Is it Okay To Say That I HATE The Beatles?

[querelle]

They were really a mediocre band that just got lucky through timing. John Lennon was a hack poet and Paul MacCartney could barely write music. Together, they wrote some of the worst dreck in pop music history.

Now Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are true rock and roll geniuses! They know how to be bad and piss off your parents!

Q

[Broken_Hero]

1. Probably not in a lot of peoples eyes...

In my eyes, the Beatles were...Ok, not great, not super. But, put on your flame suit...:)

[barb162]

2. yes it's okay even though I think the Beatles are far superior

to the Stones. You are entitled to your opinion. A lot of people like the Stones; I never could figure it

[Floogeldy]

3. Of course, it is okay for you to say that you hate the Beatles.

But there are many, many people who will just snicker at your total ignorance of the progression of pop/rock music and immediately determine that you have no credibility.

[Whoa_Nelly]

17. Thanks, Floog!

What he said! :yourock:

[Floogeldy]

18. U welcome, Whoa_Nelly.

:toast: :thumbsup: :hi:

[Shakespeare]

19. Perfectly said!

:thumbsup:

[Floogeldy]

20. Thank you, Shakespeare.

:)

[otherlander]

4. Yeah. Harrison had most of the real talent anyway.

[Floogeldy]

10. Yea but, Harrison was a Beatle.

I don't get it. ;)

[last_texas_dem]

5. It's OK

It's your opinion. It's hard for me to even fathom, but whether I agree isn't really relevant.

[donheld]

23. Ditto!

:shrug:

[johnnie]

6. Sure it's okay

Why wouldn't it be? To me it's a sad thing to actually have hatred for a musical band, but everyone is entitled to "hate" anything they want.

[Redstone]

8. You make a good poiint there, you do.

Redstone

[Redstone]

7. I never HATED them, but I never bought any of their records.

Redstone

[begin_within]

9. Yes it's OK, but why do you hate them? What did they do to you to induce hate in you?

If you had merely said "The Beatles justy got lucky through timing" or "The Beatles are dull and their songs are some of the worst dreck in pop history..." that would be one thing, but to state that you hate them (and you put the word "hate" in CAPS in the subject line) indicates that The Beatles did something to you to cause the emotional response of hate - as if they personally hurt you or something like that. What did they did to you to create the emotional reaction of hate in you?

[XemaSab]

11. Why do you hate America?

:grr:

Yes, it's true. Beatles=Jesus=America.

[idgiehkt]

12. free at last, free at last, thank God almighty...

I don't hate them. I hate their acclaim. I'm sick of boomer-era music being thought of as the be-all, end-all of rock'n'roll just because it happened in sync with the hormone surge of the first consumer culture of teenagers. I like all those artists to some degree, but I'm just sick to fucking death of it. Especially when the alternative bands from the eighties forward have been just that, underground, and never given the recognition the boomer bands/artists got just because of the numbers in that generation and the social upheaval and the alignment of the stars and whatever else, even though alot of these alternative/underground bands were more socially conscious and relevant than some of those pseudo-enlightened boomer-era icons ever were. It's just dumb, like having an orgasm for the first time and thinking there will never be another one to top it. There is always another orgasm, and they all rock, so people just need to free their minds.

[Floogeldy]

13. Enlightening.

But are you jealous that you did not have world-shaking pop icons for your generation?

Great post. :)

[BurtWorm]

14. You're overlooking "alternative" bands of the 1950s-1980s

before there was a radio/music magazine/record store friendly category called "alternative." Those bands really were underground--like the Velvets, 13th Floor Elevators, United States of America, Stooges, Seeds, Standells, MC5, Flamin' Groovies, Captain Beefheart, and on and on and on (to take the 1960s alone).

[idgiehkt]

21. I'm not overlooking them

I'm ignorant. Just comparing how the counter-culture became culture for a decade or so 60-late 70s and we've never heard the end of it since. Then pop culture came back and 'alternative' became the label for bands that sang about subjects other than puppy love.

[BurtWorm]

24. Unfortunately, it also became a corporate music niche.

But you should look into underground music of the 1960s, if you like that kind of stuff. There's not a lot in music now that wasn't in it then.

Also there is a counterculture still going strong. It's just not very visible, which is why it's "counter."

[jpgray]

26. Exposure and acclaim have nothing to do with quality

But I know what you mean. Still, if someone discovered the Beatles in total isolation, in comparison to other bands of the era and even today I think they would rate pretty highly. Even early on they were great--"She Loves You" is just an awe-inspiring single.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

31. But we love the old stuff!

Seems like you have to dig hard now to find anything really good. :shrug:

[Bridget Burke]

39. I don't pick musicians for being "socially conscious & relevant".....

First, I like inventive tunes & good arrangements. And witty lyrics--"socially conscious & relevant" are good but not sufficient. All that "voice of his generation" talk is pretentious crap. Dylan was the first victim, but he continues to thrive as a trickster & shape shifter.

However, I don't refuse to listen to anything released after 1973. Good music can be found in any generation. So can the bad stuff.

[TheBaldyMan]

15. It is perfectly OK by me,

and I live in the Mersey area.

[WCGreen]

16. Only if you really liked teen death songs and Annette Funicello...

Cause that was what was dominating the airwaves before the Beatles came to town....

[Oeditpus Rex]

22. You can hate whom/whatever you want

Just be fair and accurate about it. Your assessment of the Beatles is absurd.

[jpgray]

25. As long as you acknowledge their influence and innovation

You can dislike them all you want. Liking them is always going to be subjective, but we probably wouldn't have Flowers or Their Satanic Majesties' Request without 'em. :hi:

[Bridget Burke]

40. In that case, "Their Satanic Majesties" might be a reason to hate the Beatles.

But I'll forgive them. That album was NOT the Stones' finest hour.

I like tons of Beatles music-early & late. But "Sgt Pepper" was NOT my favorite.

[Va Lefty]

27. My ex-girlfriend's father hated The Beatles

He said that they made drug use attractive to a generation of teenagers. I argued that drug use, be it pot or acid, was already widespread before The Beatles made "Lucy in the Sky" or the "Yellow Submarine" movie but that was his take on them--just another druggie band. He was a nice guy, I always wrote it off as generational.

[hfojvt]

28. No

It's not.

Not even close.

Not even close to close.

[6000eliot]

29. It's fine by me.

Is it okay to say that I have no respect for your taste?

[njdemocrat106]

30. Well, to each his (or her) own

They've always been one of my favorites, and I wasn't even alive when they broke up. The Beatles and The Stones are both equals in my book. Two completely different bands, but both equally influential and talented.

[crim son]

32. I never bought a Beatles album and never will.

I don't care for them. As for the argument that they were the genius of their day, perhaps so. The same can be said of certain artists and writers of antiquity, but I doubt they'd get the rousing defense here that the Beatles do. Beatles. Bah! :P

[bbernardini]

33. Speaking as a music teacher, you're way off on McCartney.

McCartney's stuff was very advanced theoretically, at least in terms of pop music. His work is analyzed in college music theory classes alongside some of the greats of "classical" music.

[PVnRT]

34. NO! YOU MUST DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE!

KILL DEATH BLOOD DESTRUCTION YOU ARE EVIL YOU FREEPER DLC OLIVE GARDEN BASTARD

[RedStateShame]

35. AMEN, brother!!

Here's a synopsis of the Beatles' career:

Pre-1966: Rip off Chuck Berry, look pretty, cash in.

Post-1966: Rip off Brian Wilson, look pretty, cash in.

And for everybody who's going on about all the things the Beatles started and influenced, I remind you the one thing that the Beatles are undisputedly reponsible for starting: the boy band. Thanks. Rock and roll is REAAALLLY grateful for that.

[last_texas_dem]

36. Huh?

>>Here's a synopsis of the Beatles' career:

Pre-1966: Rip off Chuck Berry, look pretty, cash in.>>

Other than their covers of "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Rock and Roll Music", it's hard to think of a pre-'66 Beatles song that even sounds much like Chuck Berry, let alone "rips him off." I know he was an influence on the band, but he was only one of many, as the variety of styles on their early albums demonstrate.

>>Post-1966: Rip off Brian Wilson, look pretty, cash in.>>

Umm... if the Beatles were "ripping off" Brian Wilson, why did Wilson credit Rubber Soul with inspiring him to make Pet Sounds because Rubber Soul was "a whole album of good music"? Wilson burnt himself out attempting to make the Smile album, which was essentially his answer to Sgt. Pepper. And really, how many "post-'66" Beatles songs even sound like the (also great) music the Beach Boys were making during this period? "Back in the USSR" sounds like early-period Beach Boys but that's about all I can think of...

>>And for everybody who's going on about all the things the Beatles started and influenced, I remind you the one thing that the Beatles are undisputedly reponsible for starting: the boy band. Thanks. Rock and roll is REAAALLLY grateful for that.>>

Yeah, lots of "boy bands" write their own songs, play their own instruments, release critically-acclaimed albums that become huge sellers for several decades, and become major cultural icons. I've never understood this whole Beatles = "boy band" thing. Because they were hugely popular with teenage girls? Aren't most successful rock bands? I really have never understood this...

[johnnie]

38. Sometimes you just have to give in and realize..

Some people will never get it.

[bigwillq]

37. I was never a big Beatles fan either.

Maybe it's because I am way too young.
Maybe it was the era, the times, the generation.

I could never get caught up in the hype because the Beatles were way past my prime.

I just don't think the music was all that good. Kind of corny and cheesy.

[Zavulon]

41. You, sir, are my hero.

I couldn't agree with you more than I do regarding the Beatles, even if you were to say "George Bush sucks." I would agree as much in that case, but could not agree more.

I prefer The Who to the Stones, but I fucking loathe the Beatles. I don't exaggerate in the slightest when I say that I'd rather listen to a Republican sing "Let the Eagle Soar." The last time I saw anything that disgusted me as much as the Beatles' bubblegum drivel, it was on a wadded-up ball of Charmin the night after a keg party.

Fuck the Beatles, and thanks for having the guts and good sense to stand up and say this. You're my new best friend. :toast:

[cedahlia]

42. It's cool...

I've never liked them, and my brother always says they're just a glorified boy band. :D

I'm no Stones fan, but I have always thought that Simon and Garfunkel were vastly superior to the Beatles. Sounds of Silence, Bridge Over Troubled Water, The Boxer...those are truly great songs. Hey Jude, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, She Loves You...those are just overrated drivel.

I'll go hide now...;-)

:hide:

[vi5]

43. I made a post about this a year ago...

and got close to 100 replies, all flaming me. I don't know if that much has changed in a year or if DU got an influx of members with actual musical taste who like rock and roll rather than pop dreck, because you seeme to have gotten many more responses agreeing with you than I did.

[Taverner]

44. Well you hate the Beatles, I hate the Ramones

I just don't get it - all their songs sound alike, and they sound like 7th graders.

[deucemagnet]

45. To each his own.

I hate the Beatles and love the Ramones.

[Burma Jones]

46. Sure you can, it's just not OK for you to come begging for affirmation

like a little wuss

[Pithlet]

47. I like the Beatles, but I feel for you.

I live in Memphis, and I hate Elvis. Well, his music, anyway. It's just one of those things I'll never mention in public around here :hide:

[InvisibleTouch]

48. Everyone is welcome to have bad taste in music. ;)

I often shake my head in amazement at the music/songs/singers that people hate around here, but as I said ... see above. :)

Your response to what I like is probably the same, and that's okay.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. i like the beatles ...but its just music...and its a personal taste issue

[Guava Jelly]

50. I love the beatles

but to each his own

[Vidar]

51. Okay to say, but don't expect most of us to agree.

[Human Torch]

52. John Lennon was twice as "bad" and subversive as Jagger and Richards put together.

There's a reason why the Rolling Stones weren't The Beatles.

The Beatles got there first, and they had the GOODS.

Jagger and Richards KNEW this, and proceeded accordingly.

I'm a fan of both bands, but the Beatles were the Beatles, and Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll. Like it or lump it, my friend.

:toast:

[deutsey]

53. No, because if you hate the Beatles, the terrorists will win

:evilgrin:

Actually, I love the Beatles and think they were one of the most innovative bands ever (I'm thinking Revolver).

But to each his or her own.