't know what it is about their music, whether it's the songs themselves, the production, the singing or the guitar tone, but I personally find them unlistenable. I guess they must be doing something right if so many people like them though, even if a few people don't like them.
I'm a Rolling Stones kind of guy...
They're even more overrated than The Beatles! Same deal with most of the well known 60s-70s generic blues rock/classic rock groups. There's something in particular about the Rolling Stones that puts me off though. It's like listening to nails on a chalkboard. I don't know what it is about their music, whether it's the songs themselves, the production, the singing or the guitar tone, but I personally find them unlistenable. I guess they must be doing something right if so many people like them though, even if a few people don't like them.
do you prefer Shania Twain?
I used to like them when I was a kid but now I find them a bit boring. They might be influential and they might have been "important" but they're not amazingly talented musicians or songwriters (though they're not bad songwriters at least). I still enjoy hearing a few of their songs occasionally but they're really quite overrated.
I'm a Rolling Stones kind of guy...
They're even more overrated than The Beatles! Same deal with most of the well known 60s-70s generic blues rock/classic rock groups. There's something in particular about the Rolling Stones that puts me off though. It's like listening to nails on a chalkboard. I don't know what it is about their music, whether it's the songs themselves, the production, the singing or the guitar tone, but I personally find them unlistenable. I guess they must be doing something right if so many people like them though, even if a few people don't like them.
Kill him! Kill him with fire!
One of the most important things the Beatles did from a musical standpoint and one of the many reasons they are so respected and loved; is that they expanded the boundaries of what a rock song could be. Before the Beatles, songs by most rock bands were pretty limited in terms of musical structure and especially lyrically. The Beatles changed all that. Rock songs could now have sophisticated, meaningful, coherent, and eloquent lyrics, coupled with bold, unconventional (by rock standards) arrangements. All of this thrown on top of classic pop songwriting technique while maintaining the emotion of the song. Neither Elvis or Chuck Berry (whom I dearly loved) ever did this.
The Beatles started out with the same type of simplistic approach to their songwriting but over the years (their songwriting) evolved into something no one had ever seen or heard before in the context of rock and roll.
I'm a Rolling Stones kind of guy...
Me too. Although I still give the Beatles all the respect they should be accorded.
I say the Beatles are part of the transition from "Rock and Roll" to "Rock". As for "Rock" songs on Sgt Pepper, I'd nominate: Sgt Pepper (Reprise)and Good Morning Good Morning.
I'm going to a Beatles Rock Band party in a few weeks and I'm not looking forward to it at all.
FFS. Just don't go. Grow a pair.
As much as "pop" is my thing, I'm not into the Beatles. They have a couple OK songs but at this point they're enormously overblown and hyped out the wazoo, right below Elvis in terms of overexposure. And, one more thing: "Hey Jude" is just a piece of crap.
As far as the Stones go, I know two songs and own none.
Not to take anything away from the Beatles' influence, I don't think they are solely responsible for more sophisticated rock and roll. "Like a Rolling Stone" came out while the Beatles were finishing up Help! and apparently made a big impression on Lennon and McCartney.
I like the Stones better than the Beatles, but I am more partial to blues and country which are a lot more fundamental to the Stones' music. I like the Beatles plenty, though, and will probably re-purchase Rubber Soul and Revolver, at least, in the new releases.
--Justin
I'm going to a Beatles Rock Band party in a few weeks and I'm not looking forward to it at all.
FFS. Just don't go. Grow a pair.
It's a work thing and it would be an unwise move employment-wise not to go.
Similar threads
