I generally dislike The Beatles.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

adypole

Refugee
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,539
Location
I live where I don't wanna drown, but god I'm goin
Yes, you read it correctly. It seems that everywhere I go I notice this craze for the Beatles, but it seems that-judging by what music I have heard of them so far-I generally dislike them. I have heard Abbey Road all the way through and most of the white album, and yes-the high points are very good but it seems I find it incredibbly hard to sit all the way through one of their albums. I tried listening to revolver and rubber soul but after about 5 minutes I simply gave up. I'm wondering if any of you have any recomendations regarding the Beatles-IE, their most accesible songs that might, perhaps, alter my opinion?

It's strange because I'm a big fan of Lennon's solo work and it seems most of the Beatles songs I can abide are written by him-IE, 'come together' or 'I want you' (both, coincedentally on Abbey Road)
 
I think that a great deal of the Beatles' acclaim comes from their cultural significance rather than any claim to have been the "greatest" band ever in terms of technique, accessibility, songcraft, etc.

Though I love the Beatles, in my mind several bands have come along since then who have created more accomplished music. It's perfectly justifiable not to care for the Beatles' music while still acknowledging their importance.
 
Your post doesn't exactly explain why you dislike the Beatles. You do dislike them, and that's fascinating and all, but I can't recommend songs that stand in contrast to the songs you dislike in order to sway your opinion, as I have no idea what those songs are or why you dislike them.
 
Moderators can move if decided appropriate.

I would say what puts me off listening to any Beatles albums from start to finish, or stop me from having a full appreciation of them, are the songs which Lennon, I think, described as 'Pauls granny shit'. You know, the nursery rhyme like songs, the childish ones like ob-la di or polytheme pam, maxwell's silver hammer...
 
Paul didn't write Polythene Pam but I understand what you're saying. I have an issue with the same kind of material, though it certainly doesn't prevent me from appreciating the rest of their brilliance.
 
For me, those songs are part of what make the Beatles so good. They dont take themselves so seriously that they can't write a song like those mentioned. I love both Polythene Pam and Maxwell's Silver Hammer, though if you're listening to Polythene Pam out of the medley, you're really missing the point
 
Maxwell's is an eye-roller if there ever was one. I don't find it as offensive as Honey Pie but it's rather dumb. It makes Octopus's Garden seem like an brilliant piece of songwriting.
 
I think that a great deal of the Beatles' acclaim comes from their cultural significance rather than any claim to have been the "greatest" band ever in terms of technique, accessibility, songcraft, etc.

Though I love the Beatles, in my mind several bands have come along since then who have created more accomplished music. It's perfectly justifiable not to care for the Beatles' music while still acknowledging their importance.


Couldn't agree more, The Beatles are a band most people are born into liking these days, its considered quit odd not to like them, not many people actually (IMO) stand back and take a good view of the music and say I actually like that, its just considered as a given, I am a big fan of them, I suppose I'd be in the minority of been a bigger fan of there earlier stuff, I like their rock and roll albums, If I hadnt have read your post I would have recommended Revolver, its there most accessible IMO, but I guess if you don't like them you don't have to, no big deal and yeah I agree there has been bands in recent years that have took music further than The Beatles.
 
I'm not sure what could be "further" or "more accomplished" than Strawberry Fields Forever or I Am The Walrus, but I'm curious to know who's surpassed them.
 
Couldn't agree more, The Beatles are a band most people are born into liking these days, its considered quit odd not to like them, not many people actually (IMO) stand back and take a good view of the music and say I actually like that, its just considered as a given, I am a big fan of them, I suppose I'd be in the minority of been a bigger fan of there earlier stuff, I like their rock and roll albums, If I hadnt have read your post I would have recommended Revolver, its there most accessible IMO, but I guess if you don't like them you don't have to, no big deal and yeah I agree there has been bands in recent years that have took music further than The Beatles.

I think this is often a knee jerk reaction from people who dont like them. I find it to be a somewhat thoughtless and dismissive comment. I grew up disliking the Beatles because they were my Dad's band and when I was young and foolish, I thought that made them lame. As I grew up, I realized how staggering their discography actually is. Their catalog is so dense that no other band can come close to touching them. I mean, think about everything you know about the Beatles. All the songs, all the experimentation, all the styles; all of that happened in a time span of seven years. That's unheard of. Can you imagine if a band came along in 2003 and changed the musical landscape in the way the Beatles did? If you dont like them, thats fine, but to imply that others like them only because they think they're supposed to is very short sighted. There are plenty of bands that I'm 'supposed' to like, but cant stand (Pink Floyd off the top of my head).
 
I think this is often a knee jerk reaction from people who dont like them. I find it to be a somewhat thoughtless and dismissive comment. I grew up disliking the Beatles because they were my Dad's band and when I was young and foolish, I thought that made them lame. As I grew up, I realized how staggering their discography actually is. Their catalog is so dense that no other band can come close to touching them. I mean, think about everything you know about the Beatles. All the songs, all the experimentation, all the styles; all of that happened in a time span of seven years. That's unheard of. Can you imagine if a band came along in 2003 and changed the musical landscape in the way the Beatles did? If you dont like them, thats fine, but to imply that others like them only because they think they're supposed to is very short sighted. There are plenty of bands that I'm 'supposed' to like, but cant stand (Pink Floyd off the top of my head).

Firstly I am a big Beatles fan, they are a phenomenal band! undeniable, I wasn't aiming my comment at you or anyone in particular, from my own experiences tho, it seems that there is alot of people that just say "yeah of course I am a Beatles fan obviously!" It doesn't seem to be thought about twice, My comment was addressing this, a staggering back catalog indeed, and yeah no doubt they pushed the envelope in the sixties and changed the way music was recording and written, a current band that I would compare to the Beatles is Radiohead, a band that constantly push themselves in different directions and without fail produce incredible music,
 
Firstly I am a big Beatles fan, they are a phenomenal band! undeniable, I wasn't aiming my comment at you or anyone in particular

Same :)

Its just a discussion that I've had on a couple occasions lately and I feel really strongly about it. I've also heard someone state that the Beatles 'just came along at the right time', which is also terribly dismissive and doesnt even really mean anything when you think about it.
 
You're pretty young right? Like 14? I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything as I know a lot of young kids get into older music but perhaps you just cant relate to it?

I personally never got 'into' the Beatles and I'm in my 30s. I don't dislike them but I wouldn't call myself a fan.
 
I'm not sure what could be "further" or "more accomplished" than Strawberry Fields Forever or I Am The Walrus, but I'm curious to know who's surpassed them.

Well, just off the top of my head, I would argue that Radiohead is a more accomplished band. In my opinion, every member is more adept with their respective instrument than their counterparts in the Beatles, the albums have more nuance and direction, and the songcraft is more daring in terms of time signatures, chord changes, and the like.

I say all this realizing that "more accomplished" is an ambiguous term, and again I do not want to insinuate in any way that "Strawberry Fields" or "A Day in the Life" are not brilliant pieces of music. They just may not be the most brilliant things ever committed to tape.
 
To put your comment into context, you have to imagine that Radiohead started off as a Jonas Brothers, and then became the Radiohead of Hail to the Thief. All in 7 years. That's what people maybe forget: that at the start the Beatles were a pop band, not expected to last, and then they turned the whole thing on its head and took their music into totally unexpected, unexplored areas.

Noone has really done that since, imo.
 
To put your comment into context, you have to imagine that Radiohead started off as a Jonas Brothers, and then became the Radiohead of Hail to the Thief. All in 7 years. That's what people maybe forget: that at the start the Beatles were a pop band, not expected to last, and then they turned the whole thing on its head and took their music into totally unexpected, unexplored areas.

Noone has really done that since, imo.

You could make the argument that Radiohead did indeed start off as a pedestrian rock band (Pablo Honey) and then took off into crazy awesome unexpected territory.

But I get what you're saying.
 
The fact that someone disliking The Beatles is apparently threadworthy (while someone disliking, say, Vampire Weekend is merely ignored) should be sufficient evidence of how awesome the Beatles are.
 
I genuinely like it

I've never been sure if I genuinely like it or just have some cool memories associated with it. When I was in 8th grade, we did a play (I think it was called "Who Done It"?), but it was kind of short, so to fill in the time, there was a talent show added in. A friend of mine did a tap dance routine to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and since I was a stage hand on the play, I heard the song a hell of a lot. Add to that the fact that that was the same time I first got into U2 and I was listening to Achtung Baby a lot during the rehearsals, and it's just some fine musical and life memories. I do recognize that the song is incredibly fluffy, but it makes me smile.
 
Yes, you read it correctly. It seems that everywhere I go I notice this craze for the Beatles, but it seems that-judging by what music I have heard of them so far-I generally dislike them. I have heard Abbey Road all the way through and most of the white album, and yes-the high points are very good but it seems I find it incredibbly hard to sit all the way through one of their albums. I tried listening to revolver and rubber soul but after about 5 minutes I simply gave up. I'm wondering if any of you have any recomendations regarding the Beatles-IE, their most accesible songs that might, perhaps, alter my opinion?

It's strange because I'm a big fan of Lennon's solo work and it seems most of the Beatles songs I can abide are written by him-IE, 'come together' or 'I want you' (both, coincedentally on Abbey Road)

First off, you need to listen to Sgt. Peppers and especially Magical Mystery Tour before giving up on The Beatles.

The downside of having three great songwriters (and Ringo) was that the albums featured songs that greatly differed in quality. That is the reality but I can still enjoy Help! or Revolver even if I dislike a couple tracks. If you cannot do that then The Beatles just may not be for you. You should respect their quality of work in terms of the sheer number of amazing songs though.
 
pssh, you might as well "generally dislike" modern music then...

I've never been sure if I genuinely like it or just have some cool memories associated with it.

I'll second this, I like several Beattles songs which are not considered their "A Material" simply because I associate them with my childhood. Maxwell is a good example of this which is kind of fucked up when I think about the subject matter...
 
I never had any sort of reaction to their music
that's not judging the quality, just that it's not for me
 
I think Sicy hit it on the head. I think it may just be an age thing for some people, too. I personally love the Beatles' music, think they wrote some absolutely brilliant, lovely songs ("Eleanor Rigby" and "Penny Lane" being a couple personal favorites-probably tie for my favorite Beatles song, and I like some of the goofy songs, myself. I love "Octopus's Garden" and "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da". But that's just me).

But they're not going to have the exact same meaning to me as they would to someone who actually grew up with them when they were together and making all these songs and putting them out. I'll never truly understand the firsthand experience of "Beatlemania" or seeing them on 'Ed Sullivan' or seeing them change right before my eyes from 1964 to 1969 or whatever, and I do think older generations should take that into account somewhat. I'm always going to like them, though, because I have memories of my parents playing their music, so there's that aspect of it all, and because without them pretty much every band I love now would likely not exist (or if they did, I can't imagine what they'd sound like otherwise), and because I just personally do really like their songs. They made fun, beautiful, heartfelt music, and any band that makes music like that, old or new, will always get my attention. If they had another name and still made that music, if they were new and still made that music, given my personal tastes and styles, I'd still like what I heard.

It seems Paul's songs just don't seem to generally be your thing, you're more toward Lennon's side, as you said. So liking half of what the two main contributors like does pose a bit of an issue. How do you feel about George Harrison's contributions to the group? I would ask about Ringo, too, but he wrote some of the group's "goofy" songs, too, so if you're not big on that from Paul... Though I could be wrong.

Angela
 
Couldn't agree more, The Beatles are a band most people are born into liking these days, its considered quit odd not to like them, not many people actually (IMO) stand back and take a good view of the music and say I actually like that, its just considered as a given, I am a big fan of them, I suppose I'd be in the minority of been a bigger fan of there earlier stuff, I like their rock and roll albums, If I hadnt have read your post I would have recommended Revolver, its there most accessible IMO, but I guess if you don't like them you don't have to, no big deal and yeah I agree there has been bands in recent years that have took music further than The Beatles.


i haven't had enough coffee yet to really wade through that giant run-on sentence of yours there, but i think somewhere in its midst you mentioned being in the minority of liking the early stuff. i definitely am. it goes hand in hand with that whole being born into liking the beatles thing, really. anyone with parents or a local classic rock station who introduced them to the beatles heard larger quantities of post-rubber soul beatles than anything from . oasis built an entire career off middle-era beatles. anything remotely psychedellic owes something to them. indie rock kids say they like the beatles because they can't get away from the influences from the later years as well. anytime anyone throws a sitar into a rock band, unless i'm mistaken, george harrison did it first...whereas please please me through beatles for sale was still a lot of emulating then-contemporary rock n roll. most casual, non-obsessive types don't even realize please please me was an album, because those local classic rock stations write anything pre-revolver off as standard oldies stuff. and if anyone else's mom is anything like mine, they grew up not even know please please me was an album (partly because of that whole stupid american vs. UK releases thing, partly as a result of the culture thing vs. an actual band people sit down and listen to thing).

i'll take "i feel fine" over "i am the walrus" any day, but that's just how i've been since i was 6. so if the original poster is saying he likes "i want you (she's so heavy)" and "come together," i can't imagine we're ever going to see eye to eye on this band.
 
.... As I grew up, I realized how staggering their discography actually is. Their catalog is so dense that no other band can come close to touching them. I mean, think about everything you know about the Beatles. All the songs, all the experimentation, all the styles; all of that happened in a time span of seven years. That's unheard of. Can you imagine if a band came along in 2003 and changed the musical landscape in the way the Beatles did? If you dont like them, thats fine, but to imply that others like them only because they think they're supposed to is very short sighted. There are plenty of bands that I'm 'supposed' to like, but cant stand (Pink Floyd off the top of my head).


amen. i mean, i realized it was pretty staggering as a kid, which is kind of why until i was 14 or so i had decided that i'd never really need to listen to any other bands. who puts out that many albums in such a short span of time that are that diverse? no one. and fuck radiohead. the absence of structure and sonic incoherencies/dissonance just for the sake of dissonance, computer noises and goddamn wailing in between bells ringing or whatever bullshit thom yorke is now up to is about as stupid as jackson pollock throwing paint around and calling it art. 2 year olds do both of these things with art supplies, pots, and pans respectively. it's not genius, it's just annoying. at least the beatles had the decency to limit that stuff to revolution #9 and wild honey pie.

pink floyd = my favorite example of a band you're "suppposed to like," more specifically the wall. my rant regarding that usually has something to do with the stones' exile on main street, and i'm sure i've beaten that dead horse of a point in a few threads 'round these parts over the years. the older i get, the more equine deaths seem to follow...
 
I dont think that they suck or anything. I just think they are disgustingly overrated. I enjoy them sometimes though.
I also feel the same way about Bob Dylan, maybe its a sixties thing....i dont get it.
 
If you truly dislike the Beatles, you most likely haven't listened to enough of their discography.

And just while I'm here, can I just say I've totally gone on the McCartney>Lennon steamboat lately? McCartney's output is full of hidden surprises, but Lennon just couldn't write a complete song for shit. Both are great, of course, I'm just throwing it in here.
 
Back
Top Bottom