beatles songs which are actually quite good

[Cheesypoof]

They're decent songs - but your inability to grasp the simple fact that people have varying personal taste and don't necessarily like what you like is hilarious.

i do find it very hard to understand how someone could hate the beatles.

its like saying 'i hate music' innit.

ludicrous!

 

[dodgepot]

its like saying 'i hate music' innit.

no, it's really not.

 

[oryx]

its like saying 'i hate music' innit.

ludicrous!

No, because the Beatles are actually a very narrow type of music.

They are white, British, sixties pop. They're pretty varied as far as that type of music goes, but still within a pretty narrow genre, despite them being innovative in a lot of ways. Anyone who doesn't like that sort of music would not necessarily like them.

 

[Voley]

its like saying 'i hate music' innit.

ludicrous!

No. It's not like that at all.

 

[Cheesypoof]

no, it's really not.

yes it is.

i think that beatle-bashing is mainly an urban 75 thing though.Its snobby!

 

[isitme]

i think the reason that people now 'hate' the beatles is because they have been so ruthlessly exploited

they still had a new album come out every christmas and a program about how important they were etc up until a couple of years ago, so if you are fairly ambivalent towards them i can see that being turned into hate by the sheer amount of hype around them

like I think Hawkwind are pretty rubbish, but I don't hate them because I never have to listen to them and see them on TV, if they were given the 'legend status that the beatles have, i'd probably hate them

 

[Cheesypoof]

They're decent songs - but your inability to grasp the simple fact that people have varying personal taste and don't necessarily like what you like is hilarious.

point: its not abaout 'grasping various musical tastes.' of course peeps have different musical tastes. I do myself and am more into the clash and fuckloads of other sounds than the beatles.

i do however think that Beatle-bashing is the preserve of ill-thought out fashionistas who are posturing the bashing in ignorance and snobbery.

yes, the beatles could be ubercheesy sometimes, squeaky clean, ridiculously optimistic and even quite dated, but it does not detract from the magnificence of their songs which is universally acknowledged by most of the world. So in the face of that, when some Beatle basher comes along and trashes them, they come across as ignorant. And ill-thought out in their stance, as they themselves probably love a handful of Beatles songs, when they think about it.

Q.E.D

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is a stupid thread, and a fashionable view to say you dont like them. Thats all it is - fashionable, like most fashionable things,complete bullshit. I cant think of one rubbish Beatles song and reckon anyone who hates the Beatles needs help.

What a side-splittingly hilarious piece of ignorance the above is.
You appear to have missed the fact that some of us are older than you, and that we might have thought that the Beatles were over-rated for longer than you've been alive. That's not fashion, it's fact.

 

[oryx]

i do however think that Beatle-bashing is the preserve of ill-thought out fashionistas who are posturing the bashing in ignorance and snobbery.

You said not liking the Beatles was like not liking music. That's got nothing to do with the motives of people who say they don't like them.

But that wasn't what I was challenging you on.

That was your apparent inability to comprehend that people have differing musical tastes (despite your sudden assertion to the contrary, which still doesn't sit with your argument that not liking the Beatles is "like saying 'i hate music'")

QED my arse.

 

[Voley]

Q.E.D

LOL!

 

[ViolentPanda]

anyone with half a braincell knows that most Beatles songs are genius musically, their songs brought the world to a standstill, and people who dont get this have something wrong with them.

thats all.

This appears to be you testifying that you don't own even half a braincell, Cheesy.

The Beatles were successful because they were generic. They took popular influences and condensed them into saleable songs. That doesn't make the songs "genius", it makes them commercially viable.

 

[dodgepot]

And ill-thought out in their stance, as they themselves probably love a handful of Beatles songs, when they think about it.

i can't think of any beatles songs that i "love".

anyway, back on track - i like "my guitar gently weeps", but i think that's mainly cos of it's use in withnail & i.

i also like "tomorrow never knows"

 

[ViolentPanda]

i quite like 'paperback writer'

I like the lyrics, but the tune always seems a bit "thin" to me, IFYSWIM.

I'm not a great Beatles enthusiast, never have been, but they wrote some excellent lyrical and musical hooks in their time, that's for sure.

 

[Meltingpot]

This appears to be you testifying that you don't own even half a braincell, Cheesy.

The Beatles were successful because they were generic. They took popular influences and condensed them into saleable songs. That doesn't make the songs "genius", it makes them commercially viable.

Have you heard "A Day In The Life," "I Am The Walrus," or "Revolution 9"? Nothing generic about them.

I'm with Cheesy here, the Beatles were genius.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have never understood the general loathing shown for The Fabs on Urban ? I've always thought it's a lot of snobbish posturing in general and at best ill thought out ctriticism. Not everything they did was brilliant as some observers may suggest but boy could they do a tune ! And quite frankly their personalities and whether you like them or not as people matters not one jot, they are an integral part of our musical history and have outlived Punk !! To be honest though I prefer The Stones, far better song writers in their heyday !!

To be fair though, most people don't "loathe" them (el Jefe aside ), they merely don't reverence them as some kind of musical touchstone in the way that many unreflective musical onlookers do.

 

[isitme]

john lennon and george martin were very ahead of their time for using samplers and tape loops and things. a lot of the stuff that they did was revolutionary at the time, I think reversing recordings was the most famous and effective one

 

[El Jefe]

point: its not abaout 'grasping various musical tastes.' of course peeps have different musical tastes. I do myself and am more into the clash and fuckloads of other sounds than the beatles.

i do however think that Beatle-bashing is the preserve of ill-thought out fashionistas who are posturing the bashing in ignorance and snobbery.

yes, the beatles could be ubercheesy sometimes, squeaky clean, ridiculously optimistic and even quite dated, but it does not detract from the magnificence of their songs which is universally acknowledged by most of the world. So in the face of that, when some Beatle basher comes along and trashes them, they come across as ignorant. And ill-thought out in their stance, as they themselves probably love a handful of Beatles songs, when they think about it.

Q.E.D

you're a fucking moron

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have you heard "A Day In The Life," "I Am The Walrus," or "Revolution 9"? Nothing generic about them.

I'm with Cheesy here, the Beatles were genius.

I've listened (and I mean "properly listened to, extensively" rather than "had on in the background while washing up") all of the albums the Beatles released as a band, and I stand by my claim. Most of their songs took previously-existing material (whether it be early psychedelia, Stockhausen or Schoenberg), borrowed ideas and genericised them into a saleable formula. IMO that was their "genius", this ability to genericise.

 

[isitme]

I've listened (and I mean "properly listened to, extensively" rather than "had on in the background while washing up") all of the albums the Beatles released as a band, and I stand by my claim. Most of their songs took previously-existing material (whether it be early psychedelia, Stockhausen or Schoenberg), borrowed ideas and genericised them into a saleable formula. IMO that was their "genius", this ability to genericise.

beatles songs are very much beatles songs tho

they never made anything that sounded like stockhausen, even tho you can see the influence on their psychedelic stuff

I don't think you're really being fair on them to say that, nothing exists in a vacuum

 

[ViolentPanda]

john lennon and george martin were very ahead of their time for using samplers and tape loops and things. a lot of the stuff that they did was revolutionary at the time, I think reversing recordings was the most famous and effective one

Except that tape samples were being used to make music at least 15 years before Lennon or Martin used them. What they did was popularised (analogue) "sampling" as a method of musical manipulation and creation.

 

[isitme]

Except that tape samples were being used to make music at least 15 years before Lennon or Martin used them. What they did was popularised (analogue) "sampling" as a method of musical manipulation and creation.

not in pop music tho

inventing experimental pop music deserves a lot of credit

a bit like how Public Enemy didn't invent anything themselves, but the way they combined their influences was unique to them

 

[oryx]

I'm with Cheesy here, the Beatles were genius.

'Genius' they might be - and my own view is that they were a truly great band but still an overrated one - but Cheesy's point was that not liking them was tantamount to not liking music, which is plainly ridiculous.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, because the Beatles are actually a very narrow type of music.

They are white, British, sixties pop. They're pretty varied as far as that type of music goes, but still within a pretty narrow genre, despite them being innovative in a lot of ways. Anyone who doesn't like that sort of music would not necessarily like them.

Excellent point, and even within the narrow genres that the Beatles inhabited during their different phases, what they produced wasn't necessarily the best of that genre, just the most commercial. Personally, I'd still give the Pretty Things' "S.F. Sorrow" turntable time over "Sgt. Pepper's..." any time, if judging purely on aesthetic and creative merit.

 

[MightyAphrodite]

please, this isn't a beatles hatin' thread. leave it out, eh? plus, your point has already been made by any number of dickheads further up the thread.

sorry b, i shouldn't bite, but the sheer fuckwittedness of these people does my head in.

Some touchy bastards on Urban as well !!

it's their inability to read that confuses me. it's like some pavlovs dog thing - they assume that because it's a beatles thread, it'll be full of posts hating the beatles. which this hasn't been...

There's been some terrible snobbish posturing on this thread, imo.

my yoko stuff was a joke fwiw.

 

[MightyAphrodite]

John and Yoko met at Indica gallery in London where she was hosting an exhibition. It was one of Yoko's bonkers endeavours with white walls and a step ladder you had to walk up, and hold up a magnifying glass to the wall, where there was one tiny word written on the wall 'YES.' John said that towards the late 60's he noticed that the world was getting a bit cynical, and that word at Yoko's show was the first positive thing he had read in a long time, because it said something warm to him.

He met Yoko at the show (i think John attended a preview) and they fell in love but they didnt jump in too fast. Yoko was kind of aloof, and she didnt stalk him. They moved in similar circles.

thats quite a nice story really. i apologise urban for being snotty andbeing bitchy and stuff when i didnt know what i was talking about.

sorry.

 

[ViolentPanda]

beatles songs are very much beatles songs tho

I'd agree with that about their later stuff, but then again, your point actually supports my contention about them having a genius for finding a saleable formula.

they never made anything that sounded like stockhausen, even tho you can see the influence on their psychedelic stuff.

Lennon himself claimed that "Revolution 9" was (with it's tape samples, use of oscillators and radio snippets) a homage to Stockhausen's music-production methods, and I never said they "sounded" like him.

I don't think you're really being fair on them to say that, nothing exists in a vacuum

Of course not, but there's influence, and then there's influence.

 

[Voley]

I was pissing about, MA. Sorry if you think I was having a pop. I wasn't.

This 'snobby posturing' thing's a load of drivel. It's perfectly possible to dislike The Beatles without doing it 'to look cool' or whatever.

 

[isitme]

another example is WuTang, I'd say some of their stuff is genius but there's nothing that original about it

 

[isitme]

I'd agree with that about their later stuff, but then again, your point actually supports my contention about them having a genius for finding a saleable formula.

Lennon himself claimed that "Revolution 9" was (with it's tape samples, use of oscillators and radio snippets) a homage to Stockhausen's music-production methods, and I never said they "sounded" like him.

Of course not, but there's influence, and then there's influence.

I think Revolution9 is a bad example because

1) it's very much an homage
2) it's rubbish

something like Day in the Life using different segments and changes in tempo and songs or Tomorrow Never Knows using loops and reversing are better examples of the Beatles creating a very original and effective sound

 

[poului]

i do find it very hard to understand how someone could hate the beatles.

its like saying 'i hate music' innit.

ludicrous!

Not even the most qualified and respected biologist would display such unbridled arrogance in their dismissal of a differing opinion. And yet you peddle this bull on a daily basis with just how much musical education, exactly?

The revolution is coming sooner than you think, my dear.