Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

That got your attention, don't kill me, I'm a fan, they wrote some great stuff etc. etc. etc.

I'm going to take something that all of us have an opinion about, and try to shed a different light on how things could be interpreted about the Beatles if you apply the collective reasons I've seen on this forum(and other places) for why you don't like a band or artist. I ask that you keep an open mind for this excersize, and that the administrators keep this in this section, as it really applies more to rock and roll than it does the Beatles.

Imagine you are Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, or Chuck Berry, and here come these guys doing your songs, and knocking you off of the charts left and right in the scene you helped create and had dominated. Rock and Roll was a very defined set of music that has become to encompass so many styles that it is virtually undefineable anymore, but when the Beatles first hit, it was. They were a pop sensation, loved by the kiddies, and louded by purists. Free ride Beatles.

The Beatles themselves, were a group of leather clad psuedo hooligan looking lot that achieved well deserved local success, as well as in Germanys city of Hamburg. But, in a move for the record company, replaced their drummer and image to be more marketable, and now were fresh faced lads witty as can be. The fans that made them, were shocked and disgusted, many screamed "sell out". So, are they "sell outs" by our standards of labeling bands we listen to today, or do they get a free ride on that one too.

So they land in America, to a crowd exceeding that of royalty or war heroes returning home, and are commercialized in every respect, overplayed to death, and probably sold more Union Jacks than anyone else in Britains history, (thus kicking off the "British Invasion"). Today, we call this "corporate radio ****", but the Beatles get a free ride on this one too.

Then, they stop touring, and become studio recluses, and prisoners of their own fame. Rock and Roll as we knew it was now dead, and the term came to be used for far more styles than it had been coined for. The Beatles now made music they knew would never have to be played by them live, so experimentation was free to go anywhere. So much for being able to judge a band on its live performance, yet we hold that as a standard for bands today. Fab Four gets another free ride.

On top of that, they get the title dropped on them for being the spokespeople and cultural leaders of the sixties. We're gonna change the world, even though we don't live in it anymore? They weren't telling you anything that you didn't learn in kindergarten, which was- don't hate-everybodys different and that's ok-and love each other and your world. (Except Charles Manson, but he had his whole other deal going on.) So one could conclude that they were preachy, and out of touch, and their attempts at relating to the everyday person were condescending, and staged publicity stunts. Can't do that today, you're dismissed as a phoney. Fab Four free ride.

So now it's over, and to end it, they do a little gig on the roof and call it a day. In the aftermath suffers a woman who forever will be falsely blamed for their demise, and a generation looking for a job(ha ha).

Ok, my whole point and intention here is to make you aware of how you may look at music when you experience it for the first time. The Beatles most certainly would have been sent back to England on a raft if we held them to the same standards as we do to music today, and would have accused them of "Killing Rock and Roll". Again, I'm just trying to use another way of looking at something to maybe explain why it is everything you hear seems to suck. Some of it does suck, but it really can't all suck, and their will never be another Beatles, or anyone else for that matter.

What do you think and why?

Mike,

Nice "Devil's Advocate" piece.

Sorry that the following is "stream, of consciousness (or maybe unconsciousness).

Just a few differences between the Beatles and much of today's commercial product:

- They really wrote their own music. Today a lot of acts that are credited with writing their own stuff have had it "ghost written". On top of that, three out of four could actually pen a tune (although it took George a bit of time to get his act together). Even genuinely brilliant moder acts tend to be centred around a single songwriter;
- They were prolific - they were only really around for six to seven years as a recording act and produced a raft of material. How long has it taken Coldplay to put out their fourth album?
- It is unclear that they gave a rat's behind about what the world thought of them - John and George in particular were happy to speak their mind rather than toe a corporate line. They may have started out with stars in their eyes but this dissipated pretty quickly;
- They didn't have Protools or voice correction software etc. The basic technology they used to record meant thay actually played and sang what you hear on their recordings.

A couple of other issues you bring up are very era-specific. The "peace-love" message may seem inane now, but back in the '60s, when the competition was singing about surfer girls and beach parties, and the Vietnam war was in full swing, this was both innovative and relevant. In terms of "killing rock and roll", the '50s stars did a great job of that all by themselves by sticking in a rut.

Lastly, if there hadn't been the Beatles, who's to say that they woudn't be successful now. A lot of aspects of the music industry and our attitudes to it (cynicism, for example) are built on their phenomenon (or myth).

In any case, excellent food for thought Mike!

Thank you for your reply Evan, I'm sure the cries of blasphemy will be pouring in, glad you didn't interpret it as an attack on the Beatles, or the boomer generation. I understand the anti-vietnam sentiment of the 60s as well as the Beatles relevance in representing a peaceful alternative for what governments were doing at the time.

I struggle with the same issues myself, so and so sucks here and commercial **** there, and am actually hoping to get some insight in trying to open my mind musically.Progressing as a musician has exposed me to more styles, genres, and cultures, but still, I find myself dismissing so much for reasons that have nothing to do with the artist or band. I hope to open a topic of discussion where I can gain some insight from other musicians on their take on these subjects.
I'm being brutally honest here, and it's something about myself I would like to change if I can.

I disliked them from my very first recollection of hearing them.

Thank you Sean, it takes guts to admit that on a forum that has members who could tell you what the Beatles ate for breakfast any day in their careers. Do you find them guilty of the same thing we loathe bands for today?

phlemmy wrote:I disliked them from my very first recollection of hearing them.

Do you think their music is poorly written or performed? Or is it simply the genre that you dislike?


The fabs might have sold out for fame, in the sense that they cleaned up, wore suits in the beginning, but they always had the respect of their peers.

I saw Billy Corgan this weekend and he proclaimed them the best rock and roll band ever. I've seen artists from every genre say the same.

I used to hate them, really. It was like, "everybody likes the Beatles, how can one not like them?" — coming down on me and i "fought back" (sort of). Not that they were literally playing "from every iron and telegraph-pole", at least not in my country when i was a kid/teenager, but it was like, you know, some people i met were judging others by their attitude to the Beatles, and if you didn't like them, you were "not worthy". So it had more to do with their fans i used to bump into than with the band itself. They were too famous, too commercial for me back in the day. Like, "there's no point in liking what everybody likes and knows" (yeah, ridiculous, i know). Musically, they just didn't move me for some reason — like, "it's nice but i'm not crazy about it"; i liked a few songs though. On the other hand, there were songs i really hated, like "Octopus garden", for instance (i still! cannot! bear!! it!!!).
And yes, they've changed the world of music, but please don't kill me for suggesting hadn't there been the Beatles, there'd be somebody else to do that, it just had to happen. Apart from their undeniable talent, they were in the right place in the right time.

shamustwin wrote:

phlemmy wrote:I disliked them from my very first recollection of hearing them.

Do you think their music is poorly written or performed? Or is it simply the genre that you dislike?

I was only 5 or 6 when I first really remembered hearing them but I was already very into music at that time (KISS, Alice Cooper, Sabbath, Stones etc). It was stuff like Yellow Submarine and other songs of theirs that just seemed "goofy" to me.

I have an older sister who disliked the Beatles from the beginning. Nonetheless, she still found "Paperback Writer" appealing, and even bought the `45 single. Go figure.

Hey Phlemmy...I'll grant you that a few Beatles tunes were goofy to the point of being really annoying (thanks, Paulie!)...but how about that Kiss tune where the singer whines on and on about how he won't be home to his girl for a while because he and "the boys'll be playin'...all ni-i-i-ight..." That song stinks like cheese left in the trunk of a hot car...

That said, assuming it really is dead, who killed Rock-n-Roll? Long before I would think to accuse the Beatles, a number of other suspects come to my mind...the Archies, the Osmonds, Clive Davis, Dick Clark...it's a long and sordid list.

In addition...at a time in human history when we're 'barreling' along towards a population of 10 billion, and all sorts of folks think it fine to kill others for the resources lying under their soil, or because they disagree on what color god's beard is, it definitely seems to me that the "peace-love" message is unfortunately past its 'sell-by' date...

wayang wrote:Hey Phlemmy...I'll grant you that a few Beatles tunes were goofy to the point of being really annoying (thanks, Paulie!)...but how about that Kiss tune where the singer whines on and on about how he won't be home to his girl for a while because he and "the boys'll be playin'...all ni-i-i-ight..." That song stinks like cheese left in the trunk of a hot car...

No band is beyond reproach. They have all put out cheese at one time or another.

Come on, now...what about THIS guy?

the King!

Hail to The Cheese!

"Did he say blessed are the cheesemakers?"