The Beatles: A guestion for those who don't "get" them!

[Jeff da Weasel]

It's silly to disrespect someone for their musical tastes. What if we did this in all areas of life?

 

- "Oh, you like the color orange? Sorry, we can't be friends anymore."

- "Did you just order the salmon? Oh, jeez. Look, maybe we shouldn't hang out."

 

Music, for some reason, falls into that divisive area like politics and religion. Why? I don't care whether Ernest likes the Beatles or not. I may feel that he maybe just isn't looking at the entire output of the band and judging accordingly, but all in all, I shouldn't give a {censored} what he likes.

[Jeff da Weasel]

But... geez... Matchbox20 vs the Beatles. I'll take the Beatles in the first 15 seconds of the first round.

 

Beyond that, in my opinion, Matchbox 20 is one of the most shallow, least talented, and most heavily formulaic groups that ever managed to crack into the public consciousness.

 

I guess there's different music for different people. Maybe Matchbox 20 exists so Terry can like them, since I am completely free to ignore them as I've done the past 10 years or whatever. They really suck, but don't let that little fact stop you from enjoying them, if you do.

[blue2blue]

I know Elton John and Billy Joel were heavily inspired by The Beatles. I also feel they wrote tunes that will stand the test of time. Its so funny how the beatles discussion always gets people going. I did this around 2 years ago on a Mackie forum, not to start trouble but simply to state that I did not see it the way most of the other forum members did. I think after that thread, many of them put me on their ignore list. Or at least, never took me seriously anymore. oh well...

See, now, that cracks me up because I find Billy Joel just utterly banal, straight up irritating. One of the first times I heard about him, I'd been rhapsodizing, I suspect about some songwriter or writers [and may have mentioned that I had a real soft spot for keyboards in rock] and the person I was talking to said, "Oh, you would really like Billy Joel." So when I finally had a chance I was eager and wanted to like him. I thought he sucked rotten eggs. No accounting for taste, huh?

 

EJ had more than a few moments, some really nice songs, and some fun ones, too, but it seemed like, at a certain point, he cast his and Taupin's body of work to the side, using it more as an excuse to dress up in silver lame and perch on top of his big white piano to do the chanteuse thing. But, you know, fame does funny things to folks. Especially, I figure, guys like Elton. And, really, after about '73 or '74, I found his work excruciating, just... awful.

 

 

As long as we're talking opinions here. I mean... it's all good, on some level, eh?

[blue2blue]

Beyond that, in my opinion, Matchbox 20 is one of the most shallow, least talented, and most heavily formulaic groups that ever managed to crack into the public consciousness. I guess there's different music for different people. Maybe Matchbox 20 exists so Terry can like them, since I am completely free to ignore them as I've done the past 10 years or whatever. They really suck, but don't let that little fact stop you from enjoying them, if you do.

 

I think you're being too kind to them.

[blue2blue]

 

It's silly to disrespect someone for their musical tastes. What if we did this in all areas of life? - "Oh, you like the color orange? Sorry, we can't be friends anymore." - "Did you just order the salmon? Oh, jeez. Look, maybe we shouldn't hang out." Music, for some reason, falls into that divisive area like politics and religion. Why? I don't care whether Ernest likes the Beatles or not. I may feel that he maybe just isn't looking at the entire output of the band and judging accordingly, but all in all, I shouldn't give a {censored} what he likes.

 

 

I was considering putting myself up for adoption because my parents loved artichokes. I couldn't even eat dinner at the same table when they were sucking the leaves of those freaking abominations. If I didn't look exactly like a cross between the both of them, I really would have sworn I was found on a doorstep.

 

But I found a way to love my folks, anyhow. Love the sinner; hate the sin.

[MrKnobs]

Beyond that, in my opinion, Matchbox 20 is one of the most shallow, least talented, and most heavily formulaic groups that ever managed to crack into the public consciousness.

 

They have Rob Thomas, who none of the Beatles (in their prime) could touch vocally.

 

Their songs are quite accessible, their lyrics evocative (no "yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye," though that evokes irritation and disgust pretty well), and they're more proficient on their instruments. Also, the production is "better."

 

What's not to like?

 

Now what's even better is Rob singing a great song with Carlos Santana & company backing him (i.e. "Smooth").

 

But perhaps you just like weirdness for the sake of weirdness, and that's certainly your prerogative.

 

I guess there's different music for different people. Maybe Matchbox 20 exists so Terry can like them, since I am completely free to ignore them as I've done the past 10 years or whatever. They really suck, but don't let that little fact stop you from enjoying them, if you do.

 

What does "suck" mean to you? I realize it means you strongly dislike them (and that you're having fun just like I am ) , but can you be specific? You said "formulaic" and "shallow," but is there more? (I learned to ask "Is there more" in marriage counseling, btw)

 

Just going by that, I'd say the Beatles lyrics are banal, trite, and vapid for the most part, even compared to Matchbox 20. Take "Yesterday," for example. Talk about generic lyrics....

 

Your turn!

 

 

Terry D.

[the stranger]

- "Oh, you like the color orange? Sorry, we can't be friends anymore." - "Did you just order the salmon? Oh, jeez. Look, maybe we shouldn't hang out."

 

Jeff cracks me up on a regular basis with {censored} like this.

[Jeff da Weasel]

They have Rob Thomas, who none of the Beatles (in their prime) could touch vocally.

 

I would rather be dragged naked through a pit of glass shards and turpentine than hear Rob Thomas utter one syllable ever again.

 

Also, the production is "better."

 

Bland, boring, completely predictable. I find the Carpenters' productions to be infinitely more thrilling.

 

What's not to like?

 

Basically everything.

 

Now what's even better is Rob singing a great song with Carlos Santana & company backing him (i.e. "Smooth").

 

Another song I detest with a passion I usually reserve for things more important than pop music. I'd honestly prefer an entire Christina Aguillera concert (or something equally trite) to that abomination.

 

Just going by that, I'd say the Beatles lyrics are banal, trite, and vapid for the most part, even compared to Matchbox 20. Take "Yesterday," for example. Talk about generic lyrics....

 

One nice thing about the Beatles is that if you don't like "Yesterday" (I don't either), there's "Blue Jay Way", or "Back In the USSR", or "Girl". In other words, I don't know anyone who likes every Beatles song, but I can always find some song in their catalog that appeals to someone. Or should, in my humble opinion.

 

And really, I can't tell you how much I dislike Rob Thomas' voice. I'm not exaggerating. I find it to be horrible. The sound of it makes me dive to shut off whatever device is inflicting it upon me.

[the stranger]

Are you guys still talking about the Beatles?!

[the stranger]

I want some of what you guys are smoking...you know, some of that 60 Minutes {censored}...

[Jeff da Weasel]

No, we're talking about Matchbox 20. I thought the Geneva Convention forbade this, but apparently we've reached the Guantanamo area of forum topics.

[the stranger]

Well, I'm sorry, but we can't see each other anymore.

[Flogger59]

It's OK not to like the Beatles, Knobs. It just means that there is more left for me!

[Jeff da Weasel]

It's OK not to like the Beatles, Knobs.

 

I agree! That should be on a t-shirt. It's OK to not like the Beatles. You shouldn't even have to feel badly about it, or have some need to explain yourself, or make comparisons.

 

Sheesh. It's just pop music. It's not actually important, ya know.

[Dessalines]

As Ernest Buckley said, you had to be there. The era just prior to the Beatles EXPLODING on the scene had to be one of the most awful, puerile, lousy periods for music, ever. Not that there wasn't good stuff going on but not in top forty which is what every young person was listening to then. There was no FM, no other outlets like you have today, no internet, just basically hold over 50's culture and exclusive of real rock n' roll, which was dying in this country by 1963, it was sterile. Then suddenly our of your radio, come this wonderful new sound, which our parents just hated. Today it sounds less wonderful to those who were not there, because of what was made possible by their arrival. Everything else that came after was made possible by the advent of the Beatles No Beatles? Then no Rolling Stones, no Byrds, no Led Zep. A lot of things would probably not have happened if they had not blazed the trail. What you like today might not even have come about if the Beatles had gone back to art school or to "gainful employment".

[UstadKhanAli]

 

As Ernest Buckley said, you had to be there. The era just prior to the Beatles EXPLODING on the scene had to be one of the most awful, puerile, lousy periods for music, ever. Not that there wasn't good stuff going on but not in top forty which is what every young person was listening to then.

 

 

I'm not sure I would characterize Motown, Chuck Berry, Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Elvis, and the birth of rock music as "one of the most awful, puerile, lousy periods for music, ever".

 

You might not like all of this, but that's different from saying it was all awful.

 

It might sound bad to you, but back then, this was cutting edge stuff, and it was fresh and new, and yes, often in the Top 40.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Okay People,

 

enough of that Beatles stuff...

 

... just tell me one thing after you listen thru the two following songs, two songs of my favorit artists, musicians I know (or knew), musician I attended concerts, artists to which I drove to their service while I was living in Los Angeles, artist I would engage anytime to any stage, no matter how large the audience is, no matter where on the planet, no matter what the name of the city is, listen only to this two songs...

 

...and then tell me, why should I buy a Beatles record:

 

 

[YOUTUBE]8KIYXGNxWOk[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

 

[YOUTUBE]KX8fZ-lWhFA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Lee Knight]

I really couldn't give a rats ass about who does or doesn't like the Beatles...with one exception. I was in a courtship phase with a drummer once for a band in which I would be the principal songwriter (band still going strong) and when he expressed loathing for the Beatles and contempt for their drummer, I knew we had a problem--not personally mind you--I can respect the opinion 100%--but musically. He did do a few shows with us. The fit wasn't great.

 

I am right there with you. There's a local jazz drummer, he's toured with Carmen McCrea and other high profile jazz acts. This guy kicks serious ass as a drummer. The kind that will drop a fill that is perfectly suitable to the music but knocks the wind out you at the same time. Jazz or rock, the guy's a monster. (Paul Kimbaro). I got to talking to him and he gave me a lecture on why Ringo is such a great drummer and how he loved the Beatles...

 

Really? Well that explains why I dig your playing so much Paul Kimbaro.

 

And conversely, those guys that don't "get it". I usually don't really like where they're coming from musically... if they're a rock player. It's like saying Bugs Bunny sucks. ?!?!?! What... you don't dig Bugs?!?!? Or they'll say Disneyland is lame! I hate It's a Wonderful Life... and I don't get the Beatles.

[Anderton]

Actually, I think the Beetles are great. My first car was a used '66 Beetle, 1300 cc engine that I had bored out to 1650 cc, with the transaxle regeared so I could wind it up to 55 MPH in third...fourth was more like an overdrive. I got 36 MPG, did all the tuneups and most minor maintenance myself. Great car.

 

It finally died of old age in 2000 (well, YOU try to find a steering box for a '66 Beetle in good condition; the car had 236,000 miles, and the rebuilt engine had 130,000 miles on it - about twice the life expectancy of a 1650 engine - and the transaxle was going to need replacing). So I got my second car, a used 2000 Beetle (it had only 5K miles on it), and that's what I'm driving now. It has the soul of a Porsche, enough speed that I often hit...well, let's just say, a very high rate of speed when going down I-25 to the airport, and enough torque to pull away from anyone at a stoplight.

 

So yeah, I love the Beetles!

[Phil O'Keefe]

...and then tell me, why should I buy a Beatles record

 

If you don't like the Beatles, then obviously there's no reason why you should buy one of their records.

 

FWIW, I absolutely LOVE Gladys, and that's one of my favorite songs. Soooo much feel and soul in that....

 

But I like The Beatles too. Fortunately, I don't have to pick between those artists, nor do I have to worry about whether or not anyone else "gets" them or digs them... I do, and I can play their stuff when the desire strikes, and beyond that, I'm happy to admit my love for both artists, but don't have any screaming desire to attempt to proselytize others.

 

If you dig them - great. If you don't, then to each their own.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Phil, it has nothing to do, if I like the Beatles or not.

 

'to each their own'

 

if I undertsand you right, there is no bad music, and when someone says "this is very good music", even though it is crap, you ignore that and you say to yourself "to each their own", and that's it?

[blue2blue]

As Ernest Buckley said, you had to be there. The era just prior to the Beatles EXPLODING on the scene had to be one of the most awful, puerile, lousy periods for music, ever. Not that there wasn't good stuff going on but not in top forty which is what every young person was listening to then. There was no FM, no other outlets like you have today, no internet, just basically hold over 50's culture and exclusive of real rock n' roll, which was dying in this country by 1963, it was sterile. Then suddenly our of your radio, come this wonderful new sound, which our parents just hated. Today it sounds less wonderful to those who were not there, because of what was made possible by their arrival. Everything else that came after was made possible by the advent of the Beatles No Beatles? Then no Rolling Stones, no Byrds, no Led Zep. A lot of things would probably not have happened if they had not blazed the trail. What you like today might not even have come about if the Beatles had gone back to art school or to "gainful employment".

 

Say, now... you're talking about the golden age of rock and roll, there, buddy.

 

Admittedly, the jump, R&B and rockabilly scenes had pretty much lain the groundwork in the late 40s and first half of the 50s... but mainsteam America arguably didn't discover rock and roll until '56-'57.

 

Sure, there was Pat Boone. But there was also Elvis, the Everlies, Sam Cooke, cool crossover like "16 Tons," and for descrinating mainstream pop fans for whom Pat Boone was like a warm bowl of tapioca pudding, there were real talents like Johnny Mathis.

 

And as the original wave of 50s guitar rockers faded a little, you had their spiritual successors -- and the godfathers to the psychedelic guitar sound of the late 60s (and successive waves of guitar obsessed garage and DIY rockers) -- in the great instrumental surf rock bands. And at the end of the 50s and start of the 60s, you had a really cool era in the nascent discotheque scene which made the world safe for go go dancers and post-twist gyrations that made it clear that some dances were not for 'everyone from 7 to 77.'

[Anderton]

 

If I undertsand you right, there is no bad music, and when someone says "this is very good music", even though it is crap, you ignore that and you say to yourself "to each their own", and that's it?

 

 

Well, I do, because who am I to say any music is crap?

 

A lot of people said John Cage was crap. Others say he was a genius. Who's right? There are no absolute standards by which we can make a decision.

 

With gold, we can measure the purity. With hi-fi amps, we can check specs, and say that an amp with 20% distortion is crap. On the other hand a guitar amp with 20% distortion might be desirable.

 

With music, there are no objective specs like "notes per minute." Nor can we equate popularity with quality, otherwise Britney Spears' music would be considered superior to Nina Simone's.

 

Ultimately, if you like or don't like something, that's your decision to make - not mine.

[RSBro]

Oasis, for the Brit-pop win!! :thu:

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

if I undertsand you right, there is no bad music, and when someone says "this is very good music", even though it is crap, you ignore that and you say to yourself "to each their own", and that's it?

 

 

I'm not Phil, but I think that's exactly right. My crap might be your gold.

 

I may not agree with you, but I'm no more right than you. Britney Spears is just like asparagus. One person may not like asparagus... is he an idiot? Have you ever thought of someone as a worse human being because he likes wearing green pants?

 

There's nothing about this stuff we call music that can have any quantitative description that people can agree on. A lot of people didn't like Mozart when he was new on the scene, and there was nothing less respectable about their opinion than that of the people here who don't dig the Beatles.