Am I The Only Person That Just Isn't Into The Beatles?

[Mistral]

Heretics, all of you! You will be smited!

Geez, took long enough for someone to write the proper reply!

 

[Zulu Romeo]

They did bring rock and roll into the public zeitgeist and they did solidify the rock and roll song structure. Also, some songs are very well written.

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.

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

That a very similar list to what I was thinking. I'd also add "I Wanna Be Your Man" (LOL, Ringo) - incidentally, a song written very quickly by Lennon/McCartney for the Rolling Stones - "Drive My Car", "Hey Bulldog" and "Ticket To Ride" to that list too. And maybe also "I Me Mine" and "The End".

And if we're including covers like "Twist and Shout" then I'd also include "Money". That's what I want.

The Beatles are so last century.

That's Paul's "granny music" for you.

 

[JustKate]

Heretics, all of you! You will be smited!

Geez, took long enough for someone to write the proper reply!

Man, I'll say!

But back OT...

I don't like Elvis much. That doesn't mean he's "overrated." All it means is that I don't like him much.

To those of you who don't care too much for the Beatles, cool. There's a lot of music out there, a lot of musical history, and we certainly can't all be expected to like all of it.

However, unless you know what role the Beatles played in the development of modern music or unless you listened to the music in context - that is, as it came out, as you were able to directly compare what the Beatles were doing with what had come before or what was coming out at the same time, you have no idea - sorry, but it's true - no idea what you're talking about when you refer to somebody as "overrated." Overrated compared to whom? The Dixie Cups? Gerry and the Pacemakers? Paul and Paula? Bobby Vinton?

Not liking something doesn't mean it's overrated. It would be very satisfying to believe that one's own personal judgment is the correct one. I would love to consider Elvis overrated because I never did like him much - to me, he's always been what a childhood friend's dad referred to as a "moldy oldy." I'd love to be able to feel superior for my good taste. But come on - that's not the way it works. Elvis isn't overrated - it would in fact be difficult to overrate Elvis or the Beatles, at least in terms of the last several decades' worth of music. The plain fact is, I just don't care for him very much. I can't feel superior over that.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I haven't heard all of their music, but the songs I have heard just haven't really done anything for me. A few of them are catchy and the rest of them sort of blend together. I think I'm completely alone in feeling like this!

I'm going to a Beatles Rock Band party in a few weeks and I'm not looking forward to it at all.

I agree. I KNOW they had extreme talent but yet just not my cup of tea.

On a side note, the WHO is just brutal by the way. Give me Zeppelin anyday!

 

[JustKate]

^ Just about anything by Zeppelin makes me want to run from the room, covering my ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you la la la la!" (Perhaps some of you think that you feel the same way about the Beatles. I doubt if you do - because there is no way you've heard anything by the Beatles as often as I've heard "Whole Lotta Love" or "Communication Breakdown" - but if so, I am sorry.)

Nuthin' wrong with their talent or anything and there used to be lots of songs that I liked a lot. It's just that this is the band who's songs - all of them, since this was in the heyday of album rock - were played over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ...

And so on...

...At every party, every EVERYthing, on every guy's car stereo, always, all the time.

So I burnt out. There aren't that many songs that can hold up to 482,215 replayings, and "Over the Hills and Far Away" and "Stairway to Heaven" aren't among them, IMO. And don't even get me started on "Whole Lotta Love" or "Communication Breakdown," OK?

 

[Mistral]

^ Just about anything by Zeppelin makes me want to run from the room, covering my ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you la la la la!" (Perhaps some of you think that you feel the same way about the Beatles. I doubt if you do - because there is no way you've heard anything by the Beatles as often as I've heard "Whole Lotta Love" or "Communication Breakdown" - but if so, I am sorry.)

Nuthin' wrong with their talent or anything and there used to be lots of songs that I liked a lot. It's just that this is the band who's songs - all of them, since this was in the heyday of album rock - were played over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ...

And so on...

...At every party, every EVERYthing, on every guy's car stereo, always, all the time.

So I burnt out. There aren't that many songs that can hold up to 482,215 replayings, and "Over the Hills and Far Away" and "Stairway to Heaven" aren't among them, IMO. And don't even get me started on "Whole Lotta Love" or "Communication Breakdown," OK?

As a "freak" during the early 80s, Led Zep was our idol and god(z). I can sooo relate to what you're saying here. Zep and Foreigner make me flinch on the best of days...

 

[JustKate]

As a "freak" during the early 80s, Led Zep was our idol and god(z). I can sooo relate to what you're saying here. Zep and Foreigner make me flinch on the best of days...

Oh, Mistral - so it was YOU playing that stuff over loudspeakers at those parties at Gary's house and Jay's house and what's-his-name's house? And who got EVERY rock station to play two hours of "Get the Led Out" every Friday night? And who made it a requirement that every guy I went out with had Zeppelin and only Zeppelin tapes in his glove box?

Aaauuuuuugh! At least you've reformed now. And clearly you've paid the price. I guess I can forgive you.

I'm actually still fine with Foreigner...at longish intervals, in small doses. But Journey...I just try not to even think about it.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Nuthin' wrong with their talent or anything and there used to be lots of songs that I liked a lot. It's just that this is the band who's songs - all of them, since this was in the heyday of album rock - were played over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ...

And so on...

...At every party, every EVERYthing, on every guy's car stereo, always, all the time.

So I burnt out. There aren't that many songs that can hold up to 482,215 replayings,

See, the way you feel about Zeppelin is the way I feel about the Beatles. But whereas interest in Zeppelin has kind of waned over the last 10-20 years, the Beatles obsession in pop culture just gets more obnoxious with each passing year.

I can't turn on the TV without getting bombarded with their music. I can't go into any internet forum without people gushing over how amazing the Beatles are and how music didn't exist before Lennon and McCartney and if you're bored by them then you're a total dipshit who doesn't understand music. Jesus, it's been 40 years. Can't we move on and find some other band to obsess about?

 

[The Grim Ghost]

I like their early stuff quite a bit. But once they got into drugs and all of that hippie nonsense they went down like a lead balloon. I know most people feel the opposite, but I just hate all of that "I am the walrus" type nonsense.

But whether you like them or not, you have to give them credit for being extremely talented and a key band in the history of rock and roll.

That said, I'll take Elvis, Buddy Holly and stuff like that over the Beatles any day.

 

[Sakrysta]

I'd rather listen to the Monkees.

*awaits accusations of blasphemy*



Seriously, I've heard a few covers of their stuff in the past that I didn't hate. But clearly, Kestra, you are not alone in your indifference.

 

[Australis]

T'other day I saw 'The Boat That Rocked' , and that got me interested in acquiring the OST. While th Beatles shaped pop at the time, most of the performers on the songs were original and interesting in their own right. And this was before Sgt Peppers and Let It Be and Rubber Soul.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Nuthin' wrong with their talent or anything and there used to be lots of songs that I liked a lot. It's just that this is the band who's songs - all of them, since this was in the heyday of album rock - were played over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ...

And so on...

...At every party, every EVERYthing, on every guy's car stereo, always, all the time.

So I burnt out. There aren't that many songs that can hold up to 482,215 replayings,

I have the same reaction with, and to, 'Time Warp Dance' from The Rocky Horror Picture Show-this song was played at middle school dances all of the time, and when I was in middle school, I didn't mind. But years later, when I was going to SF cons in Toronto, at every convention dance, guess what was playing there? The MOTHERFRACKING TIME WARP DANCE. Every year, every dance. Nothing new, just the same shit I heard before. And the other (mostly all white) convention goers would get on the floor-en masse-for this song, and this song only. Modern dance songs of the present day (this was the '80's)? No, just Staying Alive if we were lucky. Not even any Duran Duran or any of the other English Beat/New Romantic bunch (well, maybe a little). That wasn't all-they'd also play 'Sweet Transsexual' afterwards, as well as Trooper's 'Raise A Little Hell', and Meat Loaf's 'Paradise By The Dashboard Light'-great there, but floor-clearers and dance-halters elsewhere where people dance, in most clubs And, if you played these songs elsewhere you'd get hit by a rain of bottles followed by people taking over the turntables.

For a few years after that at every Ad Astra and Toronto Trek (now Polaris) convention, I've stayed out of the dance, just hanging out at the con suite instead. All because of those songs being played.

See, the way you feel about Zeppelin is the way I feel about the Beatles. But whereas interest in Zeppelin has kind of waned over the last 10-20 years, the Beatles obsession in pop culture just gets more obnoxious with each passing year.

I can't turn on the TV without getting bombarded with their music. I can't go into any internet forum without people gushing over how amazing the Beatles are and how music didn't exist before Lennon and McCartney and if you're bored by them then you're a total dipshit who doesn't understand music. Jesus, it's been 40 years. Can't we move on and find some other band to obsess about?

I love the Beatles, and I agree with you on that score as well-that's why I was glad to hear of the shutdown of the big oldies station in Toronto, 1050 CHUM and its transition into the news-only CP24 Radio. I also wish that Q107 would die off as well and the frequency taken over by somebody who plays new music, but...

This article sums up what I feel about constant regurgitation of past bands like the Beatles on radio:

All we hear is radio-ca-ca

EYE, September 4, 2003


Do you know JACK? Sure you do. The ads for Toronto's newest radio station are all over the subway: "Playing what we want" goes the slogan, with the station's logo bursting out of a jack-in-the-box, implying that the station's programmers are out of control! The posters list off what kind of crazy musical combinations you can expect: Tom Petty! Springsteen! The Cars! Meat Loaf! Now, proudly advertising Meat Loaf as a selling point in 2003 may constitute a bold, revolutionary act, but really, JACK FM is just the latest addition to a radio dial littered with microscopically focused niche stations boasting unintentionally ironic slogans that only draw attention to how rigid, formulaic and safe their playlists truly are.

JACK joins the likes of MIX 99 (whose mainstream-rock mix rarely veers more than a centimeter or two from the middle of the road), Q107 (whose definition of "Classic Rock" is flexible enough to include a regular rotation of Saga records), to the worst offender, 102.1 The Edge, whose conception of edgy music begins with the first Our Lady Peace album, ends with the latest Evanescence single, and wedges every last fake brow-pierced, phony-angst nü-metal mook into the sliver between. The irony is that JACK's former incarnation, KISS 92.5, while adhering to a top 40 format, managed to achieve something resembling true variety, bouncing from Eminem to Destiny's Child to Coldplay.

Now, for those of us who routinely seek musical guidance from college radio or CBC's Brave New Waves, and who spend more at Rotate This and Soundscapes than on food and shelter, the relentlessly uninspiring state of commercial radio is a topic as tired as the insincerity of televangelists. But as much as we are loath to admit it, radio is still an important cultural arbiter. For the casual music fan -- someone who buys maybe 10 CDs a year, simply based on liking something they heard on the radio or Much Music -- radio airplay represents validation, in the same way hipsters rely on New York or London to tell them what's cool. And more often than not, radio assumes the masses are brain-dead automatons incapable of appreciating anything beyond whatever narrowly defined genre parameters the station's corporate bosses deem most profitable.

The troubled state of the music industry is often portrayed as a battle between greedy major labels and unscrupulous music fans stealing music online. While the former portrays the latter's actions as cold-hearted theft, the question is rarely asked: did radio make them do it? The keys to any industry's growth are brand (in this case, band) loyalty and regeneration through the introduction of new products. The music industry is unique in that it relies on radio (instead of traditional advertising methods) to broadcast new-product information to consumers. Radio is failing them. As a result, those consumers have had to seek alternative outlets -- e.g., Kazaa -- to get that information.

Each week eye receives, on average, 75 CDs submitted for review, ranging from superstar acts like Radiohead down to indie techno artists burning beats off their laptops. This in itself is just a fraction of what's produced every week. Contrary to the music industry's doomsday prognostications, the actual amount of music being created has increased as the means of production (laptops, four-track recorders) and distribution (internet mail order, for example) have become more accessible.

Strangely, radio's response to this proliferation has been to become more conservative, and in doing so, it does a disservice to the music industry. Retro-minded stations like JACK and Q107 do nothing to promote the continued survival of the industry by playing songs we've heard a million times before from records we bought 20 years ago. CanCon regulations, initially devised to expose emerging homegrown talent, can now be satisfied by dropping the Hip or side one of 2112. And given that the careers of most Edge-endorsed alterna-rockers last about as long as their target listener's first sexual encounter, it's not exactly inspiring band loyalty among a new generation of music fans. Anyone remember Eve 6? Mudvayne? No wonder kids today would rather buy video games.

We're not saying these stations should scrap their Zeppelin records and play nothing but Godspeed You! Black Emperor, but there's no reason a Neil Young fan wouldn't appreciate The Flaming Lips, or a Coldplay fan wouldn't dig the emotional space-pop of Broken Social Scene. There's also no reason one of these stations couldn't just up and transform themselves into a station that could play both The Rolling Stones and The Constantines. As JACK (formerly KISS) and CHUM (formerly sports, formerly rock) have made abundantly clear, it takes very little time or thought to repackage.

Yes, radio is ultimately a business, concerned with the bottom line more than giving unknown artists exposure. But given the limited channels for quality new music on Toronto radio, soon these stations won't have any nostalgia left to sell. (Original article no longer exists, sorry.-Dusty)

What I wish more than anything in the world is for most of these boomers to just get up off of their asses, get to the local record store, and just buy the Beatles albums they want, without having to hear it on radio as well, and for EMI to start pushing the new bands that they've signed up just as aggressively as they push the Beatles.

 

[I am not Spock]

I used to dislike them, because their fans were so elitist. 'If you don't like the Beatles, you don't like music' ,etc. And this notion that the Beatles are somehow untouchable; and yet dissing any other band is fair game.

I've mellowed a bit. I do actually rather like them now. Mostly the later stuff, though. The White Album to me is by far the best thing they've ever done. I mainly like prog rock and metal myself, and the White album is some of the heaviest and proggiest stuff they ever made.

I am open to buying some of the remastered albums.

So it turns out, I didn't actually dislike the Beatles, I disliked the insane amount of hype around them. They were an innovative and great band, but they weren't the ONLY band. That was for a long time the issue I had with them.

 

[Orac Zen]

Eh, it's yet another of those "to each their own" things. I'm a fan, but if others aren't it doesn't bother me in the least. I've never been able to work out why people make such a fuss of Dylan ("Hurricane" aside, his stuff is always better when performed by others, IMO), the Stones are at least as overhyped as the Beatles by some, and bands like Led Zep and Pink Floyd bore me to tears. So I can see where non-fans of the Beatles are coming from.

The exception to that is Queen. "Bohemian Rhapsody" aside, they suck.

 

[Australis]

The exception to that is Queen. "Bohemian Rhapsody" aside, they suck.

Sorry, no. Their last real album, 'Innuendo', is a stunning eulogy to their dying singer. They had great musical virtuosity and variety. And songs like 'Killer Queen', 'Death On Two Legs', 'In Love With My Car', ''39', 'Somebody To Love', 'Tie Your Mother Down', and 'Who Wants To Live Forever?'.

So there.

 

[Pingfah]

^ I've never unserstood that attitude either. Bohemian Rhapsody was quite typical of a certain aspect of their output, it was not their first foray into epic operatic rock, not even close. And although brilliant It wasn't the best either IMO, it was just the most popular.

When somebody tells me they only like Bohemian Rhapsody out of their gigantic body of work, a lot of which is thematically similar to Bohemian Rhapsody and what it tried to achieve, I have to wonder how much attention they have paid to everything else they were doing.

 

[DevilEyes]

Not liking something doesn't mean it's overrated. It would be very satisfying to believe that one's own personal judgment is the correct one. I would love to consider Elvis overrated because I never did like him much - to me, he's always been what a childhood friend's dad referred to as a "moldy oldy." I'd love to be able to feel superior for my good taste. But come on - that's not the way it works. Elvis isn't overrated - it would in fact be difficult to overrate Elvis or the Beatles, at least in terms of the last several decades' worth of music. The plain fact is, I just don't care for him very much. I can't feel superior over that.

It would in fact be very easy to overrate The Beatles, Stones or Elvis, and in fact it is done all the time. Even if I loved them madly, the amount of praise they get as the UNDISCPUTABLY BEST and THE GREATEST and so on seems excessive for anyone. There are no undisputable values in art.

For the record, I am not particularly fond of Beatles, Stones, Elvis or Zeppelin, but Elvis is by far the most overrated on that list, in terms of musical contribution (as opposed to cultural).

 

[JustKate]

Saying they are "the best" would be overrating them, sure. I mean, aside from everything else, "the best" at what exactly? Music is too diverse to make statements like that, IMO.

It would, however, be very difficult to overrate their importance - and by "their" I mean both the Beatles, who I love, and Elvis, who I don't - in regards to music of the past several decades.

Edit: I'm pretty sure I saw the "hair" band that deserves the title of "the worst," though. I know there is a lot of competition for this honor among bands of that era, and I can't prove it, but I'm still pretty sure I'm right. I can't remember exactly when it was, but it must have been the very late 1970s or very early 1980s. It was a band called Angel, and I saw them during a big multi-band New Years concert in either San Jose or Oakland, Calif. The entire evening was wretched since the only band who played well was the Cars, and they were having sound problems, but the lowlight of the evening was undoubtedly Angel. I can see them now, though fortunately a merciful memory has blocked exactly how horrible they sounded.

 

[Pingfah]

For the record, I am not particularly fond of Beatles, Stones, Elvis or Zeppelin, but Elvis is by far the most overrated on that list, in terms of musical contribution (as opposed to cultural).

Elvis has made great contributions to the arts, his interpretations of other people's works certainly added a lot to the style of rock and roll and influenced other's performances.

But considering he was a performer and an entertainer, not a songwriter (he only has songwriting credits of a tiny smattering of his recorded output) I have to agree.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

i much prefer Queen. i think the Beatles're over-rated too.

I'm going to go the opposite route and say that, aside from Bohemian Rhapsody and Under Pressure (which has David Bowie as well, whom I much prefer), I've grown very tired of Queen. I won't call them overrated because different people have different tastes, they've just slowly moved out of my taste.

EDIT: The reason why I except Bohemian Rhapsody has more to do with the fact that I've traditionally liked the song than anything else. I might at some point grow sick of it too.

I'm actually still fine with Foreigner...at longish intervals, in small doses. But Journey...I just try not to even think about it.

I have an autographed Foreigner CD. I'm thinking it'll make a nice frisbee. As for Journey, I basically have a couple of rules. I have to be with a group of people, we all have to have been drinking heavily, we all have to sing along, and I have to have a beer in my hand.