MovieChat Forums > Nowhere Boy (2009) Discussion > I hate the beatles...

I hate the beatles...

posted 14 years ago by Monsieur_Arkadin
171 replies | jump to latest

However this film looks interesting.

I quite enjoyed "Across the Universe", (as a one time watch only.)

But overall I cannot stand the band. They do nothing for me whatsoever, which is only made worse by the obligatory Beatle-love everyone seems to believe in.

I don't mind if someone likes the Beatles, so I get frustrated when people seem so offended that I dislike them.

I understand that they were innovative, fun, and great for their time, but in my mind they have been surpassed, and that doesn't necessarily apply to modern times.

---
Jack White killed a man with his bare hands.... While singing and playing guitar.

[–] Iwanakickyourass 14 years ago

You don't know music my friend.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 14 years ago

I understand you, and I wish the 95% of Beatles fans would too.

1411 > 192 ~mrsV

[–] scottrot-1 14 years ago

I'm not saying you're wrong, nor do I feel offended as a Beatles fan, but I'm just curious.

In your opinion, they are surpassed by whom?

[–] Shattered_Wake 13 years ago

Elvis, Chuck Berry, & The Who easily surpass the Beatles.

-AP3-

Horror Reviews, News & Tidbits: www.twitter.com/HorrorFlash

[–] gray_pixel 13 years ago

LOLLLLL

[–] dannylectro-1 13 years ago

As much as I love Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry, how could they have surpassed The Beatles? Berry and Presley predated The Fabs by nearly a decade.

[–] disturbedtool68 13 years ago

Elvis didnt write his songs and the post army Elvis never measured up to the pre army Elvis

Chuck Berry was rocks first poet and he re-wrote how you play guitar, especially blues.
But his songs were all basic 3 chord 12 bar songs and he ran out of gas.

The Who never reached the musical heights the Beatles reached.

And Townsend stole the opening of Pinball Wizard got the idea of a concept album from the Pretty Things SF Sorrow album

The Beatles finished their career with arguably their best album Abbey Road.

===

listening to:

[–] sandancer123 11 years ago

What a load of crap...but come on get real, The Beatles were !!!

[–] EpsilonX 10 years ago

I like Elvis and Chuck Berry, but they don't have nearly the variety and amount of great songs that The Beatles did, so I don't see that. The Who could be debatable, though i'm personally not a big fan of them.

[–] ringospencer 9 years ago

In what way did Chuck Berry, Elvis and the Who surpass The Beatles? Yes, Berry and Elvis did influence The Beatles, somewhat, but, musically, they disappeared in the 60's.
Berry and Elvis owned the 50's rock & roll era. However, in the 60's, Berry's music was fading. Elvis, decided to make movies and release the soundtracks. His last number one was in '61 with It's Now or Never. He had to wait until '69 to get his last number one (Suspicious Minds). As for The Who, besides Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia, what other great albums did they produce? Yes, they were great in concert, but in the studio, compared to The Beatles, they were a far second.

As for me, I like Elvis's music, as well as Chuck Berry's. Even like some of The Who's music. Also, yes, I enjoy The Beatles' music as well.

But really, from 1962-70, no other band, in that amount of time, could have released such great albums as they did. How many bands now could do the same? How many bands could have influenced as many groups as they did?

I have a nephew who plays guitar (24 yrs old) in a band and he loves classic rock. Over the years I have told him stories of concerts I have seen and records I have bought. I mention Elvis and he laughs. He doesn't take him seriously because he wasn't a musician or did he write his music. As for Berry, he didn't mind some of his music, because of the guitar licks. Yes, he doesn't care for The Who too much. He likes a few songs but that's about it. As for The Beatles, he enjoys their music, thinks it's good.

So, there you go. No matter, you have a right to your own opinion, and I respect that. However, the next time you make a statement like that, try and back it up with a bit of evidence. Not saying you are wrong, but then again, not saying you are right, either.

[–] Bastard_Samurai 14 years ago

you have an opinion that differs from the general consensus; good for you, you're special.

you..are..ze..MIDDLE PIECE

[–] Lespaul2360 14 years ago

surpassed by who? what band since The Beatles has been more important, more innovative, more vital to culture and the global conversation? in short, what band since The Beatles has literally changed music?

nobody has. The Beatles are the greatest and most profound musical artists since the creation of rock n' roll.

[–] rocknroll6483 14 years ago

Bingo.

[–] keith66-1 14 years ago

Most people, and I mean 99%, that tell me they don't like The Beatles have generally poor taste in music. There reasons usually range from "they're old," to "they suck" or "their music is gay!" Occasionally somebody with good taste in music will not like them, but it's very rare.

[–] vargula 14 years ago

But why hate them?

The continued fascination of many is simple to explain. The sounds those people made back in the 1960's moved people - it made sense in their lives - and for some strange reason this effect still has resonance across the world even now.

Yes it was such a long time ago, but then again Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were long time ago too - and they continue to move (some) lives. It really doesn't matter, it just happens.

As for all the Beatles interest - its now nearly 50 years on and people are still discovering those recordings. And if you go to Abbey Road Studios in London - you will see the pilgrims every day from across the world gazing at the studio.

Worthless rubbish does not attract this attention, there must have been some substance, some integrity to have that lasting value.

So, don't hate, its not of any consequence. Perhaps its obvious to say the other people are just "getting" something you are not. To return to the imdb subject "Nowhere Boy" is just an early chapter in an amazing series of developments.

[–] Saturnfly 13 years ago

That's a pretty irrational and generalizing statement.

You claim that those who don't like The Beatles have a poor taste in music. Have you thought maybe that's so because they have a *different* taste in music?

I like some of The Beatles music, but not all of it. But that's not because I have a sucky taste, it just means that genre doesn't affect me as much as it would someone who likes it.

[–] dannylectro-1 13 years ago

Those with good taste who do not care for The Beatles are often people whose tastes skew towards non-rock styles, such as classical or jazz.

[–] Hancockenstein 12 years ago

I'm in the 1% I guess, they "don't do anything for me" as the OP says either. i'm not going to bash them or say I hate them because I don't, or tell someone to turn it off. That's me 15 or so years ago when I was just some non-conformist little douchebag going out of my way to try obscure bands first. Now I'm in my 30's, very tolerant of others' tastes, have very broad collection and listen to bands 15 year old me would probably make fun of for, along with music that the little bastard me would approve of. I just have so much other music that I'd rather listen to than The Beatles.

As for having "good" taste I listen to a few bands that are just utterly terrible if you go by what most people say about them. A good example would be The Misfits, in what they're trying to convey and how they do it. I'm pretty sure I've listened to them more than any other band in my life so far and I have very broad taste. I won't bother describing them most have probably heard them. Or Neutral Milk Hotel would be a more current band I imagine some would have a hard time calling "good".

This is not necessarily directed at you, really only reminded me of countless and usually worse snobby comments I've heard over the years from Beatles fans. I guess what I'm trying to say in way too many words is that it's still surprising how grown adults can be so dismissive to each other over something so subjective like music. It's all pretty much free or dirt cheap now, it's hard to not be exposed to so many different sounds. Innovation and musical talent on a technical level is great and all but people listen to what they listen to for all sorts of reasons. Maybe he's just thinking out loud and doesn't mean much by it but the OP sounds just as unecessarily confrontational and closed-minded, it's a bit silly

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tdzz1 14 years ago

Explain to me how the Beatles changed music? Until Jim Morrison and the Doors came along the Beatles were singing "I want to hold your hand" and the Rolling Stones were still ripping off Black artists from the US.Until the members of the Beatles and the Stones saw the Doors at the Whiskey A Go Go they were playing *beep* I like the Beatles as singles artists much more than as a group. At the time there were better bands playing the kind of music the Beatles were famous for supposedly creating (as apposed to copying)but Beatles fans turned myopia into an art form and attributed the whole era to them. Take off the rose colored glasses kids.

[–] sevadaj 14 years ago

tdzz1, you don't know anything about the Beatles, they did some things in the studio that were revolutionary for that time. As far as your statement about the Beatles only singing "I want to hold your hands" until the Doors came along is ridiculous, by the time the Doors came along, they have recorded such albums as Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. After that there was the White Album, Let It Be and Abby Road.

"All we are saying is give peace a chance" John Lennon

[–] ccr1633 14 years ago

sevadaj - I agree with you in general, but your timeline is off. The self-titled debut of The Doors (a great album) was released in January 1967, well before Sgt Peppers. But you're right, it's absurd to say that it was The Doors that inspired the Beatles toward more substantial material. Bob Dylan deserves far more credit for that. In fact, I'd say that Bob Dylan is at least as important as The Beatles so far as pushing the envelope of 60's music, maybe even more important in the lyrical realm. I'd tell you to ask Jimi Hendrix's opinion if he were alive.

[–] sevadaj 14 years ago

Hello ccrl1633, yes I am aware that the Doors first album was in January of '67, Sgt. Peppers came out in June 0f '67, Revolver August 0f '66 and Rubber Soul was release in December of '65. I was just trying to point out that the Beatles have recorded many songs since "I want to hold your hand"

"All we are saying is give peace a chance" John Lennon

[–] gasdreamer-1 12 years ago

Exactly, and those are very psychedelic albums.

[–] Blackberry413 14 years ago

Beatles influenced by the Doors? Hardly. Revolver was already halfway in the can, which of course set the stage for Sgt. Pepper's and the "psychedelic" latter half of the Beatles' recording career... BEFORE the Doors AUDITIONED at the WAGG. So, tell me how did the Doors change things up for the Beatles?

Hey, the Doors were great, but you obviously don't know much about the Beatles. The fact that you are more a fan of their singles suggests you don't have an in-depth appreciation of their recordings.

[–] siope_chariie 14 years ago

You can do a bit of your own research and see tons of ways they changed music and were the first band to use an idea that is now commonplace.

[–] FScottFitzhemingway 14 years ago

You do not know what you are talking about; "I Want to Hold your Hand" was released in 1963. There were no Doors then, Morrison was still living in FL. They did not have an album released until 1967 you bonehead. This was after "Pepper" was released, you might of heard of that album? you Jackwaggon...

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CCRider01 14 years ago

"Explain to me how the Beatles changed music? Until Jim Morrison and the Doors came along the Beatles were singing "I want to hold your hand" and the Rolling Stones were still ripping off Black artists from the US"

Wrong. If anything Jim Morrison and The Doors (like most up and coming American artists of that time) were just as much, if not more inspired by The Beatles than the other way around. By the time The Doors were playing The Whisky in 1966, The Beatles had long since left their "I Want To Hold Your Hand" days, by the time of Rubber Soul in 1965 and then Revolver in 1966, Lennon and McCartney were already becoming serious song writers.

If The Beatles were inspired by any 1960's American artist it was probably Bob Dylan. The Beatles were also inspired by 1950's Black artist as the first two Beatles albums contained songs by their own "idols" such as Chuck Berry and The Isley Brothers. Unlike these great black artist though, The Beatles did not stagnate, and used their influences purely as a stepping stone (like any great artist) to progress their music.

How did The Beatles change music? Lets count the ways.

1. Innovative song structures and chords, ie strayed away from Verse, Verse, Chorus etc, and used song elements such as diminished chords and off beat progressions, which WERE very innovative for pop songs of their time.

2. First musical use of recorded feedback (also starts the song)

3. The first Heavy Metal song??? Helter Skelter

4. Inspired countless people to pick up the guitar, some who would become the greats of the 1960's and 1970's.

5. The use of multi track recording (Sgt Pepper). Just think what came before it, after that record, it was tidal wave of creativity in the music industry.
Not sure if The Beatles were the actual first to use 4 and 8 track recording on a pop song, but if not, they were pioneers none the less, who along with The Beach Boys, used it to great effect and possibilities. Automatic double tracking WAS invented for use by The Beatles.

6. Use of exotic instruments in pop songs,such as The sitar, Mellotron, synthesizer and harpsichord. Way ahead of the pack.

7. Technical aspects such as flanging, tape looping, backward recording, and the slowing of tape speed to sync two separately recorded parts into the same key. Very, very innovative for its time.

8. The self contained pop/rock group. This was perhaps The Beatles greatest "gift" to the music world, as it proved that not only could a small band of musicians do it all, but it could do it extremely well. Song writing, singing, recording, and playing of all (or almost all) of the instruments, was something that before The Beatles was just not accepted. You had song writers, you had singers, and you musicians, but NOT all three done amazingly well by one group. Again, The Beatles might not have been the first, but they sure revolutionized or made popular this concept.

9. Were responsible for elevating the pop/rock album to art form status. Before The Beatles, pop albums were not taken too seriously. The Beatles have 4 of the top 10 albums on Rolling Stone magazine's "500 Greatest Albums of All Time" list. Despite the passage of 40-50 years, and hundreds of thousands of new albums, The Beatles still occupy 40% of the Top 10.

10. The merging of various musical genres. Pop, rock, country, R&B, folk.

11. Not standing pat. Before (and after) The Beatles, artist would settle on a style or formula, which would become their trademark sound or style. The Beatles were the first major Pop/Rock band that could not be pigeon holed this way by the public or music industry.

12. Lennon/McCartney. Enough said. The greatest (most commercially successful and prolific) song writing partnership in human history. Consider this fact. All these great Beatles songs were written and recorded over 7 measly years. Most "artists" of today, would be lucky to produce one really good album and a couple of semi decent songs in the same time span.

Other than this, The Beatles did little to change music.

[–] chrismartonuk-1 13 years ago

Joe Meek probably pioneered innovative multi-track recording in Britain at least. This would be before the Beatles came along. Unfortunately, he had to be dead many decades before been recognised.

[–] buddyboy28 9 years ago

They definetly weren't the first singers/songwriters/musicians, Buddy Holly and The Crickets were. But I agree that The Beatles probably made that concept more popular considering Holly's very brief career.

My life fades... the vision dims... all that remains are memories

[–] CCRider01 7 years ago

They definetly weren't the first singers/songwriters/musicians, Buddy Holly and The Crickets were

Some of the other members of the Crickets did contribute to song writing, but Buddy Holly was the primary song writer on Cricket written songs, and all three studio albums contained SIGNIFICANT outside song writers. From the very first proper studio album, Lennon & McCartney were the primary song writers, and after a couple of albums, The Beatles were the sole song writers for the rest of their career.

[–] kryp44 14 years ago

tdzz you are a blithering idiot. Rubber Soul and Revolver had changed the face of rock and roll before the over rated Doors came along. Get a clue nitwit.

[–] KeyserSoze888 14 years ago

hahaha, what? Clearly, you don't know of the great period of 'Rubber Soul' and 'Revolver' that all came before the Doors were even a band together. Not to mention that the Doors 'Soft Parade' is a 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' attempt. Just listen to 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and tell me they were still singing 'I want to hold your hand.'

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 13 years ago

Hating them does nothing to them 50% of whom are dead anyway, the hatred only eats away at you, but I do understand because hatred and bitterness rule the world.

Nothing is more beautiful than Oscar Levant.

[–] joeydoa 14 years ago

whoa, someone has a seriuosly lacking history of rock music. okay... rubber soul 1965 complex multi layered song construction, Revolver 1966 (check out Tomorrow Never Knows and I'm Only Sleeping) ... also check out MC5 circa 1965, check out the Who's LP My Generation (the Proto Punk LP) 1965, ehh the Yardbirds, the Kinks in 1966 with the first rock concept LP 'Face to Face' also the Velvet Underground & Nico 1967, and Pink Floyd and Beatles were recording next to each other at abbey road producing the top two psychadelic LP's of all time - SGT Pepper & Piper at Gates of Dawn. I refer you to the definitive rock music bible 'Please Kill Me' by Legs McNeil and McCain - with eyewitness testimony of his peers tell of what a pathetic person Morrison was. Of course let's not forget the band Love or the 13th floor elevators - I could go on an on but I am not being paid to give a free lesson is rock n roll history.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bastard_Samurai 14 years ago

The Beatles are the greatest and most profound musical artists since the creation of rock n' roll.

Wrong.

you..are..ze..MIDDLE PIECE

[–] JNagarya 14 years ago

You offer no suggestions as alternatives. And we know why: You haven't any.

The most literate of rock and rollers before The Beatles was Chuck Berry. But it was The Beatles who MATURED the music. That's why after The Beatles everyone went into freakiness, and splintered into numerous pseudo-"genre": because they couldn't compete in terms of talent; couldn't reach the bar set by The Beatles. So they had to distract attention away from those facts.

Who originated so-called "heavy metal"? Those in the know will argue it was The Kinks -- or The Yardbirds. Those of subsequent generations haven't a clue what any of that means.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] goodfellas30 14 years ago

Haha you're an idiot, Samurai

Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the cross-hairs and take them down - Rushmore (1998)

[–] rob_barton 14 years ago

Isn't Bastard Samurai priceless..

He's learnt how to cut and paste other people's comments, but he has nothing to say which borders on being original..He must have learnt to walk upright the very same morning..How cute..And his ID; isn't it just so post-modern and daring..

Having only just registered with IMDB, I can hardly wait to catch up with more of his witty and erudite postings..Woo hoo...

[–] Zoso_pageIV 14 years ago

The Beatles were not the best songwriters in the world. or the most influential people on music ever. They were the greatest of their time, and the modern day. However, I think we can all agree that Mozart was and is the most influential individual on music, and the greatest writer in the world. Where do you think music progressed from?

[–] alex8039-1 14 years ago

Yes thanks to all the changes we now have Kesha and Soulja Boy.

[–] PM_Antunes 14 years ago

What about Queen? Or the king Michael Jackson?

Just sayin'...

«Please, don't fear the darkness. It's always the light that reveals us the monsters.» - 'Nightlight' by P.M. Antunes

[–] ashley2002 14 years ago

Queen is great but they didn't form until '71 and there probably wouldn't have been Queen if there wasn't The Beatles.

Also, I've never been a huge fan of Michael Jackson. I like Billie Jean, and that's about it. Also, Elvis is the king not Jackson.

[–] andras-andreea 11 years ago

Queen's good but there are many rock bands and musicians that are far better and had more inpact on music (The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Velvet Underground/Lou Reed, David Bowie, Elton John, Jimi Hendrix and the list goes on. I myself prefer rock even though I like lots of other genres but I think MJ was better than Queen). I think Queen was the first rock band I liked but it's nowhere near The Beatles. Freddie was one in a million though. What an extraordinary singer! I think he was a better singer than any of the beatles but their songs would have sounded weird had they been sung by Freddie (and it goes the other way around too).

[–] Shattered_Wake 13 years ago

You're asking specifically for a band. That's your problem. ELVIS is the man who changed music. Had it not been for Elvis, the Beatles wouldn't have been able to make it the way they did.

-AP3-

Horror Reviews, News & Tidbits: www.twitter.com/HorrorFlash

[–] xtiffany 13 years ago

Bob Marley.

[–] colin-220 12 years ago

Well said Sir Les ......... OP doesn't know his ar*e from his elbow

[–] icikle 11 years ago

The Spice Girls....think about it ;)

There are two classes of men. Intelligent without religion, and religious without intelligence.

[–] ErikHai 10 years ago

Be serious. Lots of musicians besides the Beatles have had a huge impact of R&R music. Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry seem obvious, but since you want post Beatles acts I'd suggest the Sex Pistols and Bauhaus as just two examples. I've got nothing against the Beatles, they were a superb band, but I've never bought into this myth of them as the greatest band of all time.

[–] activista 8 years ago

@Lespaul2360

Whoa, hold on---there have been many artists since the Beatles that have changed music-----innovation, creativity and good songwriting didn't begin or end with them,or with rock 'n roll for that matter. I grew up listening to the Beatles (and my stepdad was a Beatles fan----one time one summer a long time ago one Saturday morning,the local rock radio station played virtually all the Beatles' songs from A to Z literally all day (it was house cleaning day for the whole family) and as much as I liked the Beatles, I almost hated them that day because of having to hear every last one of their songs, but I recovered. That's being said, they are overrated to huge extent----they weren't the only group of their era to write and play their own songs (the Dave Clark Five,Pink Floyd and The Who,in particular)or to do innovative things.

[–] deafscot 14 years ago

What I don't understand about you. How can you hate the band before you were born? You can hate them if they never split and they are still alive. Nope they let the Beatles died in April 1970. It's better not to like them (positive) but not hate them (negative).

[–] BaltimoreColtsForLife 14 years ago

The only thing I'm wondering is what everyone else has already asked about; surpassed by whom??

I'm not offended by anyone who dislikes them, but I do get frustrated when people say they hate them. Another thing that annoys me is people who pull the whole "they're overrated" or "they've been surpassed" or "I hate them because everyone acts like you have to like them, and I want to be different".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3haYAbqKjA

[–] AnnieBell 14 years ago

They're ok, but I think most of it is hype that a lot of people have bought into.

AnnieBell

Perfect Love casts out all fear.

[–] JNagarya 14 years ago

This is the "hype" that _I_ "bought into," child:

I first heard Beatles records late at night, in October, 1963, while doing AM DXing. I doubt you know what that means.

They were being played on a Chicago radio station, because the first records of theirs released in the US were on Chicago's (black-owned) VeeJay label.

I next heard "I Want to Hold Your Hand" beginning in early December, 1963, on a late-night AM radio program out of Boston, MA. The DJ said it was "the latest thing" in Britain. I especially liked the gritty-sounding guitar work. And it was as good as anything else being played.

It wasn't being played ANYWHERE else on the "regular" daytime AM programs; that DJ had a "special" program, running during the "graveyard shift" (that's wher I learned that term) of 11 PM to 7 AM, on which he played stuff not played elsewhere. (I first heard Joan Baez and Bob Dylan on his program. And he frequently played Ken Nordine -- look him up.)

He played it more and more in response to requests. Then, several weeks in, he play what he said was the "B"-side of it, "I Saw Her Standing There". (As it turned out it was actually the VeeJay LP release of that song, with the, "One-two-three-FAH!" intro.) That too began getting requests.

The "hype": The DJ ultimately said -- and I can still hear it -- "I don't think these guys are going anywhere." Nonetheless, "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was #1 on a number of NY AM stations when The Beatles flew in to appear on "The Ed Sullivan Show".

It wasn't "hype": it was people who actually LISTENED to music, heard that first record, and recognized it being at least as good as anything else being played, and were sufficiently curious to follow up. The entertainment industry was taken by surprise -- not those who listened to radio and music: "we" were already onto them.

It's those who WEREN'T there who fling the ahistorical, unfounded rejections -- based largely on jealousy -- about "hype" and the like. (Those a few years older than I immediately "hated" The Beatles. Why? Because -- though they wouldn't admit it -- they blew the crap they loved off the radio*.)
_____

*See if you can find "Dominque," by the French "Singing Nun," which was #1 during that December, or "Hooka Tooka," by Chubby Checker, which was #1 very shortly before The Beatles came. Just don't play them where I can hear them: I don't want to be simultaneously both driven insane and made to vomit.
_____

For most The Beatles came out of NOWHERE -- there was very little advance publicity about them before they appeared on Ed Sullivan. It was THAT APPEARANCE that blew so many millions away: they were simply superior to everything else happening. NO ONE played as freely and complexly, and with such energy, as they -- note, especially, McCartney's playing of the bass as a LEAD instrument. NO ONE was doing ANYTHING like that in music.

Nor was ANYONE playing anything REMOTELY NEAR what Lennon was playing on guitar. Watch any video (the first "Ed Sullivan Show" will do) of them, but focus on Lennon's strumming hand during any song: he plays different rhythms and kinds of strums at different times during the same song. NO rhythm guitarist was doing that at the time. (An example that gives the sound grit and edge is the UP-strum in "I Feel Fine". That wasn't done. And it is extremely difficult to do that while singing.

In addition, though 7th chords are endemic to and indicative of blues, especially, The Beatles used an extraordinary number of them -- even in "UP" songs such as "She's a Woman". 7ths give a slightly "discordant" sound; an edge; one can hear that in, as example, "She's a Woman," which begins right off with Lennon playing barred 7ths.

And then there was the fact that they, unlike 99.99 per cent of other rockers, WROTE THEIR OWN MATERIAL, AND PLAYED THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS.

[–] sevadaj 14 years ago

Right on JNagarya!!

"All we are saying is give peace a chance" John Lennon

[–] AnnieBell 14 years ago

I didn't say it was hype for all people. They are a good band, and people can love them for their own reasons. If you liked them pre-hype, then that's your taste in music.

AnnieBell

Perfect Love casts out all fear.

[–] BaltimoreColtsForLife 14 years ago

I have to thank you for your posts. It's always great to hear from someone who experienced the "hype" first hand. I wish I would've been lucky enough to have been around at that time, especially hearing from my aunt for example about how it was to be a Beatles fan back then.
Times have changed but not so much when it comes to The Beatles. Some call it hype, even to this day for some reason, and to others, like me, I can't stop listening.
Mind you I went the first 15 years of my life not knowing much about The Beatles, sure I'd hear some of the more popular songs here and there, and I knew the names Lennon and McCartney but I never really got into The Beatles. Ironically I blame the same "hype" everyone accuses them of being for my lack of interest in them through my early years.
I'd hear about them and knew they were an old band so I thought I could never like it, I could never relate or connect to music from the 60's. I can tell you now that Ignorance is not bliss, not in regards to The Beatles.

I was lucky enough to get stuck with an assignment in school one day about the peace rallies and activist groups in the 70's and through that I learned more about John Lennon. As I got into his music and became a bigger fan of his I thought if he's this great solo The Beatles couldn't have just been all hype. And if I can connect to his songs and recognize their beauty then I must really be missing out on something great.
And so I jumped on my computer and the first song I clicked on was My Life from Rubber Soul. Then I listened to Revolution, Nowhere Man, She Said She Said, Norwegian Wood, Tomorrow Never Knows....
Before I knew it I had gone through more songs than I could count or keep track of, I literally couldn't stop listening. I began to hear and understand why everyone talked about the influence they had over most modern artists.
So I bought some of their CD's and downloaded some of their songs. Got some from my Aunt, tried to build my collection. For five or so years I put up with not having the entire catalog and more importantly not having it all in the best quality, until the remasters came out.
Ever since then I have slowly gone through the entire collection of songs and as I've said before I can't stop listening, and it feels like every time I'm listening to them I am discovering something new.
It really is great music, and IMO it deserves all the praise it's gotten over the years. I actually feel stupid that at one point in my life I actually thought I could never connect to their music, or that I would never get it. It really is timeless, and 40 years later I would say it has definitely stood the test of time, each day people are discovering them the same way I did, and it's easier now with so much of the music being available on digital format and the new remasters.
So about seven years after only knowing the names Lennon and McCartney, and only hearing about albums like Hard Day's Night and Abbey Road I am now a fan, a big fan. I've read as much as I can, and watched as much as I can and of course I haven't stopped listening to the music. And it's always great to hear from more educated fans about them, people who lived in the era, who have been listening to them for more than six years. In my mind they are not surpassed and I doubt they ever can be, and I'm happy about that, because I could listen to The Beatles all day(I know this because I've done it lol).

So I hate it now when I hear the word hype in regards to The Beatles, thanks to the so called "hype" a lot of people avoid the music, they shy away from it and ignorantly say things like "I hate The Beatles" or "they're overrated" or "this band over here did it/does it better" or even worse "The Beatles suck".
Thanks to The Beatles I finally understand now; the fans don't create the hype, it's the ones who don't understand, they are the ones who label it hype, because they don't get it. Hype is something that isn't real, The Beatles are real and far from hype, people just need to take the time to try and understand. Notice I didn't say "like" I said "understand".
I however will continue to listen, to love, and to lose myself in their music, now that is bliss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3haYAbqKjA

[–] Zhow 14 years ago

The Singing Nun was Belgian. France has had enough crap in terms of music (although I don't want to put the blame on the nun, since she left the Church, turned into a rebel who criticized the inflexibility of religions, and commited suicide penniless with her female lover as she was hunted down by the IRS).
______________________________________
The higher you fly, the faster you fall.

[–] Gary_Allen 14 years ago

good singin'