Why the Beatles hate?

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 27 2006, 02:00 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Sep 27 2006, 04:53 PM) QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 01:39 PM) There are plenty of influential bands who weren't musically impressive. That is the definition of the Beatles. Anyone want to show me where they showed ANY extreme musical prowess? Or where their songwriting showes anything complex, AT ALL. Lets face facts, people develope irrational emotional attachment to things that were new and groundbreaking, which is fine, but they are seldom the best in their field. It isn't, necessarily, hard to become better than those you stand on the shoulders of, but in the end, you're better nonetheless. The Beatles were a solid foundation to Rock and Roll, but in the end, they were just a foundation. And get off the "Ignorance of Youth" high horse... if that's your best argument, then you've got real problems with Ignorance yourself. I don't attack others personal opinions, but I expect the same from others, I haven't seen it. Instrumental virtuosity is to me not a sign of anything other than instrumental virtuosity. There are a hell of a lot of musicians out there that are a LOT more techinically proficient than any of the Beatles, but it doesn't mean they can put together songs as memorable as they did, not by a long shot. I'd rather listen to a well-made enjoyable song any day of the week than a hundred mastrubatory progressive musical virtuosos churning out boring soul-less music with unbelivable technique.   I don't think anyone here would argue that any single member of the Beatles was an instrumental virtuoso on any given instrument. There were better individual musicians, and certainly more complex songwriters. What they did have was a unique magic when the four of their talents were combined to convey many facets of the human experience in a way people could relate to.   It was the songwriting, along with their diversity, their ability to play many different instruements, their daring, their use of the studio as an instrument in itself, their ability to convey ideas, their creativity, willingness to change and grow and to try new things, etc. It wasn't any one factor, as in any one factor they had, there are people who did it better, but no one did all of what they did to combine into the music they created. They had an intangible magic together that is almost impossible to duplicate, and in that they were truly gifted, but if you don't get it, you just don't get it. I hate to do this but...   Another... you like me, you really like me!!!                   treeduck

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Sep 27 2006, 05:07 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 27 2006, 02:00 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Sep 27 2006, 04:53 PM) QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 01:39 PM) There are plenty of influential bands who weren't musically impressive. That is the definition of the Beatles. Anyone want to show me where they showed ANY extreme musical prowess? Or where their songwriting showes anything complex, AT ALL. Lets face facts, people develope irrational emotional attachment to things that were new and groundbreaking, which is fine, but they are seldom the best in their field. It isn't, necessarily, hard to become better than those you stand on the shoulders of, but in the end, you're better nonetheless. The Beatles were a solid foundation to Rock and Roll, but in the end, they were just a foundation. And get off the "Ignorance of Youth" high horse... if that's your best argument, then you've got real problems with Ignorance yourself. I don't attack others personal opinions, but I expect the same from others, I haven't seen it. Instrumental virtuosity is to me not a sign of anything other than instrumental virtuosity. There are a hell of a lot of musicians out there that are a LOT more techinically proficient than any of the Beatles, but it doesn't mean they can put together songs as memorable as they did, not by a long shot. I'd rather listen to a well-made enjoyable song any day of the week than a hundred mastrubatory progressive musical virtuosos churning out boring soul-less music with unbelivable technique.   I don't think anyone here would argue that any single member of the Beatles was an instrumental virtuoso on any given instrument. There were better individual musicians, and certainly more complex songwriters. What they did have was a unique magic when the four of their talents were combined to convey many facets of the human experience in a way people could relate to.   It was the songwriting, along with their diversity, their ability to play many different instruements, their daring, their use of the studio as an instrument in itself, their ability to convey ideas, their creativity, willingness to change and grow and to try new things, etc. It wasn't any one factor, as in any one factor they had, there are people who did it better, but no one did all of what they did to combine into the music they created. They had an intangible magic together that is almost impossible to duplicate, and in that they were truly gifted, but if you don't get it, you just don't get it. I hate to do this but...   Another... you like me, you really like me!!!                   treeduck

[KenJennings]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Sep 27 2006, 04:53 PM)

I'd rather listen to a well-made enjoyable song any day of the week than a hundred mastrubatory progressive musical virtuosos churning out boring soul-less music with unbelivable technique.

This argument is totally undefinable.

 

Couldn't you word this any more eloquently? Such as: 'I enjoy the Beatles' music, more than the sum of their instrumental talents.'

 

I'll take a swing at my own version:

I believe instrumental prowess is indicative of great music. When an artist is devoted enough to become truly virtuous at their instrument, it is usually the case that spectacular music natually follows. He who best understands his instrument, can best express true soul through it.

 

I'll leave it at that.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 05:14 PM)

I believe instrumental prowess is indicative of great music. When an artist is devoted enough to become truly virtuous at their instrument, it is usually the case that spectacular music natually follows. He who best understands his instrument, can best express true soul through it.

I'll leave it at that.

This is simply not true in every single case as you seem to imply...

 

I'll leave it at that...

[KenJennings]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 27 2006, 05:20 PM)

QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 05:14 PM) I believe instrumental prowess is indicative of great music. When an artist is devoted enough to become truly virtuous at their instrument, it is usually the case that spectacular music natually follows. He who best understands his instrument, can best express true soul through it. I'll leave it at that. This is simply not true in every single case as you seem to imply...   I'll leave it at that... You can claim what you want, but I made myself very clear.

[Test4VitalSigns]

I guess Dream Theater shouldn't have covered the Beatles then

[treeduck]

QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 05:24 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 27 2006, 05:20 PM) QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 05:14 PM) I believe instrumental prowess is indicative of great music. When an artist is devoted enough to become truly virtuous at their instrument, it is usually the case that spectacular music natually follows. He who best understands his instrument, can best express true soul through it. I'll leave it at that. This is simply not true in every single case as you seem to imply...   I'll leave it at that... You can claim what you want, but I made myself very clear. Name some examples Ken of your song-writing virtuosos...

[Slime]

I put the "radio hits" option up there because I really do feel that most of the best songs put out by Da Boys aren't played on radio these days. I haven't heard Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Fool on the Hill or even She's Leaving Home played on radio. But there is too much rotation of Come Together, Revolution or even Hey Jude/Let It be.

 

But it is like that with any artist, right?

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Slime @ Sep 27 2006, 05:29 PM)

I put the "radio hits" option up there because I really do feel that most of the best songs put out by Da Boys aren't played on radio these days. I haven't heard Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Fool on the Hill or even She's Leaving Home played on radio. But there is too much rotation of Come Together, Revolution or even Hey Jude/Let It be. But it is like that with any artist, right?

Yeah exactly and the solution is? Change channels or turn off...

[Slime]

but I think the REAL problem with that is that people will think that every Beatles song is similar to stuff like "All my loving" and will probably not dig deeper to discover what really is a strong catalogue.

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (Slime @ Sep 27 2006, 06:29 PM)

I put the "radio hits" option up there because I really do feel that most of the best songs put out by Da Boys aren't played on radio these days. I haven't heard Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Fool on the Hill or even She's Leaving Home played on radio. But there is too much rotation of Come Together, Revolution or even Hey Jude/Let It be. But it is like that with any artist, right?

That's the biggest problem with some people today. They base their opinions way too much on what radio plays. Of course people are gonna think these bands are overrated if they are force-fed the same songs over and over again.

 

These bands (Beatles, Zep, Hendrix, etc...) are known for their ALBUMS.

[KenJennings]

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Sep 27 2006, 05:27 PM)

I guess Dream Theater shouldn't have covered the Beatles then

Wouldn't have been my choice, but i'm not Mike Portnoy, am I? I for one, go to a DT concert to see them play DT songs. (Though I couldn't frown at a Rush cover.)

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 06:33 PM)

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Sep 27 2006, 05:27 PM) I guess Dream Theater shouldn't have covered the Beatles then  Wouldn't have been my choice, but i'm not Mike Portnoy, am I? I for one, go to a DT concert to see them play DT songs. (Though I couldn't frown at a Rush cover.) The point is The Beatles are worthy of covering if you go by the standard of quality of the music as far as musicianship and songwriting...otherwise why would they bother?

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Sep 27 2006, 05:33 PM)

QUOTE (Slime @ Sep 27 2006, 06:29 PM) I put the "radio hits" option up there because I really do feel that most of the best songs put out by Da Boys aren't played on radio these days. I haven't heard Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Fool on the Hill or even She's Leaving Home played on radio. But there is too much rotation of Come Together, Revolution or even Hey Jude/Let It be. But it is like that with any artist, right? That's the biggest problem with some people today. They base their opinions way too much on what radio plays. Of course people are gonna think these bands are overrated if they are force-fed the same songs over and over again.   These bands (Beatles, Zep, Hendrix, etc...) are known for their ALBUMS. Radio? Never listened to it since the 80s...   It's a joke Testy but I'm not laughing...

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 27 2006, 06:37 PM)

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Sep 27 2006, 05:33 PM) QUOTE (Slime @ Sep 27 2006, 06:29 PM) I put the "radio hits" option up there because I really do feel that most of the best songs put out by Da Boys aren't played on radio these days. I haven't heard Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Fool on the Hill or even She's Leaving Home played on radio. But there is too much rotation of Come Together, Revolution or even Hey Jude/Let It be. But it is like that with any artist, right? That's the biggest problem with some people today. They base their opinions way too much on what radio plays. Of course people are gonna think these bands are overrated if they are force-fed the same songs over and over again.   These bands (Beatles, Zep, Hendrix, etc...) are known for their ALBUMS. Radio? Never listened to it since the 80s...   It's a joke Testy but I'm not laughing...   I hear ya bro. Radio is indeed a pathetic joke

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 05:14 PM)

I'll take a swing at my own version: I believe instrumental prowess is indicative of great music. When an artist is devoted enough to become truly virtuous at their instrument, it is usually the case that spectacular music natually follows. He who best understands his instrument, can best express true soul through it. I'll leave it at that.

What hooey. A pretentious and arrogant argument. The Beatles were very good rock and roll musicians. They presented themselves as nothing more or less. For musical prowess check out the tempo changes in Things We Said Today and Happiness Is A Warm Gun and She Said She Said. Check McCartney's guitar solo in Taxman. Ringo's performance in Rain is fabulous. Listen to Side Two of Abbey Road. These guys could play their instruments. Sure they weren't Hendrix and Keith Moon type musicians, but they held there own. It's the songs that matter. The Beatles played their instruments to enhance the song. When the song needed it The Beatles kicked ass.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 02:14 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Sep 27 2006, 04:53 PM) I'd rather listen to a well-made enjoyable song any day of the week than a hundred mastrubatory progressive musical virtuosos churning out boring soul-less music with unbelivable technique. This argument is totally undefinable.   Couldn't you word this any more eloquently? Such as: 'I enjoy the Beatles' music, more than the sum of their instrumental talents.'   I'll take a swing at my own version: I believe instrumental prowess is indicative of great music. When an artist is devoted enough to become truly virtuous at their instrument, it is usually the case that spectacular music natually follows. He who best understands his instrument, can best express true soul through it.   I'll leave it at that. i think having some musical talent and a lot of soul will take you a lot farther than tons of musical talent with little soul.   i think your definition of great music is pretty off, but we can just agree to disagree here.   it's not what you have, it's what you DO with what you have.

[fledgehog]

Umm, guys, last time I checked, this thread was about "why people hate The Beatles", not "pick apart Beatles dislikers' arguements"...why don't you just chill? For crying out loud, most of you probably wouldn't even defend Rush so strongly...

[fledgehog]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Sep 27 2006, 04:38 PM)

The Beatles were talented.

 

That was funnier than watching this big jerk in my grade get hit in the nuts by a soccer ball.

 

 

EDIT:

 

I could come up with a list of bands more talented than The Beatles. I think it would include every band from the sixties until now, except for the odd rapper or emo/punk band here and there.

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (fledgehog @ Sep 27 2006, 10:12 PM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Sep 27 2006, 04:38 PM) The Beatles were talented.   That was funnier than watching this big jerk in my grade get hit in the nuts by a soccer ball.     EDIT:   I could come up with a list of bands more talented than The Beatles. I think it would include every band from the sixties until now, except for the odd rapper or emo/punk band here and there.

[KenJennings]

I'm really disapointed by the arguments of many here. I thought this board had a bit more respect.

 

Seems many here are pretty intolerant of others' opinion, especially considering that the thread's SPECIFIC purpose is to know why some people don't like the Beatles.

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (KenJennings @ Sep 27 2006, 10:19 PM)

I'm really disapointed by the arguments of many here. I thought this board had a bit more respect. Seems many here are pretty intolerant of others' opinion, especially considering that the thread's SPECIFIC purpose is to know why some people don't like the Beatles.

oh please.

 

People are merely giving their counter-argument to your points. It's call debate. No one made any disparing remarks about you personally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fledgehog]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Sep 27 2006, 05:53 PM)

Instrumental virtuosity is to me not a sign of anything other than instrumental virtuosity. There are a hell of a lot of musicians out there that are a LOT more techinically proficient than any of the Beatles, but it doesn't mean they can put together songs as memorable as they did, not by a long shot.

Each person remembers, or hooks onto a song of their own style. Saying something like "The Beatles' songs are better than Band X's songs because they are more memorable" is nonsense. Of course they're more memorable to you, because you happen to be a fan. Play a Rush song for a non-fan a hundred times, and he'd be damned lucky to remember the melody of its chorus. Do you get my point?

 

QUOTE

I'd rather listen to a well-made enjoyable song any day of the week than a hundred mastrubatory progressive musical virtuosos churning out boring soul-less music with unbelivable technique.

 

Again, that's a personal choice. You should also perhaps acknowledge that the amount of Beatles songs that are well-made and enjoyable are few and far between.

 

QUOTE

I don't think anyone here would argue that any single member of the Beatles was an instrumental virtuoso on any given instrument.  There were better individual musicians, and certainly more complex songwriters.  What they did have was a unique magic when the four of their talents were combined to convey many facets of the human experience in a way people could relate to.

 

Perhaps I'm not as smart as I seem. I mean come on, I'm only 3 levels above the rest of my grade in Math, and have a foreign language independent study...but I couldn't make much sense out of this paragraph. In a way people could relate to? What is there to relate to in a song about a man killing his dates? Abbey Road is one of the Beatles' "masterpiece albums", isn't it?

 

QUOTE

It was the songwriting

Yes? What about it?

 

QUOTE

, along with their diversity

The ability to play 5...not 4...chords...

 

QUOTE

, their ability to play many different instruements

Such as drums, keyboard, guitar, bass guitar, and well...umm...err...nothing else...really...

 

QUOTE

, their daring, their use of the studio as an instrument in itself

What band doesn't take advantage of studio technology?

 

QUOTE

their ability to convey ideas,

"I want to hold your hand"

 

QUOTE

their creativity,

Hmm. I suppose it isn't every day that you see a song named "I Am the Walrus"

 

QUOTE

willingness to change and grow and to try new things, etc

2 albums, not one...and let's not give it a title...and while we're at it, we'll put different cereal numbers on each one...

 

QUOTE

.  It wasn't any one factor, as in any one factor they had, there are people who did it better, but no one did all of what they did to combine into the music they created.

Filled with subjective statements and opinions

 

QUOTE

They had an intangible magic together that is almost impossible to duplicate,

Big words do nothing

 

QUOTE

and in that they were truly gifted, but if you don't get it, you just don't get it.

 

You're damn right I don't get it...and since you said it yourself, what point is there trying to change me. Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da, life goes on......just let it be...jeez...

[fledgehog]

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Sep 27 2006, 06:27 PM)

I guess Dream Theater shouldn't have covered the Beatles then

When did they do this? Or are you referring to the song title references in Octavarium?

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (fledgehog @ Sep 27 2006, 10:29 PM)

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Sep 27 2006, 06:27 PM) I guess Dream Theater shouldn't have covered the Beatles then  When did they do this? Or are you referring to the song title references in Octavarium? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs...y_Dream_Theater   There are 6 Beatles songs on that list