PDA

View Full Version : I don't like the Beatles, and it bothers me.



Omni
08-03-2009, 04:35 AM
So, I had decided quite awhile back that i didn't much care for the Beatles. I'd heard plenty of their famous songs (well, just about all of them are famous), Yellow Submarine, Blackbird, Come Together, Let it Be (I can stand this one), Hey Jude, and I didn't like any of them. The only song that I positively loved was Revolution.

Then today I discovered that NARM (forgot what that stands for) had released a "Definitive 200" list a couple of years ago, and I decided that I was going to listen to some of those albums. Lo and behold, Sgt. Peppers' Lonely Hearts Club Band tops the list, just like every other top album list ever made. I thought maybe I wasn't being fair only listening to not even an entire album's worth of songs, so I am listening to all 13 songs of what is universally hailed as the greatest, most influental album of any band ever. First track was good, second track I loved, and now I'm eight deep and the rest I haven't been able to stand.

Anyway, I was just wondering, is anyone else this way? I'd like to think the reason is petty, like a part of me won't allow myself to like them since they're so hyped, but I genuinely want to like this band, and it seems a lot harder than it should be.

SMASHedTHEignition
08-03-2009, 04:37 AM
i like hey jude and some others but man, i cannot stand listenen to all you need is love, that songs so terrible..

but some of th beatles is alright

Superdope
08-03-2009, 05:07 AM
I kinda agree with you. I mean, I have tremendous amounts of respect for the Beatles and what they did for music in general, but there's not that much of their mu´sic that I'm into. I genuinely love While my Guitar Gently Weeps, though.

mrconeman
08-03-2009, 05:07 AM
I once wrote an essay about how The Beatles got famous purely on the basis that there was almost nobody else to listen to in their day, hence the world domination.

I like the Beatles, they're a good solid band, who wrote really catchy and sometimes genuinely good, musical wise, songs. But nothing they've ever done should be hailed as the best anything ever.

randman21
08-03-2009, 05:09 AM
tl;dr, but if your post was an elaboration of the thread title, I totally feel you, man.

Paint_It_Black
08-03-2009, 05:11 AM
Anyway, I was just wondering, is anyone else this way?

No, you're the one and only person in the entire world who doesn't like the Beatles. Congratulations.

What's the big deal? So you don't like them. It's not like there is some secret to it that everyone else is in on. You listen to the music and you either like it or you don't. I doubt we can talk you into liking it even if you apparently want us to.

If it makes you feel any better, I mostly can't stand Elvis.

SMASHedTHEignition
08-03-2009, 05:14 AM
No, you're the one and only person in the entire world who doesn't like the Beatles. Congratulations.

What's the big deal? So you don't like them. It's not like there is some secret to it that everyone else is in on. You listen to the music and you either like it or you don't. I doubt we can talk you into liking it even if you apparently want us to.

If it makes you feel any better, I mostly can't stand Elvis.

although a secret thing that some people are on to mellow out and listen to the beatles is called marijuana :D

Budzy
08-03-2009, 05:21 AM
Meh, I'm a bit the same way really.
Except that I don't care that I don't like them.

SMASHedTHEignition
08-03-2009, 05:33 AM
yeh i think most people who hate them dont wanna like them otherwise they would, so this thread is weird

Paint_It_Black
08-03-2009, 05:53 AM
You can't like something just by wanting to like it. That should be really, really obvious.

Thomas
08-03-2009, 09:39 AM
Sgt. Peppers was definitely one of their... weirder... albums. They must have been smoking something REAL strong when they wrote that one. If you want to really give them a shot, try listening to Abbey Road all the way through. 'Tis way better.

Little_Miss_1565
08-03-2009, 10:04 AM
Nothing that they were doing would seem even remotely revolutionary now, but we're also living in a post-Beatles musical landscape. They were game-changers. I can't wait for the remasters to come out on 9/9. I heard "Tomorrow Never Knows" on a bomb-ass stereo and it was kind of life-altering.

Gustavo
08-03-2009, 11:04 AM
I do acknowledge that the Beatles' music was very important for the kind of music I am into today and I respect them a lot because of that. I must say, though, that I've never been a big fan of theirs, I actually don't know much of their stuff... The Beatles stuff I've listened to so far is pretty audible, good... But not quite the kind of music I'm into.
But I love one song of theirs called "Helter Skelter", not sure in which album it came out. But it's pretty good, those of you who haven't listened to it yet should definitely check it out on YouTube or somewhere else.

KHWHD
08-03-2009, 11:07 AM
I used to be so in love with The Bee Gees many years ago. I have an autographed CD from them - before Maurice died. :(

I was raised with The Beatles, Elvis - all that old stuff. Doesn't bother me - but country music on the other hand.... I absolutely can't stand it.

Phil594
08-03-2009, 11:13 AM
I do acknowledge that the Beatles' music was very important for the kind of music I am into today and I respect them a lot because of that. I must say, though, that I've never been a big fan of theirs, I actually don't know much of their stuff... The Beatles stuff I've listened to so far is pretty audible, good... But not quite the kind of music I'm into.
But I love one song of theirs called "Helter Skelter", not sure in which album it came out. But it's pretty good, those of you who haven't listened to it yet should definitely check it out on YouTube or somewhere else.

White Album.

Grimesy da Offspringfan
08-03-2009, 12:27 PM
I don't like them either, though i only know their best known songs, and i don't really get how they became so popular. As far as i know, they haven't done anything really innovative. Right?

AllIn All It's Not So Bad
08-03-2009, 12:41 PM
out of all the old revolutionary music i prefer
sex pistols, the ramones, and rock n roll

dexter12296566
08-03-2009, 12:45 PM
i didnt used to like the beatles but when i started playing drums i played alot of their stuff and now i like them

Little_Miss_1565
08-03-2009, 12:46 PM
I don't like them either, though i only know their best known songs, and i don't really get how they became so popular. As far as i know, they haven't done anything really innovative. Right?

They were the first band to play a sports arena for a concert. Any band you go see at a stadium now is just following in their footsteps. They also changed the face of pop music, and were so popular that they inspired loads of other bands to keep building on top of what they were doing. The only reason people don't think they're innovative is because everyone sounds like them now, but you can't judge someone's historical and cultural impact based on today. They brought all kinds of weird shit into popular circulation -- sitars, psych, the list goes on.

Paul's basslines are deceptively complicated. They sound totally pop and nothing special, but if you pay close attention, the way they're structured is really pretty fucking cool.

Blitz!
08-03-2009, 12:57 PM
I can honestly say there are only two songs which I like from the Beatles, which are Come Together and Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.

Grimesy da Offspringfan
08-03-2009, 01:09 PM
They were the first band to play a sports arena for a concert. Any band you go see at a stadium now is just following in their footsteps. They also changed the face of pop music, and were so popular that they inspired loads of other bands to keep building on top of what they were doing. The only reason people don't think they're innovative is because everyone sounds like them now, but you can't judge someone's historical and cultural impact based on today. They brought all kinds of weird shit into popular circulation -- sitars, psych, the list goes on.

Paul's basslines are deceptively complicated. They sound totally pop and nothing special, but if you pay close attention, the way they're structured is really pretty fucking cool.

I meant they didn't introduce anything musically new compared to the bands and musicians before them (except for the use of new instruments, of course, which i forgot), because, for example, it was Bill Haley who invented "rock" music

Outerspaceman21
08-03-2009, 01:24 PM
I haven't heard enough of the Beatles music to know whether I like them or not. What I have heard, I've liked some of it. Hey Jude is good, and I also like Ob La Di, Ob La Da and Let It Be.

offspringer24
08-03-2009, 01:35 PM
hard days night and she loves you ace, but hey... you don't like...then thats it :)

Omni
08-03-2009, 01:58 PM
No, you're the one and only person in the entire world who doesn't like the Beatles. Congratulations.

What's the big deal? So you don't like them. It's not like there is some secret to it that everyone else is in on. You listen to the music and you either like it or you don't. I doubt we can talk you into liking it even if you apparently want us to.

If it makes you feel any better, I mostly can't stand Elvis.

I was obviously not asking the world, I posted this question here because, despite the fact that it's a punk band's forum, most people here have a varying taste in music that I have not seen matched elsewhere. I'd like to think that I listen to more music than most people I know, and I guess I just feel a little unsophisticated or something.

SweetTatyana
08-03-2009, 02:01 PM
Yeah I agree I really don't like the beatles. Some radio station here used to do a beatles break where they played beatles for an hour every weekday. I tried listening to it but still, just couldn't like them.

Little_Miss_1565
08-03-2009, 02:11 PM
I meant they didn't introduce anything musically new compared to the bands and musicians before them (except for the use of new instruments, of course, which i forgot), because, for example, it was Bill Haley who invented "rock" music

They didn't invent it, but they made it more popular than anyone who came before them. Who knows who Bill Haley is now? But the Beatles were quite literally bigger than Jesus.

nieh
08-03-2009, 02:15 PM
I meant they didn't introduce anything musically new compared to the bands and musicians before them (except for the use of new instruments, of course, which i forgot), because, for example, it was Bill Haley who invented "rock" music

Do you seriously think it's impossible to do something new and innovative without inventing a whole new genre as a result of it? Rock and Roll music before the Beatles did not sound like Rock and Roll music after the Beatles. Also, Ike Turner is widely regarded as having the first rock and roll song with Rocket 88, so no, Bill Haley didn't invent anything, he just popularized it.

Grimesy da Offspringfan
08-03-2009, 02:54 PM
I guess the normal rules don't really apply to THe Beatles

jacknife737
08-03-2009, 02:59 PM
I could care less about them.

Sure they're talented, altered music history, and i'm sure their songs are well written and catchy; i just have no desire to listen to them on a regular basis. Although, Hey Jude is a pretty good tune.

WebDudette
08-03-2009, 03:13 PM
I just hate when people go on and on about The Rolling Stones and The Beatles influencing every bad I listen too, and there for, I can't not like them.

Llamas
08-03-2009, 03:22 PM
I don't mind the Beatles' music... I mildly enjoy a few songs here and there. However, they are insanely overrated. The biggest amount of respect that I have for them comes from how persevering and hard working they were in attempts of getting known. I heard their first album in German once - they actually wrote and recorded the entire thing in German and then went to Hamburg to try to break out there... and when it didn't work, they did the album in English. That's dedication. Tons of bands would give up by then.

But the only reason they're a big deal is because they got famous. They weren't doing anything musical that their peers weren't... they weren't anything close to talented musicians, they weren't the best song writers. Many of the bands making music at that time using similar instrumentation and such were considerably more talented at their instruments and at song-writing, but they just didn't get famous.

So basically, the Beatles were average musicians and average song-writers who had a whole lot of dedication to getting famous. I admire that perseverance, and I do think some of their songs are mildly enjoyable... but people talk about them as though they single handedly set out with instruments that they invented themselves, writing songs with structures they invented themselves that nobody had ever seen before, and just being something soooo different from their peers. That's what bugs me.

Wow, this ended up being pretty long.

Little_Miss_1565
08-03-2009, 03:39 PM
I just hate when people go on and on about The Rolling Stones and The Beatles influencing every bad I listen too, and there for, I can't not like them.

...even though those people are all correct?

This thread makes me want to put my head through a wall. :( The Beatles aren't my favorite band either but their importance is kind of an unassailable fact that deserves a little respect.

Anka
08-03-2009, 03:43 PM
I started to like Beatles a year ago or so. I mean, I liked it always more than those songs in radio, but now I sometimes listen to Beatles on my mp3... I love Nowhere man, Rock n roll music, Twist and shout, Yellow submarine, and there are many more...I think that they produced so many songs, that anyone can find there something he/she will like... and their movies are great (especially Yellow Submarine)

WebDudette
08-03-2009, 03:46 PM
I don't dislike the Beatles, and I do respect them for all of their influence. But I'm not especially fond of most of their work. The Rolling Stones on the other hand I just plain don't like. But a band that can bring a million+ to a show deserves respect.

Yes, I listen to bands that probably wouldn't exist without them, but I don't have to enjoy their music. I'm sure bands like The Cure or The Smiths have an extreme influence on tons of the music I listen to. But I honestly can't stand either of them.

Besides, if they hadn't done what they did, someone else would have.

nieh
08-03-2009, 03:47 PM
I don't mind when people don't LIKE the Beatles, what bothers me is when people don't at least respect them. I don't even own any Beatles albums myself since I never really get the urge to listen to them, but I tend to enjoy myself when they're on.

Llamas
08-03-2009, 03:55 PM
Besides, if they hadn't done what they did, someone else would have.

This SO MUCH. That was what I was trying to get at by talking about their peers. Had they not gotten famous, one of those other bands that nobody hears about now cause the Beatles overshadowed everyone with fame would've been in the spotlight. And many of those bands were much better than the Beatles musically.

I don't see anyone in this thread not respecting the Beatles... or even at least acknowledging the fact that their fame altered the direction of popular music.

RageAndLov
08-03-2009, 04:03 PM
I like Beatles. Don't care if they are so hyped.

nieh
08-03-2009, 04:05 PM
Besides, if they hadn't done what they did, someone else would have.

I disagree, things would have evolved a LOT differently. My friend made the claim once that he hated the Beatles and that if they didn't exist, the Rolling Stones would've done exactly the same thing, but the Rolling Stones didn't exist until 2 years later, and only wrote 3 original songs for their first studio album and the rest was all covers.

JoY
08-03-2009, 04:08 PM
& it should bother you.

WebDudette
08-03-2009, 04:16 PM
Right, it would have went down in a different manner, but I think eventually all the same music would have surfaced. At this point in time its hard to advance music any further, we just have to shell out whats left.

If not, then we wouldn't know any better and people would be telling me I have to like Band X because they influenced my favorite bands.

ThunderPX
08-03-2009, 04:54 PM
Listen to the White Album. It has Why Don't You Get A Job? on it-- err...

Jules69
08-04-2009, 01:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKvee-w0uBc This song is the reason I have my middle name!!! I am Julie Michelle! My parents named me after this song!!!:cool::cool:

Thomas
08-04-2009, 10:30 AM
I don't mind when people don't LIKE the Beatles, what bothers me is when people don't at least respect them. I don't even own any Beatles albums myself since I never really get the urge to listen to them, but I tend to enjoy myself when they're on.

^This. I don't like it when people say that if they didn't do what they did, then someone else would have because, well, no one else did. It's impossible to be able to say what would have happened if the Beatles weren't around because, quite frankly, they were around. If someone else did exactly what The Beatles did, then we would be having this exact same conversation right now. If someone else did what The Beatles did in a different way (the more likely scenario) then there's absolutely no way of telling where music would be today. The fact that their music is still relevant 40 years later deserves some respect. I mean, they must have done something right musically for that to be true.

Also note that they didn't just write simple, easy songs. As 1565 said, some of their songs are deceptively complicated with time signatures/song structures, etc. They were even quite talented as individual musicians as well. Even Ringo had some REALLY impressive parts on their last few albums.


On the other hand, I absolutely HATE it when people get upset at other people for not liking The Beatles. I have a few friends like that and it bugs me to no end when people can't understand why someone wouldn't like The Beatles.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKvee-w0uBc This song is the reason I have my middle name!!! I am Julie Michelle! My parents named me after this song!!!:cool::cool:

That is actually one of my favorite songs of all time, right there. I'm not entirely sure why, but the whole Rubber Soul album just seemed to strike a nerve with me to make it one of my favorites.






Also, Across the Universe kinda sucked.

JoY
08-04-2009, 10:34 AM
Right, it would have went down in a different manner, but I think eventually all the same music would have surfaced. At this point in time its hard to advance music any further, we just have to shell out whats left.

If not, then we wouldn't know any better and people would be telling me I have to like Band X because they influenced my favorite bands.

are you kidding me? they were the world's first boyband! god knows what would've happened if the world hadn't had boybands.

Thomas, I completely agree with your post in every single way. even in that I agree that Across the Universe was really really relatively one very crappy song. I don't dislike it per se, but I do think it stands out in absolute blandness. I've always blamed weed for that one. I don't know why, but to me it just sounds like they were stoned.

nieh
08-04-2009, 10:38 AM
But boy bands normally don't write their own songs or play their own instruments. The Monkees were a much more traditional boy band in that respect, but going back I'm sure you could label a lot of early Rock and Roll folks or even some Motown acts as boy bands.

Thomas
08-04-2009, 10:44 AM
are you kidding me? they were the world's first boyband! god knows what would've happened if the world hadn't had boybands.

Thomas, I completely agree with your post in every single way. even in that I agree that Across the Universe was really really relatively one very crappy song. I don't dislike it per se, but I do think it stands out in absolute blandness. I've always blamed weed for that one. I don't know why, but to me it just sounds like they were stoned.

Although I do agree about the song, I was actually referring to the recent movie titled "Across the Universe." There were some good scenes, but overall I didn't like at all what they did with The Beatles' music.

JoY
08-04-2009, 10:44 AM
for some reason I have the feeling boybands aren't characterised so much by having only male musicians, as by the reaction they get from chicks. like Elvis. he could've been a boyband, except he isn't a band, he has a band. or Jon Bon Jovi. not quite the same level, but who cares. anyway, single artists are easier idolised, it seems. to me that feels logical, but I don't know how to put my finger on it. well, I kind of do know, but I have the feeling this would turn out in a long long post, if I tried to explain how my view is on that.

killer_queen
08-04-2009, 12:03 PM
I agree with nieh. People shouldn't be obliged to be crazy about every band or singer that are widely known and loved. You might not like Beatles or even hate them and it's no one's business. If you say that they have not done anything to change the whole music industry today however, that would be a lie.

But if it still bothers you I could just break your arm and you might say that The Beatles is your favorite band after that.

nieh
08-04-2009, 12:04 PM
But if it still bothers you I could just break your arm and you might say that The Beatles is your favorite band after that.

<3<3<3
You need to post more.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-04-2009, 12:06 PM
I once wrote an essay about how The Beatles got famous purely on the basis that there was almost nobody else to listen to in their day, hence the world domination.

Now if that were true, I don't think they'd still be popular to this day. Even younger generations that weren't even around in the 60's or 70's still listen to The Beatles. I am one of them. I'm a huge Beatles fan. I'm not really sure why they're suddenly getting a lot of recognition this year with the Beatles Rock Band coming out next month and the Beatles Trivial Pursuit game coming out in a couple of weeks.

To the person who started this thread, I would recommend listening to some of their middle albums like Beatles For Sale, Help, Rubber Soul, and A Hard Day's Night. IMO, those are better than anything they did in their early days and later days.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-04-2009, 12:11 PM
are you kidding me? they were the world's first boyband! god knows what would've happened if the world hadn't had boybands.

No way would I classify them as a boy band. Yeah, they had girls screaming so loud at their concerts that they couldn't even hear their own instruments, but normal boy bands don't have such a large male fanbase. How many males would say they're fans of Backstreet Boys, Nsync, or the Jonas Brothers? I've heard chicks screaming at Green Day concerts but they aren't a boy band.

Omni
08-04-2009, 12:18 PM
They were even quite talented as individual musicians as well. Even Ringo had some REALLY impressive parts on their last few albums.

I forgot the exact details of this, but I remember reading somewhere about the Beatles giving a concert on a talk show or something, and something happened with the equipment where Ringo had to watch the hands of the rest of the band to keep in time. I'm not a musician, but the mere thought of that sounds incredibly skilled to me, not to mention a display of pretty quick thinking.

Llamas
08-04-2009, 01:29 PM
I don't get why people are going on about people not respecting them... first of all, I haven't seen anyone NOT respect them... second of all, I don't see why it's a big deal. There are so many people in the world who have done incredible game-altering things, and I doubt it bothers you all when someone doesn't respect each one of those people. I don't get what makes the Beatles so special in that regard...

nieh
08-04-2009, 01:36 PM
It also bothers me when people don't respect other bands like U2.

pArAda
08-04-2009, 01:37 PM
Me too.

I agree fully.

Llamas
08-04-2009, 01:38 PM
It also bothers me when people don't respect other bands like U2.

If this was directed at me, you suck :P

pArAda
08-04-2009, 01:40 PM
U2 is bad. Bono is a hypocrite. He wants America to invade Sudan and take over its natural resources. :mad::mad::mad:

nieh
08-04-2009, 01:44 PM
If this was directed at me, you suck :P

I would never!

Llamas
08-04-2009, 01:46 PM
I hate U2 and don't respect them! omg sorriez :( bono = faggy fag.

pArAda
08-04-2009, 01:49 PM
I agree. He says he's against genocide but wants America to kill the Arabs in Sudan. Can you say HYPOCRITE :confused::mad::mad::mad:

nieh
08-04-2009, 01:56 PM
U2 is bad. Bono is a hypocrite. He wants America to invade Sudan and take over its natural resources.


I agree. He says he's against genocide but wants America to kill the Arabs in Sudan. Can you say HYPOCRITE

Links or gtfo.:(:(:(:(

JoY
08-04-2009, 01:59 PM
No way would I classify them as a boy band. Yeah, they had girls screaming so loud at their concerts that they couldn't even hear their own instruments, but normal boy bands don't have such a large male fanbase. How many males would say they're fans of Backstreet Boys, Nsync, or the Jonas Brothers? I've heard chicks screaming at Green Day concerts but they aren't a boy band.

no, you don't get it. I can't really explain it, it has to do with millions of girls falling madly in love with complete idolised strangers & getting wet panties from hearing them on the radio. men have nothing to do with this.

& Josh, U2 just plain sucks. I love you, but it sucks. *shudders* I just hate Bono's voice.

pArAda
08-04-2009, 02:02 PM
Well he doesn't do it directly. I'm sure you've heard about his activities regarding Darfur. Repeating slanders against the government in Sudan. :rolleyes:These lies :eek: prepare ground for an invasion by buidlign popular support amongst the people who are his fans. A lot of people like U2 so you instantly have a sort of 'invade Sudan and overthrow its leaders' constituency.:mad::mad:

JoY
08-04-2009, 02:03 PM
wowowow, what is this about Sudan? I thought this was about the sucking of U2?

pArAda
08-04-2009, 02:04 PM
Yeah. Well U2 sucks. :mad:

pArAda
08-04-2009, 02:07 PM
They're complete ass. :mad::mad:
:o

nieh
08-04-2009, 02:08 PM
& Josh, U2 just plain sucks. I love you, but it sucks. *shudders* I just hate Bono's voice.
You can hate them all you want. <3
Still, they were super-influential and lots of bands today wouldn't exist without them, like, say, Radiohead.

Well he doesn't do it directly. I'm sure you've heard about his activities regarding Darfur. Repeating slanders against the government in Sudan. :rolleyes:These lies :eek: prepare ground for an invasion by buidlign popular support amongst the people who are his fans. A lot of people like U2 so you instantly have a sort of 'invade Sudan and overthrow its leaders' constituency.:mad::mad:

Again, links or gtfo. Criticizing the government over something is not anything close to the same thing as promoting genocide and advocating stealing their resources.

pArAda
08-04-2009, 02:12 PM
You have to read between the lines. Bono spreads lies about some sort of "genocide" :confused: that's supposed to have happened there. While it is just Sudanese defending themselves from violent tribes of nomads. So by criticizing the Sudanese governmetn which is just defending its people he builds support. Support which comes from people who start to hate Sudan because of the lies and slanders. The logical step then is to invade Sudan and kill the Arabs and give power to these nomadic minorities. Or do you expect them to just bend over? :confused:

JoY
08-04-2009, 02:12 PM
NO YOU DON'T! don't ruin Radiohead for me, man!

JoY
08-04-2009, 02:14 PM
You have to read between the lines. Bono spreads lies about some sort of "genocide" :confused: that's supposed to have happened there. While it is just Sudanese defending themselves from violent tribes of nomads. So by criticizing the Sudanese governmetn which is just defending its people he builds support. Support which comes from people who start to hate Sudan because of the lies and slanders. The logical step then is to invade Sudan and kill the Arabs and give power to these nomadic minorities. Or do you expect them to just bend over? :confused:

okay. I think I've heard enough from you about U2.

you know what, skip the U2-part of that sentence.

nieh
08-04-2009, 02:15 PM
You have to read between the lines. Bono spreads lies about some sort of "genocide" :confused: that's supposed to have happened there. While it is just Sudanese defending themselves from violent tribes of nomads. So by criticizing the Sudanese governmetn which is just defending its people he builds support. Support which comes from people who start to hate Sudan because of the lies and slanders. The logical step then is to invade Sudan and kill the Arabs and give power to these nomadic minorities. Or do you expect them to just bend over? :confused:
links or gtfo

NO YOU DON'T! don't ruin Radiohead for me, man!

I....I'm sorry. Do you need a hug?

pArAda
08-04-2009, 02:16 PM
What links. He was all over the news with this Darfur crap. But i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It doesn't change the case that U2 is absolute ass.

Llamas
08-04-2009, 02:26 PM
You have to read between the lines. Bono spreads lies about some sort of "genocide" :confused: that's supposed to have happened there. While it is just Sudanese defending themselves from violent tribes of nomads. So by criticizing the Sudanese governmetn which is just defending its people he builds support. Support which comes from people who start to hate Sudan because of the lies and slanders. The logical step then is to invade Sudan and kill the Arabs and give power to these nomadic minorities. Or do you expect them to just bend over? :confused:

Whoa, wait. Just hold up here. Are you saying that there is no genocide happening in Darfur?? And you're bashing Bono for supporting STOPPING THE GENOCIDE? The Sudanese govt is fucked beyond belief, and there IS a genocide going on over there. I've studied Darfur and read books on the situation over there... the government there is supplying a militia group that is attacking the justice/liberty groups. The government doesn't like that there are groups that don't agree with the government. They are peaceful groups that are just striving to change things, because the government there is totalitarian. There is a militia group that is SUPPOSEDLY unaffiliated with the government, who is pissed about the activitists and attacking them. Instead of stopping these people from trying to wipe out the justice groups, the government is HELPING them.

I dislike U2 and I dislike Bono, but his stance on the genocide is probably the one thing I do like about him. More people should be aware of this enormous problem, and I do approve of him speaking up about it. The goal of those in support of Darfur is NOT to wipe out the Arabs. The only goal is to stop the militia from wiping out those who don't agree with the government.

Skinny
08-04-2009, 02:34 PM
Whoa, wait. Just hold up here. Are you saying that there is no genocide happening in Darfur?? And you're bashing Bono for supporting STOPPING THE GENOCIDE? The Sudanese govt is fucked beyond belief, and there IS a genocide going on over there. I've studied Darfur and read books on the situation over there... the government there is supplying a militia group that is attacking the justice/liberty groups. The government doesn't like that there are groups that don't agree with the government. They are peaceful groups that are just striving to change things, because the government there is totalitarian. There is a militia group that is SUPPOSEDLY unaffiliated with the government, who is pissed about the activitists and attacking them. Instead of stopping these people from trying to wipe out the justice groups, the government is HELPING them.

I dislike U2 and I dislike Bono, but his stance on the genocide is probably the one thing I do like about him. More people should be aware of this enormous problem, and I do approve of him speaking up about it. The goal of those in support of Darfur is NOT to wipe out the Arabs. The only goal is to stop the militia from wiping out those who don't agree with the government.

You should really be a teacher or some type of public speaker.

pArAda
08-04-2009, 02:36 PM
Yeah, I said it.

These nomadic tribes attack and kill innocent farmers and villagers. The Arabs have to live in fear while the nomads retreat into the desert. These alleged crimes didnt occur, it's just the legitimate Sudanese government defending its people. Let me tell you why these lies are spread. IT's because Sudan is an independent country and not owned by rich people who dress in suits and live in houses with pools and jaccuzzis in them. The media then slander these free countries like Sudan or North Korea :mad: to build support for invasion. And U2 is one of their tools. No wonder since they know each other well because the record companies are closely connected to these media companies who are closely connected to these governments who wish to invade free countries and remove their independence and bring western capital there.

There are no militias in Sudan. There are only self-defence groups that consists of farmers whose farms and villages are being attacked by these desert nomads who proceed to stela their food and family members and then retreat to the desert where they gorge on fruit and meat that they stole and rape some poor guy's sisters. :mad::mad:

pArAda
08-04-2009, 02:46 PM
I guess it's still the 'popular to hate Arabs. :rolleyes:

JoY
08-04-2009, 02:51 PM
I....I'm sorry. Do you need a hug?

yes. very much so.

randman21
08-04-2009, 02:55 PM
You know, I've never heard anyone explain what it is about U2 they hate. To me, nothing about their music is really hateable, or lovable, for that matter. Someone enlighten me. This is genuine curiosity.

JoY
08-04-2009, 02:58 PM
IT's because Sudan is an independent country and not owned by rich people who dress in suits and live in houses with pools and jaccuzzis in them. The media then slander these free countries like Sudan or North Korea :mad: to build support for invasion. And U2 is one of their tools. No wonder since they know each other well because the record companies are closely connected to these media companies who are closely connected to these governments who wish to invade free countries and remove their independence and bring western capital there.

There are no militias in Sudan. There are only self-defence groups that consists of farmers whose farms and villages are being attacked by these desert nomads who proceed to stela their food and family members and then retreat to the desert where they gorge on fruit and meat that they stole and rape some poor guy's sisters. :mad::mad:

these people in suits & houses (dude, imagine a government without suits, not living in houses!) with pools & stuff, you know, those awful people in the Western world, usually have earned their position by working hard & achieving expertise in their field. there's a reason they earn more than the regular shoe salesman.

by the way, it's so funny to quote someone who uses the mad-smiley. sorry to disrupt a very serious discussion, but I'll turn off smileys just to give you a taste.

nieh
08-04-2009, 02:59 PM
yes. very much so.

*hugs and discretely gropes Bella*

JoY
08-04-2009, 03:00 PM
You know, I've never heard anyone explain what it is about U2 they hate. To me, nothing about their music is really hateable, or lovable, for that matter. Someone enlighten me. This is genuine curiosity.

it's Bono's goddamn voice! to this day, I still can't figure out any reason why ANYONE would have picked him as the leadsinger of ANY band.


thanks Josh, much better. :]

pArAda
08-04-2009, 03:10 PM
joy, why are you saying this? you are making up lies about me. :(

I didn't say people in the west were awful. I live in the west. I like it here. yes, I don't like some rich people. so what? i dislike this small group of rich people who want everyone in the world to be under their control, like they want in Sudan. People deserve to be independent and free.

I didnt say that sucessful people didnt earn their position. who do you take me for? There's nothign wrong with being successful, or rich. My father, he drives an Infiniti. YES and he earned it by working hard. and yes he deserves it, i didn't say anything against it! but he doesn't want to overhtow an independent country just because they wish to live differently!

why are you saying these things, joy? :(

why? :confused:

JoY
08-04-2009, 03:11 PM
pArAda, that post was phrased in such a cute way, it just gave me giggles.
I noticed you're from Canada, but I have a faint idea your origin might be somewhere else, let's say in an Arabic country. what I was doing, didn't have anything to do with you personally, it was me entering the discussion for a bit. you know, where people throw in their two cents here & there, & hopefully listen to each other too. relax & don't get upset.

by the way, back on topic; what's going to happen with the publishing rights of the Beatles songs now Whacko Jacko checked out?

nieh
08-04-2009, 03:12 PM
it's Bono's goddamn voice! to this day, I still can't figure out any reason why ANYONE would have picked him as the leadsinger of ANY band.

Because he sounds big and unique!

Parada is an annoying conspiracy theorist.

Bella: He sold them to Sony a few years ago.

JoY
08-04-2009, 03:21 PM
dude, I'm trying to figure out whether I should use that post of pArAda as my next signature. every time I look at it, I can't resist teh gigglz.

about Beatles rights; oh good then, I guess.:confused:

Llamas
08-04-2009, 03:28 PM
You should really be a teacher or some type of public speaker.
Haha, I am a teacher :)


These nomadic tribes attack and kill innocent farmers and villagers. The Arabs have to live in fear while the nomads retreat into the desert. These alleged crimes didnt occur, it's just the legitimate Sudanese government defending its people. Let me tell you why these lies are spread. IT's because Sudan is an independent country and not owned by rich people who dress in suits and live in houses with pools and jaccuzzis in them. The media then slander these free countries like Sudan or North Korea :mad: to build support for invasion. And U2 is one of their tools. No wonder since they know each other well because the record companies are closely connected to these media companies who are closely connected to these governments who wish to invade free countries and remove their independence and bring western capital there.

There are no militias in Sudan. There are only self-defence groups that consists of farmers whose farms and villages are being attacked by these desert nomads who proceed to stela their food and family members and then retreat to the desert where they gorge on fruit and meat that they stole and rape some poor guy's sisters. :mad::mad:

This is so incredibly false. I haven't gotten my information from rumors being spread... I haven't gotten my information from rich Westerners sitting in government positions. I've gotten most of my information from the book "Darfur: the Ambiguous Genocide" (written by Gerard Prunier, "an ethnographer and renowned Africa analyst, who turns on the evasions of Khartoum the uncompromising eye that dissected Hutu power excuses for the Rwanda genocide a decade ago"), and online research articles from people who've actually been in Darfur and are African themselves.

If Darfuris are Muslim, what is their quarrel with the Islamic government in Khartoum? If they and the janjaweed-'evil horsemen'-driving them from their homes are both black, how can it be Arab versus African? If the Sudanese government is making peace with the south, why would it be risking that by waging war in the west? Can you answer those questions for me?


You know, I've never heard anyone explain what it is about U2 they hate. To me, nothing about their music is really hateable, or lovable, for that matter. Someone enlighten me. This is genuine curiosity.
I love that I'm defending Darfuris and berating Bono in the same thread (especially in a thread about the Beatles)... I find U2 to be utterly pretentious and overboard with their attitudes for such an average band. They had some good songs early on, but now they can release whatever garbage they want and brag about saving the world, and be praised by millions. I hate Bono's voice, but that's not enough to make me hate U2. :P


I didn't say people in the west were awful. I live in the west. I like it here. yes, I don't like some rich people. so what? i dislike this small group of rich people who want everyone in the world to be under their control, like they want in Sudan. People deserve to be independent and free.

I didnt say that sucessful people didnt earn their position. who do you take me for? There's nothign wrong with being successful, or rich. My father, he drives an Infiniti. YES and he earned it by working hard. and yes he deserves it, i didn't say anything against it! but he doesn't want to overhtow an independent country just because they wish to live differently!

!!!!!!!!!! The Darfuris are NOT A FREE PEOPLE! The rebel groups are STRIVING for freedom! The Sudan government is a very corrupt and ethnophobic one... The US is not trying to bring Sudan under American control by ANY means. The US wants the Darfuris to be treated as equals to the Janjaweed (which they haven't now for years - they've been treated as inferior). The US wants a government in power in Sudan that treats the ethnicities as equal... but since the current government supports the ethnicity that is the MAJORITY, the minority is easy to control and attack. The rebel groups are certainly not perfect, and they have attacked the Janjaweed, but they would not be doing so if they weren't trying to wipe them out.

FYI:
-Over the past five years, over 400,000 Darfurian civilians have been killed.
-150,000 people have died directly from acts of violence in Darfur.
-90% of the villages of Darfur’s targeted ethnic groups have been destroyed.
-97% of these killings have been against innocent civilians and executed by militia groups instructed by the government.
-80 infants die each day in Darfur due to a lack of proper nutrition. (Tell me again that their government is worthy?)
-80% of those displaced are women and young girls who are consistently the victims of sexual violence and abducted into sexual slavery
-Humanitarian refugee camps in Chad and Sudan are overcrowded, disease infested, and prone to attacks.
-2.8 million people have been displaced within Sudan. (Displacements are performed not by the native minority, but by the majority militia groups)
-250,000 people have fled Darfur, mainly to Chad where they are facing further violence.
-Despite an abundance of oil and other natural resources, the vast majority of Sudan’s people live in poverty, and its Government has been described as ‘the most repressive regime in the world’.
-On September 9th 2004, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Darfur conflict was genocide, and called it the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. This is the first time the Untied States has ever declared genocide while the genocide was still happening.

JoY
08-04-2009, 03:31 PM
Brianna, you are wasting your time, sweety. this thing is way beyond reason. edit; ****** (/deleted, nevermind)

Llamas
08-04-2009, 03:33 PM
Aw shit :( I got all excited to discuss Darfur... stupid bbs!

pArAda
08-04-2009, 03:36 PM
joy, i apologize, but I though tthat you were making fun of me. i am sorry for writing what I did. I would delete it in an instant if i could.

ilovelamas, thank you for your post. i will read it. maybe you are right :confused:

JoY
08-04-2009, 03:40 PM
well yeah, the use of smileys & choice of words did make me giggle, but that's no reason for sending verbally aggressive messages. don't worry about it. just make sure you don't make a habit out of it, because generally it isn't much appreciated. let's just say I don't think that'll get your friends around here. try to keep your cool, stay calm & just try to approach things with some form of reason.

Jakebert
08-04-2009, 03:47 PM
I don't mind the Beatles' music... I mildly enjoy a few songs here and there. However, they are insanely overrated. The biggest amount of respect that I have for them comes from how persevering and hard working they were in attempts of getting known. I heard their first album in German once - they actually wrote and recorded the entire thing in German and then went to Hamburg to try to break out there... and when it didn't work, they did the album in English. That's dedication. Tons of bands would give up by then.

I didn't read the rest of the thread, but I had to respond to this, because we've argued about it before. This is not true. The Beatles played in Hamburg as a house band, but recorded all of their albums in English at Abbey Road. The German recordings were done later after they got famous in Europe.

Skinny
08-04-2009, 03:50 PM
joy, i apologize, but I though tthat you were making fun of me. i am sorry for writing what I did. I would delete it in an instant if i could.

You can delete it, just click the EDIT button below the message and then click 'delete message' It's as simple as that.

Llamas
08-04-2009, 03:55 PM
You're right, I'm not sure how I mixed that up again. It was still persistent and a sign of dedication to reaching people, though, that I respect.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-04-2009, 10:17 PM
How did this thread go from talking about The Beatles to talking about U2 and Darfur?

Outerspaceman21
08-05-2009, 12:04 AM
How did this thread go from talking about The Beatles to talking about U2 and Darfur?

I have no idea...

_Lost_
08-05-2009, 12:40 AM
I don't like the beatles and I'm perfectly okay with that. They changed the world and for that, I am grateful.



Paul's basslines are deceptively complicated. They sound totally pop and nothing special, but if you pay close attention, the way they're structured is really pretty fucking cool.

Makes me think of John Entwistle. Just listening to the Who, you don't really hear it. It takes a keen ear and a bit of focus to pick up on the fact the Entwistle totally pwned that shit up. I can't always follow what he was doing.

The Who also changed the world.

T-6005
08-05-2009, 06:18 AM
So basically, the Beatles were average musicians and average song-writers who had a whole lot of dedication to getting famous. I admire that perseverance, and I do think some of their songs are mildly enjoyable... but people talk about them as though they single handedly set out with instruments that they invented themselves, writing songs with structures they invented themselves that nobody had ever seen before, and just being something soooo different from their peers. That's what bugs me.

Since I avoid arguments about Darfur as a matter of principle, I'll just focus on the Beatles.

While I could agree with you that they weren't the best musicians around, I think you're making a mistake in labeling them "average" songwriters. In fact, I'd argue that their ability to structure songs in such deceptively simple ways was a huge, huge draw for the Beatles - simply because they chose to avoid a more complex songwriting approach doesn't make them untalented. Rather, when listening to the Beatles I get the feeling that song structure and dynamic are the two things that gave them such a breakout pop sensibility.

Though for my money, I'd rather have had the Beach Boys be the biggest band in the world.

Vera
08-05-2009, 11:21 AM
I find hugely popular groups mostly intimidating to get into, unless I discover them through something other than their reputation. For that I can't say I've truly ever listened to the Beatles, and therefore I typically don't make any kinds of judgment on them.

Thomas
08-05-2009, 11:41 AM
Makes me think of John Entwistle. Just listening to the Who, you don't really hear it. It takes a keen ear and a bit of focus to pick up on the fact the Entwistle totally pwned that shit up. I can't always follow what he was doing.

The Who also changed the world.


Have I ever told you that I love you?


The Who were probably one of the most innovative bands of all time. Keith Moon alone was doing stuff that was simply unheard of at the time, and still hasn't been successfully mimicked since his death. Their style was so chaotic, but came together so ridiculously well, that their songs are incredibly deceptively complex. Rock music wouldn't be NEARLY what it is today if it wasn't for The Who. Dare I say it, but I think The Who might have actually been more influential to rock artists than The Beatles.

_Lost_
08-05-2009, 01:29 PM
Have I ever told you that I love you?


The Who were probably one of the most innovative bands of all time. Keith Moon alone was doing stuff that was simply unheard of at the time, and still hasn't been successfully mimicked since his death. Their style was so chaotic, but came together so ridiculously well, that their songs are incredibly deceptively complex. Rock music wouldn't be NEARLY what it is today if it wasn't for The Who. Dare I say it, but I think The Who might have actually been more influential to rock artists than The Beatles.

I KNOW RIGHT! They pioneered things like the "crash and bash" feel of rock n roll and (imma steal your word) they brought chaos to it. The only thing you could count on when you went to their show was that it was gonna be loud as fuck and Keith was gonna blow his drums up. Keith Moon couldn't really keep time all that well (John mostly did that), but his energy and spontaneity made him such a great drummer to lead by example.

Fun Fact: When asked what Keith didn't like about Pete Townshend (guitar), he said "He limits the amount of explosives that I can put in my drums."

They did a TV special and at the end of their performance, Keith had so much explosive in the bass drum that Roger Daltry (singer) got an arm full of shrapnel and Pete lost most of the hearing in his right ear. After that, Pete set a limit.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-06-2009, 12:02 AM
John Lennon and Paul McCartney were hardly "average songwriters." It may seem like they were compared to the stuff that is put into songs these days, but that's only because no one back then was willing to go beyond the limits of songwriting. How many swear words have The Beatles ever put in their songs? I can't even think of one. You know no African-American singers back in the 50's and 60's used the N-word even once in their songs, much less 1,000 times like in a lot of today's rap albums. I'm not saying using swear words or the N-word makes a song great because it really doesn't. The Offspring could make an album free of swear words and it would still rock. The bottom line is, Lennon and McCartney were outstanding songwriters. Regardless of which songs were written while they were high on something, they were talented. They will still be mentioned on every list of greatest songwriters of all-time.

TakesMeNowhere28
08-06-2009, 12:03 AM
Yellow Submarine? Aaaah, such an annoyance. Hey Jude? So bloody tiresome.

No, I can't say I'm partial to the Beatles either. I do genuinely love a couple of their songs, though. Especially the one that goes "there are places I remember [...]".

Ah. That would be "In My Life." Great song.

Thomas
08-06-2009, 10:17 AM
I KNOW RIGHT! They pioneered things like the "crash and bash" feel of rock n roll and (imma steal your word) they brought chaos to it. The only thing you could count on when you went to their show was that it was gonna be loud as fuck and Keith was gonna blow his drums up. Keith Moon couldn't really keep time all that well (John mostly did that), but his energy and spontaneity made him such a great drummer to lead by example.

Fun Fact: When asked what Keith didn't like about Pete Townshend (guitar), he said "He limits the amount of explosives that I can put in my drums."

They did a TV special and at the end of their performance, Keith had so much explosive in the bass drum that Roger Daltry (singer) got an arm full of shrapnel and Pete lost most of the hearing in his right ear. After that, Pete set a limit.

Yeah, that was during "My Generation." Good stuff. I love the guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr81olQ1ibk

Rag Doll
08-06-2009, 10:41 AM
Though for my money, I'd rather have had the Beach Boys be the biggest band in the world.

That I can agree with.

The Beatles did a lot, I give them their respect, some of their songs here and there I enjoy....but for the most part, meh. They just don't do it for me.

mrconeman
08-06-2009, 11:17 AM
Sometimes I grow off the Beatles, and then I hear Don't Let Me Down.

Paint_It_Black
08-07-2009, 12:56 PM
While I could agree with you that they weren't the best musicians around, I think you're making a mistake in labeling them "average" songwriters. In fact, I'd argue that their ability to structure songs in such deceptively simple ways was a huge, huge draw for the Beatles - simply because they chose to avoid a more complex songwriting approach doesn't make them untalented. Rather, when listening to the Beatles I get the feeling that song structure and dynamic are the two things that gave them such a breakout pop sensibility.

I can't believe it took so long for someone to say that.

By the way, she didn't just say they weren't the best musicians around. That would have been fine. She said they "weren't anything close to talented musicians". Which is a pretty ridiculous thing to say. I can't let that go without someone pointing it out.

nieh
08-07-2009, 01:18 PM
Also, how someone can possibly gauge songwriting talent (as opposed to instrumental skill) objectively (i.e. "there were lots of better songwriters around at the time") has always seemed weird to me since it's all subjective based on what person's song-writing appeals most to your ears.

Paint_It_Black
08-07-2009, 01:28 PM
I suppose the only objective way to define it would be by what's popular. If most of the world likes a song then the writer probably has to be classified as talented. For that reason I have to concede that Michael Jackson was talented, even though I hated everything about him, including his music.

nieh
08-07-2009, 01:37 PM
And then of course there's Nickelback.

Paint_It_Black
08-07-2009, 01:57 PM
Are you suggesting that most of the world likes Nickelback? Excuse me, I have to go see if my garage has rafters.

mrconeman
08-07-2009, 02:06 PM
Yeah, I'd like to jump on the bandwagon of calling Llamas on that statement.

IloveIlovellamas, but The Beatles not being good musicians is a little bit of a ridiculous statement.

They weren't virtuosos...or even for their day, they weren't Pink Floyd, but they were obviously accomplished musicians. Ringo was a boring drummer EDIT: boring is the wrong word, he just wasn't great. and John Lennon was pretty lifeless on the guitar, but McCartney was pretty awesome on bass and piano, and George Harrison, though the least famed Beatle, is actually a pretty sweet guitar player.

Not to mention they're all pretty multi-talented too, they all sang, and they all play a few different instruments.

Paint_It_Black
08-07-2009, 02:21 PM
IloveIlovellamas, but The Beatles not being good musicians is a little bit of a ridiculous statement.

I guess I should state for the record that I like her too. I just find that I strongly oppose almost every opinion I see her give. Oddly, this has not stopped me liking her as a person. I'm hoping this post will avoid any drama. I'm not bashing her as a person, just strongly disagreeing with some opinions.

Llamas
08-07-2009, 03:07 PM
I'm not upset, haha.

But I don't get how ANY of this entire discussion is anything but subjective. My saying they weren't talented musicians should have obviously been a personal opinion, and clearly not an objective fact... just like everyone's opinion on the Beatles in here. "They weren't the best musicians around" would also be a subjective opinion, in the same way. People being upset that others don't like the Beatles seems a bit more extreme than my personally finding them to have been fairly untalented songwriters...

Little_Miss_1565
08-07-2009, 03:15 PM
I'm not upset, haha.

But I don't get how ANY of this entire discussion is anything but subjective. My saying they weren't talented musicians should have obviously been a personal opinion, and clearly not an objective fact... just like everyone's opinion on the Beatles in here. "They weren't the best musicians around" would also be a subjective opinion, in the same way. People being upset that others don't like the Beatles seems a bit more extreme than my personally finding them to have been fairly untalented songwriters...

The state of being a talented musician is wholly not subjective. You may not like the music they produce, but they remain talented. The level at which they are talented is more subjective, but still not very when you consider things like how talented one has to be to have so much nuance in their arrangements and structures. Whether or not you like them has nothing to do with the fact that some of the best studio musicians in the world constantly go back to their songs as 'lessons.'

Unrelated but also a peeve of mine: people coming in saying that any other band could have done the same thing. Well, maybe -- but they didn't.

Paint_It_Black
08-07-2009, 03:23 PM
The state of being a talented musician is wholly not subjective. You may not like the music they produce, but they remain talented. The level at which they are talented is more subjective

Took the words right out of my mouth. Please give them back when you're done. Thanks.

Llamas
08-07-2009, 04:18 PM
Bah, it's so subjective. There are no right and wrong answers to talent in the arts. One can make an argument that ANY artist is talented, as long as it's well-argued. Ballet dancers argue that modern dancers aren't talented, classical musicians argue that rock musicians aren't talented... it's all opinion. There's no way of proving talent factually; any artist can be considered talented by the right argument.

Paint_It_Black
08-07-2009, 04:27 PM
No, you just have to agree on what the definition of talent is and then you can objectively state who does and does not have talent. The only real difficulty would be in trying to rate one talented person against another, essentially deciding who has the most talent. Though it is still possible to do so objectively. You just have to agree on the criteria beforehand. The problem is that people define talent differently and tend to be rather biased towards artists they like.

Llamas
08-07-2009, 04:37 PM
In my opinion, the Beatles were talented in writing lyrics, talented in group chemistry, talented in energy and atmosphere, talented in perseverance. However, on the grand scale of musicianship, the members of the Beatles rank right around average as far as actually playing their instruments goes. I'm sorry you guys don't agree with this, but it is subjective. Everyone judges artistic talent in different ways and off different criteria. I could give my argument for why I consider them not talented musically, but I'd just get arguments back for why other people consider them talented, and it'd just be a bunch of subjective opinion.

Paint_It_Black
08-07-2009, 04:52 PM
I think the only problem is when you come right out and say "not talented". That implies no talent at all, and I think that's what people disagree with. I don't think you're trying to say they had no musical talent whatsoever, and yet that is kinda what you keep saying.

Edit: What is your definition of talent anyway? You may just use a different definition than I do.

Little_Miss_1565
08-07-2009, 04:59 PM
In my opinion, the Beatles were talented in writing lyrics, talented in group chemistry, talented in energy and atmosphere, talented in perseverance. However, on the grand scale of musicianship, the members of the Beatles rank right around average as far as actually playing their instruments goes. I'm sorry you guys don't agree with this, but it is subjective. Everyone judges artistic talent in different ways and off different criteria. I could give my argument for why I consider them not talented musically, but I'd just get arguments back for why other people consider them talented, and it'd just be a bunch of subjective opinion.

You're a cool person and all, but I get really frustrated when it comes to most discussion with you on the forum because this straight doesn't make sense. Are they not talented, or are they average? And if they're average, they're average at playing instruments as compared to all the other people who have ever played those instruments, which is about par for the course for a rock/pop band -- as opposed to the average joe walking down the street. And considering most people haven't any experience musically, that's a bgi distinction to make. That said, having more musical experience than Joe Schmo automatically makes them talented.

It does not, however, make them the greatest most technically precise musicians the world has ever seen and will ever see again, which no one is arguing.

And none of this changes anything that they've already accomplished, so it's really useless to try and argue that they're a worthless band. They changed pop music irrevocably now and forever, whether you like it or not. End.

Thomas
08-07-2009, 06:52 PM
Unrelated but also a peeve of mine: people coming in saying that any other band could have done the same thing. Well, maybe -- but they didn't.

This is what I was trying to say before, except worded in a much simpler, more eloquent way.


Took the words right out of my mouth. Please give them back when you're done. Thanks.


I'm totally stealing this to use IRL.

WebDudette
08-07-2009, 07:29 PM
Sex Pistols and the Dead Kennedy's were so insanely influential in the punk scene. With out them some of my favorite bands (Have Heart, Touché Amoré, Ceremony) would have never existed.

That said, I fucking despise the Sex Pistols and I could easily go the rest of my life without hearing a Dead Kennedy's song.

Bob Dylan, another revolutionary artist. He influenced countless people, in fact he had a pretty significant influence on the Beatles. But so many people just plain don't like him.

What about all the other bands who influenced the Beatles?

Yes, they are a big deal. No, everyone doesn't have to like and respect them.

Yes, they are talented artists. No, they are not the greatest musicians, but like The Offspring they are perfectly capable of playing their type of music.

I can't help but think this is just another Nirvana argument.

Yoko killed Lennon!

Little_Miss_1565
08-07-2009, 10:11 PM
Sex Pistols and the Dead Kennedy's were so insanely influential in the punk scene. With out them some of my favorite bands (Have Heart, Touché Amoré, Ceremony) would have never existed.
...
Yes, they are a big deal. No, everyone doesn't have to like and respect them.


It sounds to me that while you don't like the Sex Pistols, you respect the influence they had. Which is all anyone is trying to say about the Beatles.

I also think a lot of these arguments get sidetracked and dragged on a bit in the semantics, which I feel more passionate about than the actual meat of the argument.

Llamas
08-07-2009, 11:02 PM
I respect the influence the Beatles had. I've said that multiple times... that's not the only thing you guys want.

I guess we had some confusion about what "not talented" implied. I did mean "average". I suppose when I say someone is talented, it means they are above average. I would never say someone who is average at something is talented at it. That's just logical to me. They are average as far as people who write/play songs go.

And I still don't see anyone who's claimed the Beatles are a worthless band...

_Lost_
08-07-2009, 11:07 PM
Unrelated but also a peeve of mine: people coming in saying that any other band could have done the same thing. Well, maybe -- but they didn't.
This.

If another band could have done it, than they would have, but the Beatles had the right sound, the right vibe, and damn good timing. Thus, they are the building block that started the construction of modern music as we know it today.

People say that the Rollingstones could have done it, but I don't believe that at all. They are icons in their own right, but they are very different from the Beatles and thats why they didn't catch on in the same way. I've even heard that said about the Who, which is just ridiculus. They're amazing, don't get me wrong, but they changed the music scene in a different way.

Paint_It_Black
08-08-2009, 04:17 AM
I would never say someone who is average at something is talented at it.

You're saying that the Beatles are average when compared to other musicians. Not average compared to the general populace. That's why someone who is average amongst their peers can still very logically be considered talented, because they are talented compared to the average human being.



I also think a lot of these arguments get sidetracked and dragged on a bit in the semantics

That's why I suggested certain people should give us their definition of what talent means to them. I really think some of us are operating on slightly different definitions.

Llamas
08-08-2009, 11:00 AM
My god when did you become me? I thought I was supposed to be the one who nit picks at and argues about tiny little things that don't really matter :P

Desperado
08-08-2009, 05:28 PM
The idea of being good is 100% subjective. By definition objective means "based on facts". And since talent is how good you are at something, it is ALL opinion. There is absolutely no way to state for a fact if a musical artist is superior to another, no matter how ridiculous an opinion may seem, it's still not any more factual than another one.

Paint it Black said to define talent, and in my eyes talent is creativity and how well you can express it. Once again, that's all subjective and opinion. Just because a majority of the world doesn't make it any more true, just a more common opinion.

Well, actually if you define talent for a sport as being "able to score as many goals as possible" than you can objectively say how much talent they have. Or for musicians if you say "able to be as popular/acclaimed as possible" you can also objectively define it. But if your criteria is being "good musicians" there is no way to be objective. And most people assume talent with being good.

Little_Miss_1565
08-08-2009, 07:50 PM
Well there's good and there's good at what they do. Good is totally subjective, but good at what they do isn't so - saying the latter conveys that a person can step outside themselves and evaluate using a different set of circumstances. What I think this discussion is more an example of is the habit of some people to condemn things they don't like for the sole reason that they don't like them. It's a bit shortsighted.

Paint_It_Black
08-09-2009, 07:10 AM
By definition objective means "based on facts".

Great.


talent is how good you are at something, it is ALL opinion.

Ok, so all we need to do is make a poll to see what the majority opinion is.


There is absolutely no way to state for a fact if a musical artist is superior to another, no matter how ridiculous an opinion may seem, it's still not any more factual than another one.

Actually, if we utilize the poll I already suggested, you can. If a poll was to reveal that the majority consider the Beatles to be talented, then it is factually correct to say that the majority opinion is that the Beatles are talented. Then, since you state that talent is all opinion, you can even say that the Beatles are talented and call it a fact because you have now proved it using the only criteria so far supplied for judging talent: opinion.

Talent is not all a matter of opinion though. It can be tested, but the test has to be well chosen to correspond to the particular talent. A singer's talent could be tested by carefully measuring vocal range and such things. By carefully testing various aspects of a talent and then also taking into account the opinions of an audience you could come up with an acceptable ranking of the most talented individuals.

Talent is like beauty. It is subjective, it is opinion, it is in the eye of the beholder. But you can still reach the most objective consensus possible and go with it. Just sayin'.


My god when did you become me? I thought I was supposed to be the one who nit picks at and argues about tiny little things that don't really matter :P

Nah, you're the one who repeatedly avoids a question and makes seemingly contradictory statements. I've always been the one who argues about tiny things that don't matter. Ask anyone.

Llamas
08-09-2009, 11:57 AM
I don't see how defining talent makes a difference. And I don't see where I'm contradicting myself.

Here are a couple definitions of talent that I like:

- a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity
- A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
- Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.

And I believe that if you don't have the natural innate ability, once learned, it should appear natural. If I'm to consider someone musically talented (which means talent at playing the instruments, not including song writing, lyrics, etc, etc), they need to make it seem fairly natural/easy. Every time I hear the Beatles - especially live - they made tons of errors and never seemed fully comfortable with their instruments. It never seemed remotely innate for them.

Now you have my definition. I know you won't agree with my definition, but I don't really care... it IS an opinion, and I grew tired of this Beatles topic quite a while ago. Can we leave this alone now?

Llamas
08-09-2009, 04:48 PM
I would also like to mention that I may respect the Beatles less than others solely due to the fact that they altered POP music as we know it... but there are plenty of genres and styles that I love that the Beatles have had absolutely no influence over. I don't believe that they rescued people from a hellishly bad music scene... it's certainly cool and respectable that they brought about a style that has been built upon for decades, but this isn't like they invented the lightbulb or the car. However, I'll say it again just so it's clear, I do respect the Beatles, quite a bit actually. But I don't praise them or think they were gods.

Paint_It_Black
08-10-2009, 07:03 AM
And I don't see where I'm contradicting myself.

1565 pointed it out already. Just go back and look if you want to.



Now you have my definition. I know you won't agree with my definition, but I don't really care... it IS an opinion, and I grew tired of this Beatles topic quite a while ago. Can we leave this alone now?

Yes, I can leave it alone now. You have now clearly explained your opinion and validated it by explaining what talent means to you and why the Beatles don't fit your definition. I was never really bothered by the fact that I don't agree with you. I was bothered by the way you were saying it. If you had put it like that sooner I wouldn't have kept poking at you.

T-6005
08-10-2009, 07:09 AM
It's cool that I hardly ever feel the need to quantify my statements down to the smallest detail.

Paint_It_Black
08-10-2009, 07:17 AM
It's only necessary if your statement is going to run contrary to the norm.

T-6005
08-10-2009, 07:21 AM
It's only necessary if your statement is going to run contrary to the norm.

I don't think you understood what I meant when I said "quantify."

And the word "cool" is so subjective BY DEFINITION

Paint_It_Black
08-10-2009, 07:28 AM
*bows down*

Touché.

Llamas
08-10-2009, 08:54 AM
I don't get what you meant, T... explain?

T-6005
08-10-2009, 09:44 AM
I don't get what you meant, T... explain?

Life's hard when you're getting bullied psychologically.

XYlophonetreeZ
08-10-2009, 06:12 PM
The Beatles were engineers, not artists. They were really, really good engineers. Well, George was more of an artist, more of a feeler than a thinker, but Lennon and McCartney wrote armed with extremely deep understandings of pop song structures. They knew the rules so well that they could gauge exactly how far to bend them to sound just interesting enough without losing their identity with pop culture. Then once they got to the point where they virtually defined pop culture, they could get as experimental as they wanted. Most of their songs are as formulaic as anything, but they built them up in ways that make them sound fresh and original. They were masters at throwing in a single unexpected chord into otherwise predictable progressions, using playful lyrics to invite listeners into sonically inaccessible realms, and tons of other tricks. They did those tricks better than anyone. It's a form of talent and one that still often amazes me. So yeah, I think the Beatles were good.

nameless
08-12-2009, 03:50 PM
popular music is all down to trends, thats whats makes or breaks some groups in the pop world!