• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

I don't understand the love for The Beatles at all

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of their fans are fakes trying to fit in with a group of people who as well only pretend to like The Beatles only because they're old. It's for some reason "cool" to wear Beatles shirts but I doubt any of these try-hard poseurs actually go home and listen to this shit band. Absolutely, 100% no skill. They're the dubstep of rock.
 
Bloodrage said:
A lot of their fans are fakes trying to fit in with a group of people who as well only pretend to like The Beatles only because they're old. It's for some reason "cool" to wear Beatles shirts but I doubt any of these try-hard poseurs actually go home and listen to this shit band. Absolutely, 100% no skill. They're the dubstep of rock.

Try harder.
 
-NinjaBoiX- said:
And he ain't influencing shit.

Bieber missed the boat on even coming close to being an influential artist. Michael Jackson or Madonna is who everyone will look to for inspiration in the pop world for decades to come. Maybe if Bieber last another 30 years or so and has a really long career, but I don't see it.
 
I can respect the fact you don't get it; there's lots of things I don't (mostly newer music). But for those who do like it can understand how compelling they were at the height of their popularity and thus it's easy to sing their praises.

Also, I believe they were one of the first HUGE bands to spread out and dip their feet into many different styles, what with using sitars, experimenting with ambient sounds, etc. People really dug that bravery; I know I do.

Combichristoffersen said:
Well, that awful haircut he used to be sporting seems to have gained popularity.
I never understood what the rave over his hair was. He wasn't the first to have it...

It's like putting the spotlight on Rupert Grint for having a frakking bowl cut.
 
Major Williams said:
I only respect the Beatles because of their lasting influence. I cannot, however listen to any of their songs for longer than a couple minutes without wanting to change the song.

Its boring, and the geniuses along the way have improved what they started. I don't get the love NEW fans have for their music. Older folks reminiscing, sure I get it.

Music doesn't work this way. By that measure Beethoven and Mozart suck now because so much time has passed to allow people to "improve" on what they did.

The Beatles songs are timeless. A good song is a good song. Whether you find them boring or not has no relevance to when they recorded their music.
 
Combichristoffersen said:
Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles :lol

But yeah, I guess their stuff does sound very dated nowadays since music has had 50 years to evolve from the foundation Beatles created, you'd really have to compare them to their contemporaries to make it a fair comparison.
WAT
Does this sound dated to you?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUd9Sx5Pumg

Edit: how does music sound dated?
 
I've never really gotten into the beatles, but then again I never really sat down and listened to all of their music.
 
Not really a fan of their early pop music... but I dig the psychedelic stuff they did. Across the Universe for example is an amazing song.
 
Azuran said:
I don't understand it either. They were good if you live in the 60's. Their music really sounds dated and has been surpassed multiple times. Ringo Starr was also a terrible drummer.

Ringo was a terrific drummer. You don't know what you're talking about. Was he a technical master like Buddy Rich? No, but he was very good in a rock context.

Most importantly, he kept a rock solid beat which is the MOST IMPORTANT skill a drummer needs to have.

He is very underrated amongst non-drummers.
 
I thought Ringo's drum solo in 'The End' was pretty awesome.

Combichristoffersen said:
Sounds dated in the sense that it sounds like something recorded in the 60s or 70s, not in the sense that it necessarily sounds bad.
Even the 2009 remasters?
 
I've listened to the Beatles' entire discography, and I like most of it. I can sing along to almost all of their songs.

That being said, I like most of the bands listed by the OP much more. Probably just because I really love blues rock. Beatles is really not a rock band, in my opinion. Their songs were catchy, melodic pop songs for the most part.
 
I agree that the Beatles are awful, but I don't know what this thread is supposed to accomplish. Obviously there's something to like about them, given their horde of devotees - they just don't possess anything that appeals to me.
 
Azuran said:
I don't understand it either. They were good if you live in the 60's. Their music really sounds dated and has been surpassed multiple times. Ringo Starr was also a terrible drummer.
False. Ringo is a fantastic drummer. He just isn't a flashy one.
 
The number of people in here ignorant to the Beatles influence on music is depressing. You want to know the main difference between The Beatles and Justin Bieber? The Beatles invented things. You don't have to like them, but it's not a debate that they're the most important band of the last century.
 
SpartanForce said:
What a overrated band. Come on. Just look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhzF2K2b7Xo&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e50uIZCjQqI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVpcclx3vA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4p02Nm1Vs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcqZlFMUYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5U1-nQHsE

etc, all from the 60s. all hundred times better that any beatles song

da fuck this beatlemania had so special? (and has until today)
mediocre vocal, bad instrumental with 3 notes (so you can say that they have feeling anyway... well, no, just laziness).

well beatle fans, just give me a why. that's all I ask.
OP if it makes you feel not so bad, I too don't get the overall craziness for them... I think they're decent, I like some songs but overall I hate how this band has such obsessive fans that unless you're REALLY REALLY into them, you are not really a fan. However I would be remiss to not acknowledge their obvious influence on music as a whole, I gotta give them props for that at least.
 
I don't think you can appreciate the Beatles as much as the people did when they were famous.

My dad was born in 1951 so he was around 15 when they started getting big. He always tells me that The Beatles saved them from music. (i.e. pop music was horrid before they came along)
 
I acknowledge the positive impact the Beatles have had on music and popular culture, and appreciate them for it.

With that said: I don't enjoy listening to their music.

BAM, was that fucking hard or what?
 
To see the impact they had just look at music before the Beatles and after. Look at the music they were putting out in 1966-67-68 . Completely different than anything else at the time. Completely revolutionary.
 
whitehawk said:
I don't think you can appreciate the Beatles as much as the people did when they were famous.

Naw man.

I've met lots of folks my parent's age (57) who are totally indifferent to the Beatles.

I on the other hand was completely blown away by their music.
 
Remember about 4-5 years ago, where virtually every store you went into there was Hannah Montana crap everywhere?

The Beatles were like that, only 10x.

The reason they were so loved so much is they basically invented that sort of marketing/merchandising. I mean, there had been a lot of previous artists exploiting the teen-age girl market before - Elvis most notably, but going back to Frank Sinatra, really, and probably ones before that. But no one had even done it on that scale before. The sheer amount of Beatles merchandise was completely unprecedented.
 
Myriadis said:
I don't really like their earlier stuff, but everything from Revolver on is damn good.
My two favorites:
I want you (She's so heavy)
Within You Without You
I Want You is definitely one of my favorite Beatle tracks. I think Abbey Road is definitely one of the underrate Beatles albums, along with Let it Be and Please Please me.


Combichristoffersen said:
Just found this on YouTube, Lemmy singing 'Back in the USSR'. The Beatles, and all other bands, would be at least 2.5x as awesome if they had Lemmy as a member. Because Lemmy.
wow that was hilarious, please tell me that he has covered this song
 
DiscoJer said:
Remember about 4-5 years ago, where virtually every store you went into there was Hannah Montana crap everywhere?

The Beatles were like that, only 10x.

The reason they were so loved so much is they basically invented that sort of marketing/merchandising. I mean, there had been a lot of previous artists exploiting the teen-age girl market before - Elvis most notably, but going back to Frank Sinatra, really, and probably ones before that. But no one had even done it on that scale before. The sheer amount of Beatles merchandise was completely unprecedented.


So then what accounted for the other 45 years of success?

Marketing?

If so, why didn't they just keep pumping out Hannah Montana back packs to sustain her career?
 
mysticwhip said:
wow that was hilarious, please tell me that he has covered this song

Not very likely, sadly :lol Although I did find a Motörhead cover of the Stones' 'Jumping Jack Flash' (and I think I might actually prefer the Motörhead cover, as it has more 'punch' and a richer sound than the original version)

Edit: You can hear clips from the Beatles tribute album featuring Lemmy here
 
I don't know. I find it hard to listen to anything in the Beatles discography over something like Wonderwall or Party Rock.
 
StudioTan said:
Ringo was a terrific drummer. You don't know what you're talking about. Was he a technical master like Buddy Rich? No, but he was very good in a rock context.

Most importantly, he kept a rock solid beat which is the MOST IMPORTANT skill a drummer needs to have.

He is very underrated amongst non-drummers.


I agree with this. He certainly wouldn't be seen as one of the best, but he was a perfectly accomplished drummer. Definitely underrated.

I love his drumming work in 'ticket to ride'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo
 
whitehawk said:
I don't think you can appreciate the Beatles as much as the people did when they were famous.

My dad was born in 1951 so he was around 15 when they started getting big. He always tells me that The Beatles saved them from music. (i.e. pop music was horrid before they came along)

This. Pop music before the Beatles: http://youtu.be/Vv-LAbMbEn4

Pop music after the Beatles: http://youtu.be/Oig8z4HvBL8

(skip to 1:40 to see coolness before Jimmy Page did it.)
 
I feel a little sorry for those who don't understand the Beatles or never went through their discography. Those feelings simply come from my own experiences when I finally went through my father's albums almost a decade ago.

Their music is timeless and continues to influence musicians.


P.S. George Harrison is my favourite.
 
leadbelly said:
I agree with this. He certainly wouldn't be seen as one of the best, but he was a perfectly accomplished drummer. Definitely underrated.
didn't Lennon once comment that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the band?

McCartney was and is a beast. Fantastic bass and guitar player (it was his solo on Taxman, for instance), and drummer as well.
 
leadbelly said:
I'll just add: For a person who doesn't 'respect' black music, it's strange that he spent an awful lot of time trying to emulate Robert Johnson. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETELORdwmJA
Well, from his auto-biography book that I readed he had a lot of respect to blues musicians, and yes, black music. He plays a jam with Muddy Watters or howlin' wolf, can't remember.

Clapton sure plays a lot with the beatles in the 60's. Have even a affair with the wife of one of the dudes from the beatles. but so what, they were friends and to me they suck together (see this show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPA8TGNjqjs&feature=relmfu), and them there's cream: clapton, jack and ginger hated each other, but they music is fucking amazing.

anyway, I have not listen do the beatles has "youtube only". I have heard the white album, and it is like a normal album. NOTHING special. now hear Vincebus Eruptum from Blue Cheer. Another level.
 
-ImaginaryInsider said:
(skip to 1:40 to see coolness before Jimmy Page did it.)
We'll probably get NGAMER9 post about how much he hates Jimmy Page in a minute or two.

SpartanForce said:
Well, from his auto-biography book that I readed he had a lot of respect to blues musicians, and yes, black music. He plays a jam with Muddy Watters or howlin' wolf, can't remember.

Clapton sure plays a lot with the beatles in the 60's. Have even a affair with the wife of one of the dudes from the beatles. but so what, they were friends and to me they suck together (see this show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPA8TGNjqjs&feature=relmfu), and them there's cream: clapton, jack and ginger hated each other, but they music is fucking amazing.

anyway, I have not listen do the beatles has "youtube only". I have heard the white album, and it is like a normal album. NOTHING special. now hear Vincebus Eruptum from Blue Cheer. Another level.
Oh come on now.
 
Bloodrage said:
A lot of their fans are fakes trying to fit in with a group of people who as well only pretend to like The Beatles only because they're old. It's for some reason "cool" to wear Beatles shirts but I doubt any of these try-hard poseurs actually go home and listen to this shit band. Absolutely, 100% no skill. They're the dubstep of rock.
Not true; I started listening to the Beatles when the 2009 remaster box came out and it became pretty much the only thing I listened to for most of 2010.
Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour are pretty much the two best albums ever.
 
leadbelly said:
I agree with this. He certainly wouldn't be seen as one of the best, but he was a perfectly accomplished drummer. Definitely underrated.

I love his drumming work in 'ticket to ride'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo

He does something very interesting in that song. He switches up his toms accents during the verses after the first bridge. So the first time through he's hitting 2 offbeats which gives the song a heavier syncopated feel (and you hear this same drum beat a lot today in hard rock and metal), whereas during the second section he plays the 3rd beat straight which gives the song a more driving feel. It's very subtle but works great within in the context of the song.

Within drumming circles though Ringo is well respected, found a great page of quotes:

Kenny Arnoff -- "I consider him one of the greatest innovators of rock drumming and believe that he has been one of the greatest influences on rock drumming today... Ringo has influenced drummers more than they will ever realize or admit. Ringo laid down the fundamental rock beat that drummers are playing today and they probably don't even realize it. . . Ringo always approached the song more like a songwriter than a drummer. He always served the music."

Phil Collins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do."

D. J. Fontana drummer for Elvis -- "I was playing maracas or something behind him, just listening to him. I swear he never varied the tempo. He played that back beat and never got off it. Man, you couldn't have moved him with a crane. It was amazing. He played a hell of a back beat, Man, and that's where it's at."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom