Am I The Only Person That Just Isn't Into The Beatles?
- Thread starter Kestra
- Start date
JustKate said:
It was a shame in a way, as they popped up around the same time an Aussie band called The Angels were trying to break into the US, which meant they changed their name there to Angel City (which is a sucky name). If you like your rock hard, this is a band for you. In some ways, to me, they rock harder than AC/DC. For some raw, powerful rock, see if you can find their albums /Face To Face/ and /No Exit'. The single 'Take A Long Line' is one fo the great rock songs. Period.
I've seen pictures. That was enough.
It was a shame in a way, as they popped up around the same time an Aussie band called The Angels were trying to break into the US, which meant they changed their name there to Angel City (which is a sucky name). If you like your rock hard, this is a band for you. In some ways, to me, they rock harder than AC/DC. For some raw, powerful rock, see if you can find their albums /Face To Face/ and /No Exit'. The single 'Take A Long Line' is one fo the great rock songs. Period.
I don't understand this attitude, either. Is it really so incredible that (with an exception or two) a band's oeuvre simply does absolutely nothing for a person? Why dismiss it as an inability on someone's part to "pay attention"?
To each their own.
No, but when somebody claims to like Bohemian Rhapsody (a fairly typical 70s Queen track) but claim everything else they have done sucks, I wonder how much of it they have actually listened to.
I'm quite sure that somebody who likes Bohemian Rhapsody could find something else by Queen that doesn't suck if they were to look.
I'd find it equally surprising if somebody declared that Strawberry Fields was the only decent song the Beatles had written, or if anyone could pick a single song out of a 30 or 40 year career and declare everything else an artist had recorded was rubbish.
Why dismiss it as an inability on someone's part to "pay attention"?
Who said anything about an inability? Please don't put words in my mouth.
Dear God, yes. Apparently their big "creative" breakthrough was that they wore all white in contrast to Kiss, who wore all black.
[sarcasm] Talk about groundbreaking rock and roll! [/sarcasm]
I mentioned that the only good band at that concert was The Cars, who unfortunately had sound problems. Well, Angel did, too, but that may have been a plus, frankly. There is such a thing as too much sound clarity.
I have no arguments with claims about their greatness, but I'm not "into them" in the sense that I don't have strong associations with their music to the degree that many folks my age do. The Stones and later groups like Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young are hold more memories.
I'm not going to argue about their greatness, their influence, or their popularity, either. But my entire family played them endlessly on the radio (and, mind you, only a small selection of their 'hits' are ever on the radio) throughout my entire childhood. Which resulted in my not much caring to listen to them in the present. I've always prefered the much more diverse and more edgy music of The Doors, anyhow.
Holy cow I remember those guys. Even at 12yro in the 70's I knew they sucked by looking at that cover...
Even a song like Norwegian Wood, which is about a one night stand?
And a one night stand that leads to arson, at that.
I could see that comment being made about their early work, but the later stuff?
I like the later stuff when drugs entered the picture. The early stuff is too jingle-jangly for me. Still, I rarely listen to any of it. Something about how it's considered almost sacreligious to diss them really turns me off and makes me want to do so just to piss people off. 
The Beatles released 14 albums in just over 6 1/2 years. And they are almost all solid records from start to finish--no filler!. Throw in the amazing singles that never even made in on a full-length record that later added up to a double album! and they were remarkably prolific. Plus, after the first two records their output was all original. It is a staggering achievement that no one else in music has ever come close to replicating. Also consider that they shifted from a pop/rock band early on to a thoughtful almost folk band with Rubber Soul, threw in a concept album, a double album, and maintained their reputation as the best around throughout all of it. Like them or not, they were truly remarkable.
I'll take Bowie's catalogue over theirs if allowed only one artist's work, but even as eclectic and influential as Bowie has been, neither he, nor anyone else, can touch what The Beatles were and still are. Their music will last forever--longer than Queen, the Stones, Elvis, and anyone else in rock history.
I'll take Bowie's catalogue over theirs if allowed only one artist's work, but even as eclectic and influential as Bowie has been, neither he, nor anyone else, can touch what The Beatles were and still are. Their music will last forever--longer than Queen, the Stones, Elvis, and anyone else in rock history.
except of course a certain little trio from Canada
Also one of the first rock tunes to use alternate tunings.
I did not know that! Any idea which one?
ITL, currently DADGAD with capo at the 3rd fret
Similar threads
