the Beatles ... why NOT ?

[Reverend Stevee Ray]

Are there any real reasons to dislike the FAB FOUR ? And I think about

REAL reasons ... not reasons in that way like " I-want-to-be-a-ultra-cool-hipster-

and-I -only-listen-to-sixties-bands-nobody-knows-because-I'm-so-special ".

I guess the BEATLES are ( next to the WHO and the KINKS ) the most 

cool, stylish and awesome band ever. They played in the same league

as ELVIS ... and ELVIS is GOD you know. 

What do you think about ? 

 

[dying slowly]

i think a lot of people here may find the beatles too melodic, also the whole cutsey image could be considerd contrieved and overtly comercial for fans of raw anti commercial RnR. Also some people may consider them unoriginal, al the things they popularised (asian music ,psychedelia ,RnR with pop harmonys etc) had alredy been donethats how they where relevent for nearly 8 years.

conversley the amount of garage bands they inpired must earn them a few brownie points (the knickerbocker for example) also the fact they populerised the concept of poppy groups wrighting there own tunes and also the musical magpie nature of the group means it is near immpossible to not like one beatle song.

I for one will always have a soft spot for them as they where the band that got me into music and inspired nearly everyone one way or another

[Mike Humsgreen]

I have to say that cuts both ways as they have inspired some real shit (as have all the big ones) and although the most logical response would be only listen to the good stuff and not the bad it can sometimes be a bit tricky. It seems British popular culture is set on an 8 or 10 year timer where every decade there's a British invasion/ Britpop resurgence and the charts get completly dominated by "Beatles fans".

Like I said it surely can't be too hard just to avoid this stuff and really it isn't well I noticed a weird phenomenon here in Europe a year or 2 ago with this "Irish punk" crap. For about 2 years every little rock festival has some Dropkick Murpheys type band playing songs that I find hard to work out whether they are more insulting to English or Irish people.

To get this back on topic, would this sound similar to garage based festivals with the Beatles? I have to ask as I generally go to more punk/hardcore and general rock fests.

dying slowly said:

conversley the amount of garage bands they inpired must earn them a few brownie points (the knickerbocker for example) also the fact they populerised the concept of poppy groups wrighting there own tunes and also the musical magpie nature of the group means it is near immpossible to not like one beatle song.

I for one will always have a soft spot for them as they where the band that got me into music and inspired nearly everyone one way or another

[melissa scott]

Hey Mike: What I took away from the Record Detective's reply (and others') to the thread is that even discussing Britpop, or charts, or the Beatles doesn't belong at the GPH. There are plenty of other sites to do just that.

Your point about the in-escape-ability of influence runs right up against the above-mentioned sentiment.

Can you clarify your last paragraph? I don't follow...

[Bal]

After nearly having a memorabilia overdose every time I go into any tourist shop in London I try my best to avoid their music. I can never visit Liverpool for fear of total overkill of nostalgic nick nacks.

[Mike Humsgreen]

Well I don't go to any specifically garage punk festivals (not that I don't want to) and was wondering if a similar problem happens with the Beatles at those places ie. there always needs to be a Beatles type band because that's what's cool at the moment.

Having said that though I wonder if the Beatles have a sound specific enough for a band to be playing as a Beatles influenced band rather than just a British invasion influenced band. So ignore the question it's a bit dumb.

melissa scott said:

Hey Mike: What I took away from the Record Detective's reply (and others') to the thread is that even discussing Britpop, or charts, or the Beatles doesn't belong at the GPH. There are plenty of other sites to do just that.

Your point about the in-escape-ability of influence runs right up against the above-mentioned sentiment.

Can you clarify your last paragraph? I don't follow...

[Rock À La Casbah]

I think that what pisses off people about the beatles most of the time is that 'middle class' pretention into which they evolved with psychedelic experimentations and stuff. It's not about the music in itself. They kind of turned the primitive and spontaneous aspect of rock'n'roll into something more pretentious.  Like Lenon staying in bed with Yoko for a week in order to protest for peace. I mean what the fuck. rock'n'roll has always been ambiguous about what it meant by 'revolution and rebellion' but I don't think it was made to stake that kind of stupid claim.

[smokedeels]

There's such a range of material with The Beatles, lots of innovations and just simple good pop tunes too. It's impossible to dismiss them with a straight face.

I wouldn't obsessive over them, but there's some gems that I love (along with some stinkers I avoid) and I imagine anyone willing to dig through their back catalogue will find something that works for them.

[Dennis Guthrie]

I just don't like them.  I also am not much of an Elvis fan.  I would say there are probably a few tunes by both of them that get my toe tappin', but I can live without them.  They are both too clean for my taste in rock-n-roll.  Jerry Lee Lewis was much better than Elvis, but his hair wasn't as pretty.

This is me being nice about this subject.

[Mike Humsgreen]

It's always funny that way with the Beatles, Lemmy said it right that in that documentary that people always think of the Beatles as being the softies and the Stones as being the more ballsy rockers. But the Beatles were the working class scousers and it was the Stones who came from Surrey which is probably one of the most middle class counties in Britain.

That's not to say they didn't change into something else. Paul McCartney has just released Kisses on the Bottom and seems to be considered "national icon" status in Britain which is as rock n roll as the Queen. 

Rock À La Casbah said:

I think that what pisses off people about the beatles most of the time is that 'middle class' pretention into which they evolved with psychedelic experimentations and stuff. It's not about the music in itself. They kind of turned the primitive and spontaneous aspect of rock'n'roll into something more pretentious.  Like Lenon staying in bed with Yoko for a week in order to protest for peace. I mean what the fuck. rock'n'roll has always been ambiguous about what it meant by 'revolution and rebellion' but I don't think it was made to stake that kind of stupid claim.

[MARRS BONFIRE]

the Beatles were and are fantastic....something for every mood.....love Revolver

[Shtbird]

The Beatles are cool to hate (oh, so edgy!),  but they are definitely not rubbish. There are some really solid tracks (devoted fan or not).

But is it Garage Punk? No. 

Could one cover a song and make it so? Most definitely.

[IDON MINE]

I hear you there!

Also, the Beatles question this is the kind of question that spawns a hydra head basket of arguements and fights on here, haha!

Bal said:

After nearly having a memorabilia overdose every time I go into any tourist shop in London I try my best to avoid their music. I can never visit Liverpool for fear of total overkill of nostalgic nick nacks.