Wonderlust is perhaps as bad an affliction as wanderlust - sinclair lewis
Ringo and Paul told me they weren't too fond of you, so there nah nah nah.
That's perfectly okay. Mutant life forms have a right to exist, too.Do you just not like the music or the hype? If it's hype, then I understand that much, but one has to get beyond the over-played singles. There is so much more to the group than their 45s.
Well, nobody's perfect.You had to have some skeleton in your closet.Hating the Fab Four is your only black mark as far as I'm concerned.
Good for you. Say it loud, say it proud.
a great weight has been liftedYou have to carry that weight.
Thank goodness! I was beginning to think I was the only one.
I forgive you.
Splotchy said what I was thinking.
I don't like them either, but I dod like saying this:"By George," said Paul, sitting on the John, "where did my Ringo?"
I think that was very brave.
They're okay, but everyone knows the Stones were better.
It's okay if you don't like the Beatles. Still, from a musical perspective, for a pop or rock group, their songs were far more structurally interesting than most other pop groups at the time, or since. Further, they wrote their own music, played their own instruments and were basically a garage band that made it big. That could never happen today. Look at Hannah Montana. They also changed the way music was recorded. Everybody recording music today owes a debt to The Beatles, as well as a few other people. Look at Jimi Hendrix; you may or may not care for his music, but he definitely changed the way people think about the electric guitar and how it is played. But, you don't have to like The Beatles music. It's okay. Really. I think I must be the only person in the world who never liked the Beach Boys. Ack!Randal: The Rolling Stones? Seriously? (Now I make a joke.) Did someone drop you on your head when you were an infant? (End of joke. Please take no offense.) They had their moments, but I'd say they're probably one of the most over-rated groups ever and were never anywhere near as innovative as The Beatles. It's like comparing apples and oranges, though. I don't think it's truly possible to say one group was better than another, only that one likes one group more than another. ; )
I'm deadly serious.Dead, corpse-y serious.Sure, the Beatles were probably more 'innovative' but Schoenberg was more innovative than, I don't know, Fauré. Yet I'd much rather listen to the latter. Same here. Rock and/or roll. ;-)
You are not alone. I liked them when I was 9 or 10 and they first came out with their cheery little songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." Later when they got more serious - and weird - they lost me. Once they went their separate ways, I always felt Paul McCartney's songs were extremely trite and repetitive (including some of the later Beatles songs he wrote, like Hey Jude). John was getting stranger and weirder hanging out with Yoko. George - and Ringo's - music I actually liked the best.But the Stones, Animals and Kinks were/are MUCH superior in terms of lyrics and music than the Beatles ever were.
it is ok if we disagree on this one point
I didn't intend to say that anyone ought to like the Beatles, (I like them well enough, but there's lots of music I like better) only that they were one of the most influential groups in the context of pop-music history. It wouldn't be any fun at all if everyone agreed with each other all the time. Besides, music is one of those things where it's impossible to say what's good and what isn't good, and it just doesn't matter. All that matters is whether you enjoy what you're listening to or not. And I apologize for making a joke at your expense, Randall. I was just trying to be silly.
I detested the Beatles - but then again, so did Paul McCartney and John Lennon. They spent the rest of their post Beatles career trying to prove that they could do other stuff - and they did some truly fantastic stuff - especially Lennon, but people kept getting hung up on the 60's stuff. I will agree that the Beatles music was far more structurally sophisticated than most pop music (although the Monkeys gave'em a run for their money!!). They were almost up to the level of advertising jingles!!Here's a clue about Beatlemania - the only people who think that the Beatles were music gods on some Mozartian level were all those baby boomers who grew up with them. The Beatles were the corner stone of their youth, and so must have been the greatest song writers in human history. You notice the same thing with The Simpsons. All those kids who have grown up watching it can't put it down. It's like some beat up toy that they have formed a neurotic attachment to. All the more shame, since I remember when the Simpson's used to be great, about 18 years ago.Incidentally there is some heated debate, within the conspiracy communtiy, as to whether the Beatles even wrote their own music post '66. From "She Loves You" to "Sgt Pepper" was a bit of a leap.
I had never considered not liking The Beatles before and thought I'd specify I liked such and such period better and went to a website of their musicology prepared to say I liked their later stuff better, but then saw on every single album and sometimes entire albums that are completely essential, so I'll say I love the Beatles. There. I've said it.I don't hold it against you that you don't. In fact, I appreciate the hour wasting reflection such a statement provoked. I think I need to get out more.
that's cool. not everybody likes music.... ;)
Post a Comment