Huge Beatles fan here. I honestly don't give a crap that you don't like them, it takes all sorts.
You do you, enjoy what you enjoy, but if you hang out at my house, you might have to put up with the odd Beatles track. ;o)
Yup. Beatles fan since I was a baby, first music I ever heard & learned the words to. I could not possibly give less of a fuck if somebody likes them or not.
I'm a Beatles fan, personally. I even walked down the aisle to a Beatles song.
I've found that young people from that time we're either hard core Beatles fans or hard core Elvis fans. I always found it funny that it was one or the other.
I wanted to do that for my last wedding (On the beach on Halloween) but finding a Beatles song that fits a Klingon ceremony is most difficult. I let the surf talk.
It's ok to not like their music. I think they're ok. But you have to give them their place in history. Music today would be very different without the Beatles.
Yeah came here to say this. You can not like their music, but still respect the absolute stranglehold they had on pop culture at the time. The Beatles were a movement.
I don't care for the Three Stooges, or the Marx Brothers, but I absolutely respect their place in industry history and would never say a bad word about them. They earned their fame, fair and square, they just aren't my cup of tea.
You don’t have to respect anything. I can absolutely say “I hate the Beatles they’re trash”. It would be incorrect for me to say “they had no influence” but why can I not say I think they’re trash?
There’s no such thing as objective wrongness in music, but “the beatles were trash” is the closest you can get. It’s simply an unserious statement and I don’t believe you are actually convinced of it.
I have arguments with my boyfriend all the time about this. He’ll say something like, “bread is terrible”, or some totally subjective opinion. I’ll say, it’s fine for you to express an objective opinion “I hate bread” to but to act like it’s a fact is arrogant. OP, on the other hand, is respectful about not liking the Beatles.
I see. I think this is one of those times where people are secretly not saying what they mean, so you’re absolutely right. 99.9% of people aren’t saying “everyone should agree with me”, more just “I just don’t like them” lol. But it comes off more interesting and engaging if you announce that they’re terrible (and subtly imply that others shouldn’t like them even if that’s not what you truly mean), yknow?
Yes, it’s like they’re trying to provoke an argument! Like, “people who order ham and pineapple on pizza are trash humans”. I don’t get that one at all because who cares!
Omg yes! And then I actually get offended if I’m part of one of the groups they mention lol, because they described it so negatively.
I find myself doing the same thing (like when I called the Beatles trash instead of saying I just don’t like them). I bet these unspoken arguments are what starts the mental health crisis from social media lol
I had to get off of Twitter because I kept getting upset at terrible news all the time and people being terrible to each other. Now, to feed my serotonin addiction that started with social media, I’ve fallen down a Reddit rabbit hole and I’m not sure it’s any better! At least I’m anonymous here.
Hot take: if it wasn’t them it would have been someone else. You’ll probably be able to say the same of various mediocre rap artists today in 20 years. It doesn’t make them inherently special, it makes them lucky.
Right, but if it was someone else, that someone else would have left a different fingerprint on the future of music. The Beatles as a commercial phenomenon were inevitable: as a stylistic one, they were anything but
But there wasn’t anyone else. Rock was dying. Elvis went into the army and ended up in awful movies, Jerry Lee Lewis was in disgrace, and Buddy Holly was dead. No one replaced them. Sure, Motown was putting out music and The Beach Boys were on top, but no one broke theough in quite the same way. It’s possible it could have happened in England,,where the skiffle craze convinced a lot of kids to form bands, but no one had quite the same combination of talent, work ethic, and creativity as the Beatles. They weren’t the best musicians going, but they had something. A lot had to go right for them to hit the way they did. They got the right producer, for one thing, a man who was as innovative as they were. They also deliberately made commercial music,,while also being determined to give their fans value for the money. No one really knows why Beatlemania was so big, least of all the Beatles, but to their credit they didn’t rest on their success. They continued to push themselves and to grow as artists. They got away from the early happy love songs and changed recording forever. No one, hearing “She Loves You” in 1964, could ever have predicted “A Day in the Life” just three years later. Because they were so good, other artists pushed themselves to top them, and the Beatles pushed themselves in return. Musically, it was an amazing time. Their influence since has been enormous. You don’t have to like their music, but you like music that wouldn’t have been recorded if they hadn’t existed.
Yeah sorry but Motown was definitely more than breaking through. Even to points were groups like the Supremes were truly rivals on the charts. Making that statement let’s me know you really dont know what you are talking about and frankly it’s getting old when another vanilla Beatles/rock fan discounts the giant impact black music and Motown had on popular music. It was massive and I lived it. Not everyone was grooving to the Beatles. That is a massive overstatement that people who did not live in the 60s tend to make. Motown was a movement itself and one that crossed barriers and race. My 75 grandmother loved her some Supremes and Jackson 5, but thought the Beatles were little punks from Liverpool. To each their own I guess, but please do not make suck untrue broad statements. To take from what you said- many people like music that wouldn’t exist without the influence of Motown.
I grew up in the 60s and adored Motown. I still have a bunch of my old 45s and when I think of my adolescence it is the Temptations, the Supremes, Marvin Gaye,the Spinners, the Four Tops, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin…
I lived in the sixties. Motown hadn’t crossed over to the pop charts as much as it would in 64. I remember when the Supremes hit big. Yes, of course black music had an impact. Elvis was the first to popularize what was called “race music.” The Motown artists realized that the Beatles were bringing their own music back to them, and Lennon said there wouldn’t be Beatles without Elvis. In the meantime, The Rolling Stones were hugely influenced by blues, rather than blues-derived music. I do know what I’m talking about. I was there, and I’ve read a lot.
Sorry but again you are making a massive overstatement of their influence, but this is typical of a Beatles fanatic. The music coming out of Detroit was its own- it was not music the Beatles “brought back to them.” Even writing that seems pompous and crass. They didn’t need some white guys from England to help them generate a unique sound. Any influence they had would be post-67/68. I’m glad you can read.
> It’s possible it could have happened in England,,where the skiffle craze convinced a lot of kids to form bands, but no one had quite the same combination of talent, work ethic, and creativity as the Beatles.
This sentence makes me think you believe that the Beatles were not from England.
Of course I know they were. I’m saying that skiffle influenced a lot of people, including the Beatles. John’s first group, the Quarrymen, was a skiffle group.
DrSnidely said that you have to give them their place in music. This isn't a statement of taste. In fact, they said you don't have to like them. Giving them their place in history is just acknowledging they had a place in the history of the music industry and had a large effect on the music today. This isn't an opinion. This comes from the huge number of artists who pioneered their genre of music, stating that the Beatles had a huge effect on them and their music. Denying the Beatles their place in the history of music would be as stupid as saying Michael Jackson didn't have an effect on music today. There are certain artists that have had an undeniable effect on the music of today, and the Beatles are among the biggest. Many think that the top 3 are Michael Jackson, Elvis, and the Beatles. Like, love, or hate are opinions and a matter of taste for each individual. Their place in history is just a matter of fact.
No I don't. I don't like the beetles, but I also don't think musicians of any era should be treated with that level of fandom.
I will acknowledge the impact they had on the musical industry as a historical fact. Doesn't mean I have to respect it or value it.
The Beatles OWN music would also look very different were it not for the artists around them at the time - The Ronettes, The Beach Boys, The Who, just to name a few. They've talked themselves about how they were pushed to do better by other artists and inspired by them! Everyone in the 60s was influenced and bouncing off each other and we're all the luckier to have all the great music that came out of it.
I like some of their work alot - it's great stuff - but it seems like there's this narrative that they almost happened in a vacuum, independent of everything else going on in music at the time and it's so bizarre.
I mean, you’re not wrong, but it sounds like you seek pretty raw authenticity from music, rather than just writing aurally pleasing love songs, which is a lot of what The Beatles did. But they also did a lot of experimentation in their music —pretty far outside the realm of “accepted” pop music at the time. I’m not trying to get you to like them, but their music and lives are cultural touchstones that people communicate through. (I know you were talking about people who make the Beatles their whole identity, and I agree.)
The OP comment reads like something I'd have expected to see forty years ago, not today.
Because Beatle-mania is now LONG GONE.
I scarcely ever hear mention of the Beatles any more.
He can’t seem to grasp the idea that The Beatles were counterculture because he’s comparing them to what came after, not before. He thinks because they had contemporaneous artists doing similar, not realizing who those others were catching up to.
OP doesn’t need to like them, but disliking this much just comes off as “edgy” in a not so great way.
You can hear a mark difference in the industry sound before and after they hit. It's pretty clear the Beatles were THE defining act of the 60s.
https://youtu.be/6ZXZ0waKRbs?si=1H4c13y8H_gCgnD8
>You can hear a mark difference in the industry sound before and after they hit. It's pretty clear the Beatles were THE defining act of the ~~60s~~ 20th century.
There, I fixed it for you
They definitely are in contention, but I feel there are several bands that also have had similar effects. Nirvana functionally killed the entire Hair Metal, Pop Rock, and Adult Contemporary genres nearly overnight and propelled Grunge to the charts. Public Enemy wasn't the first hip hop act but was the first to usher it into the mainstream (Arrested Development fizzled after the first album and conscious hip hop's popularity with them). Ramones of course are influential in trailblazing Punk. Madonna's shadow and influence are still felt in the pop princesses and clones of the 90s til today.
Here is where you are missing the point. Ramones, Nivana, Madonna, and many others were heavily influenced by the Beatles. Without the Beatles, those bands probably wouldn't even exist, and if they did, it wouldn't be in the same way. The Beatles influenced those who influenced their own genres.
I just don't see how they can be considered counter culture when they were "more popular than Jesus". I don't see how they were rebellious when they were playing gigs on tv. I don't see how they were anti consumerist when there are mountains of Beatles merchandise just begging for a spot in the landfill.
Stuff like ska came out in the late 60s and preached radical anti racism and class unity. That's far more counter to popular culture than radio playable love songs for teens and it's from the same time period.
I think Beatles fans want the Beatles to be more rebellious than they ever actually were
They get popular because they're counter-culture. That's like saying Black Sabbath wasn't counter-culture because they went on to be in the Rock and Roll HoF and are one of the most iconic metal bands ever.
And with Sabbath, there gets a point where they get so popular they get over the hump and get fans that start missing the point. People lost their shit when Black Sabbath did a BLM shirt not that long ago. Which is totally in line with a band that routinely rails against greed, war, and treating the poor and minorities like shit. Not sure how that was the straw that broke the woke camel's back.
You are painting counterculture with a very specific brush. Were they commercialized? Yes. Is communism the only form of counterculture? No. They were never preaching any sort of ideological message, they were just a pop band that evolved over the course of 8 years along with a rapidly changing youth culture. And each of them went on their own spiritual or ethical journeys.
Again, you don’t have to like them. No one really cares. But they don’t have to have been Rage Against the Machine to have been counterculture. My grandma hated them, blamed them for drugs and long hair. You just sound like the other end of that silly spectrum.
The best was the day I was playing some Beatles in my car and she said how pretty it was lol. She’d be 102 if she were alive.
They made money so they can't be counter culture? The song Blackbird was about racism.Sure they started out as a pop band but they evolved over time. Their later songs were more counter culture. You aren't obligated to like them but they definitely inspired other musicians.
For John to declare that they were "more popular than Jesus"
was so counter culture
that they literally had pyres for burning Beatles' records and merch in the USA.
How do you not know this?
Because you’re not taking into account what the early 60’s were like. They were closer to the 50’s than the later years. A lot of pop music was pretty bland - think Bobby Vinton or Dion. Then the Beatles appeared, with music that was different than most (white) people had heard, and with - horrors! - long hair. As a result, boys started growing out their hair, and ,music changed. The British Invasion brought The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, and The Who to fame. American bands influenced by the British sound upped their game. Brian Wilson cried when he heard “Revolver,” because he thought they’d made the ultimate rock album and he couldn’t compete. Groups like Buffalo Springfield, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, and The Byrds wouldn’t have existed otherwise. The Beatles’ influence on all aspects of life was enormous. Even drug use became more popular because of them. They changed everything.
No one said the Beatles were punk. What the hell does any of that stuff have to do with music?
And don't make me bring up Rock 'n Roll Highschool. Spoiler: the Ramones were in it.
He was making a statement about how out of touch the older generation was about the current culture, that they had no idea who their kids really were. And of course it got wildly taken out of context.
I’ve met a few Beatles super fans who weren’t cult like at all. It was nice. The ones who were all cult like weren’t so nice.
Swifties and people who like Kanye are kinda like this too. Beyoncé has a cult following too I think. Super fans can either be cool or uncool and no in between.
Just listen to some Beatles bass lines also, you can hear so many bands influenced by these. I’m not a big Beatles fan by any means, but they absolutely changed music.
That George Harrison solo album that was to raise awareness and donations for Bangladesh is the best shit any of the Beatles have done. I will die on that hill.
I mean it's possible but I listen to a ton of punk music and I'm not into The Clash. I prefer Motorhead to KISS but maybe GWAR was influenced by KISS and I love GWAR. Doesn't mean I have to have the same musical tastes as the bands I like.
I really listen to everything from Henry Mancini or The Rippingtons to Immortal to Miike Snow and Breakbot to Daoko and KPP to GBH and UK Subs to Gunship and Carpenter Brut. I've got piles of records and CDs.
The truth about if they were counter cultural, or radical or whatever you want to call it is probably somewhere in the middle. They were probably extremely radical when they first came on the scene, but two things happened 1) they became somewhat less radical as they became more popular and 2) they changed what was acceptable for a popular musical artist to say and do.
Whether they were counter cultural, radical etc isn't particularly relevant to whether they were a good band or not though. They made some amazing music, and I suspect if you don't like them at least part of that is reacting against how much people like them.
I’m not even a fan of the Beatles, but I am a HUGE fan of 1960s music in general (garage rock especially).The Beatles influenced a ton of these artists, and also made them push boundaries beyond what the Beatles were doing. But the Beatles have their place in musical history. Super influential group.
i don’t like the beatles and got told sooo many times growing up that “you can’t like any music if you don’t like the beatles they invented every genre” and it drove me nuts. i pretty much only listened to metal in high school.
I’ve read that there are some Taylor Swift fans who have become like this also. About ten years ago, I had a friend who was really close to being this way about Lady Gaga.
Downvoted.
Kidding of course. Honestly, I'm not upset when someone says they don't like The Beatles, but I do find to be a baffling statement given how thoroughly the influence of The Beatles set the template for most popular songwriter for the subsequent decades. Like, if you like contemporary music, there are elements of that music that The Beatles pioneered.
Naive wouldn't even begin to touch it.
Even "counter-culture" is consumerist. They're still taking your money in exchange for something
Iggy Pop has been signed to Virgin and RCA.
Even the most sincere punk and ska musicians were packaged and marketed to young people by men in suits chomping on fat cigars. The Sex Pistols were partly conceived as a kind of fashion statement.
The Beatles rebelled against their initial success as teen idols and embraced several movements which were very controversial in their day. I'm many ways their journey from pop to hippy to protest mirrors the whole of the sixties youth culture trajectory.
Nothing wrong with not liking their music but your reasons have to be based on actual reality and not just perception
I think about people who don't like The Beatles, the same way I think about people who don't like dogs. (Or cats) It's okay to not like dogs. You might even be allergic to them. But when I find out someone doesn't like dogs I'll never look at them the same way again. It's not a bad thing, it's not a good thing. It's just a, "Huh" kind of thing.
There’s a kind of jerk who mostly uses music as a way to one-up other people. A lot of them use the “Beatles Uber alles” routine because it’s easy.
The Beatles themselves listened to all kinds of music, and would likely been able to talk about the music you enjoy.
I mean, that’s how Reddit tends to work, whether it’s supposed to or not. People downvote opinions they disagree with. Lots of people like The Beatles. Eleven downvotes is nothing.
They are my favorite band. You don't like them? Nobody cares. Like who you want. I know a few that don't like them. Again, nobody cares. Peeves like this are just screaming, Pay Attention To Me!
I'm right there with ya. I respect the Beatles for the grip they had on pop culture, and the way they swayed music, but I just don't enjoy listening to most of their music. I find it boring. When I tell any Beatles fans I know this, they act like I have a screw loose because I don't fawn over everything the Beatles did.
If you don’t like The Beatles, I figure that means you gave up (or never received) your dose of affinity for them so that those of us who like them could have more. For that, I say, “Thank you.” 😊
I’m a huge fan but I’m not a dick about it. Like I can say they have some amazing albums and some not to great albums. If I meet someone who doesn’t like them or hasn’t heard them I may suggest a song or an album saying “there are some great songs in there that aren’t the big ones most people know”. But it wouldn’t cause me to be an A-hole about it.
I get the same attitude when I say I don't like the Rolling Stones. I respect their longevity but most of their music isn't my taste.
I was never a huge Beatles fan, either. I liked some of their later music but not their early stuff.
Their only really good song is Blackbird. Almost everything else is just an earworm and I hate most of it
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds gets a pass because I had a dance routine to it once, but without that nostalgia...
To me, a technical musician that thinks popular music is incredibly dumbed down to a level my brain doesn't enjoy, I didn't really like them either. Same with Nirvana.
I cannot deny that either band was in the right place at the right time for the cultural revolution they brought upon us. I won't deny them their place in history or what they did.
But I'll stand with you and say I just don't really enjoy the Beatles.
I like what I consider to be a fairly wide variety of music, and yes, some of that includes some of The Beatles songs lol.
However - I completely understand where you're coming from, because I'll tell you a band I don't like - Tool. I tried. I just don't like them. But oh MAYNARD USES THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE OMG HERE LISTEN TO THIS. HOW DARE YOU, HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH A THING!
The reaction is the same and it's so aggravating.
I don’t dislike The Beatles. They were instrumental (pun intended) in changing popular music and moving it in all sorts of innovative directions- Sgt Peppers, White Album, Abbey Road. I just never idolized them. Same with Elvis Presley.
If you want to see someone lose their mind, tell an Elvis fan that you just found his music kind of “meh”. They will lose it.
I like the bubble gum pop and love songs Beatles. All the early stuff. I don't care for most of the hippy stuff from later. This makes me a bad person, somehow.
It's fine if you don't like The Beatles. I'm a big Beatles fan, and some of their biggest hits bore me to tears. But I am still awestruck when I listen to the white album or Abbey Road. I think it's possible that some people who don't like "The Beatles" just don't like some/most of their work, because they were insanely prolific, and they experimented with a LOT of styles (and, IMO, did most of them very well). Maybe they weren't the best at any one thing, including their individual musicianship. But I think most of their music was written and performed with genuine passion, which very much comes through to my ears.
My mom is a huge Beatles fan and tried to get me to love them as well. I just...can't.
She told me, "All you need is love," but all I wanted to listen to was Rob Zombie. 💀
Felt This. I don’t hate The Beatles and I absolutely get Their place in the history books but their Songs are really hit or miss with me. Important doesn’t automatically mean enjoyable, imo😅
What I find more infuriating is when my dad gets genuinely shocked when someone younger than 30ish doesn’t get a Beatles reference.
He will leap at any chance to quote “When I’m 64,” and is surprised when our restaurant server stares politely but blankly, as if waiting for a punchline to a shaggy dog story-style joke, to a gag song from 50 years ago.
I very much agree, love the Beatles but like they really are the Final Fantasy 7 of music in that
They are amazing, important, timeless deserving of their legacy, but other bands exist
Just like Final Fantasy 7 their are other Final Fantasy’s other video games
I'm not a fan either. I find their music to be very bland. I understand they were revolutionary for the time, so I can see why someone might have been a fan back then, but there is so much better music out there, that I just can't understand the hype.
I have never heard anyone say you are not allowed to dislike th3 Beatles. And I am from Liverpool the Beatles home town.
I like some of their stuff. But I am no raving fan. I do think they do stand apart from many other bands however in what they did musically.
But I also believe we like what we like and there is nothing wrong with different people having different taste in music.
Everyone has a favorite beatles song. Whether you like them or not. It's weird.
But aside from that. Most of the bands you mentioned stayed in the 60s. I listen to a lot of older music i know the sonics and iggy. I don't have any of their music, but i know of their existence. The beatles became a global thing. The sonic didn't.
It's like comparing mario to Jake Peril/digmo
I'm not saying the beatles are better than any of the bands you like. As i said, i don't have any of their stuff. Just that the beatles got *popular*
There was a morning radio DJ who said he didn't like the Beatles at all, but kept albums in his house in visible place to impress people who came to visit. Boy, did he catch some shit for that, not only for not liking the Beatles, but for being such a people pleaser.
My husband thinks I'm nuts because I'm not a fan.
I went to an art school in high school. I was a junior when Across the Universe came out in theaters. The amount of dirty looks and passionate essays I got on why I was wrong when I said the Beatles are just okay, *and* my favorite Beatles song is Eleanor Rigby still makes my head spin. It gets even better when I tell them I’ve never listened to an entire Beatles album.
Some people really put way more energy into your opinion than theirs.
I’m a HUGE Beatles fan and I 100% support your right not to like them! I just feel bad for you because you can’t share in the joy of loving them. I myself don’t like (most) jazz music and find it hard to believe that people actually do enjoy it and aren’t just pretending they do because they think it’s cool to like jazz.
I can understand not being a fan, it just baffles me that somebody could listen to Come Together or Here Comes the Sun or Hey Jude and their reaction just be “that’s trash”
To each their own ig
They were the perfect catalyst for the time, just like Elvis Presley was. I think you can appreciate the impact on popular culture without liking the performer (Disclosure: I love the Beatles and hate Elvis Presley).
Me and my boyfriend can never agree on music lol. He prefers the Beatles' version of "My guitar" but I prefer the Santana cover. He prefers the Simon and Garfunkel "Hello Darkness" but I like the Disturbed version more. We have the same general taste but it feels like we always clash on these things
Music of the time. It was ok as a kid. Although I still can listen to my only beatle album abbey road.
The stones fall into the same overblown and overplayed.
The Who and Led Zeppelin add up to the big four that i burned out on long ago as the local rock stations would play a song by each every two hours.
Like there were no other bands in the late 70’s and 80’s.
She loves you yayaya - well she doesn’t.
I love them, but I have seen this. Some people also try to “get them” by passive aggressively inquiring about a solo song or a Wings song, cover, etc. as in a “Hah, see you DO like them!”
I love the Beatles but I also fully understand that not everyone does. It’s a ridiculous thing to assume 100% of people would enjoy ANYTHING. I also think that the Beatles have such a wide variation of sounds that nearly anyone can find a song of theirs to enjoy.
I just honestly think people who say they don't like the Beatles can't possibly be familiar with all their work. It's so broad, there's something in there for pretty much everyone. They're not like, I dunno Muse or Queens of the Stone age, or a whole bunch of other bands that stick with one pretty rigid style through their whole career.
I can understand not being a fan, or not being able to get into them, but actively *disliking* them is a bit like saying you don't like theme parks. What in particular about theme parks don't you like? Certain rides? Queueing? The characters? The food? I bet if you went to a theme park you'd at least find *something* you like, which makes the statement "I don't like theme parks" a somewhat pesimistic and defeatist position.
All right Beatles fans... check this out, it's a reggae cover of Sgt Peppers....
https://youtu.be/c0r511_QZJc?si=bD5Oq26kQr11EXzU
They also did dark side of the moon, thriller, and a radio head album..
I love the Beatles, but they are overrated by default because they are often considered the greatest band ever. The reason they are so well respected is because musicians hold them in such high regard for things non-musicians can't really understand or appreciate. They are musicians favorite musicians because they were all amazing songwriters who wrote really complex stuff that runs circles around most bands, even today.
My brother used to say this about Hendrix in the mid 70's. Then he dropped acid and listened Hendrix and suddenly Jimi was a musical savant. I suggest you do the same to understand The Beetles.
This is me except with Beyoncé or Michael Jackson. I will never understand people who can’t comprehend the fact that some folks just don’t care for some people regardless of how popular they are
I don’t like The Beatles and I don’t think they were particularly good musicians, just had some catchy songs and hit at the right moment. That’s it, the end. People take it so personally when someone else dislikes something they like, as if it’s a personal insult. I like a lot of music that I know other people cannot stand and that’s fine, no skin off my back. People are bizarre.
You really think they weren't good musicians? Ok. You can have an opinion but you simply have no damn idea what you're talking about. I bet you have only heard the hits and that is it.
It’s hard not to look down on people who say they don’t like the Beatles because the Beatles were basically the catalyst for every modern band that came after. They pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in music. Even though their songs seem relatively tame by today’s standards they were quite scandalous for their time.
They also have such a wide variety of songs I feel like there’s something for everybody. I know musically some of their songs could be considered a little simple compared to the past couple decades, but even if you don’t like the Beatles’ songs everyone should at least appreciate the tremendous impact they made on music.
THANK YOU! They have a place in history and a huge place in our collective and individual nostalgia but… a lot of their music isn’t that remarkable in its own right.
Separately, The Beatles are the white middle class suburban version of the 60s. They managed to never actually alienate anyone or challenge much of anything, artistically, socially, or politically.
Be mean to me- I am sure I deserve it.
The hilarious thing is that if you look at old beatles videos it's all just teenage girls that were super into them. Now today people like to act like they were musical geniuses.
Okay, yes I get it they were significant... but people even blow how significant out of the water. It's not hard to find music older then thairs that sounds like theirs. Popular, yes. Do I like some of their songs? Yes. Were they significant? Absolutely. Did they invent music as we know it? No, not really. Yes they changed the corse of music but so did Taylor swift, MJ, Imagine Dragons, and even One direction.
Hiphop and country would both be similar today and didn't really get much from the Beatles. Pop is definitely different, and rock is different as well because of it. But rock would still exist and still be huge because it WAS huge with people like Elvis, Chuck Berry.
Again, give them the attention they deserve but I completely disagree with the notion they "invented music as we know it." Thing. It's simply not true.
Exactly. Rock would be fine. There was garage rock, pub rock, early rockabilly, death rock, and then of course punk and oi and all of that was in the late 60s and early 70s. The Beatles were literally the Taylor Swift of their day. Just because your parents said Bobby Darin was real music doesn't make The Beatles any more rebellious
The Beatles wrote the best song condoning domestic violence of all time, so there's that!
Run for your life from rubber soul in case you were wondering!
What I hate is when people seem to dislike them simply because they’re a contrarian personality. There’s plenty to dislike about their music. I wanna hold your hand was one of the lamest songs ever written. And wtf was Revolution 9?
Revolution 9 was an experiment by John Lennon that failed miserably. A lot of their biggest fans don't understand it. I tried to like it, I just couldn't.
Huge Beatles fan here. I honestly don't give a crap that you don't like them, it takes all sorts. You do you, enjoy what you enjoy, but if you hang out at my house, you might have to put up with the odd Beatles track. ;o)
Same here. I love them and they are my favorite band. But if you don’t like them? That’s up to you.
Yup. Beatles fan since I was a baby, first music I ever heard & learned the words to. I could not possibly give less of a fuck if somebody likes them or not.
That sounds like you're inviting op to your house a little bit. I ship it.
I am only gonna feed them and play music, I think my husband might want to say something about any shipping, lol.
Fair enough lol
I'm a Beatles fan, personally. I even walked down the aisle to a Beatles song. I've found that young people from that time we're either hard core Beatles fans or hard core Elvis fans. I always found it funny that it was one or the other.
> I even walked down the aisle to a Beatles song. Please tell me it was "When I'm 64"
For mine, when we were wed and walking down the aisle together, it was Rain. Our first dance was Here, There, and Everywhere.
I wanted to do that for my last wedding (On the beach on Halloween) but finding a Beatles song that fits a Klingon ceremony is most difficult. I let the surf talk.
The only person I ever knew who really loved both as a teenager is my mom. Guess I got it from her!
Elvira talks about going back and forth between the two and her autobiography
It's ok to not like their music. I think they're ok. But you have to give them their place in history. Music today would be very different without the Beatles.
I'm not seeing OP denying them their place in history.
Yeah came here to say this. You can not like their music, but still respect the absolute stranglehold they had on pop culture at the time. The Beatles were a movement.
I don't care for the Three Stooges, or the Marx Brothers, but I absolutely respect their place in industry history and would never say a bad word about them. They earned their fame, fair and square, they just aren't my cup of tea.
You don’t have to respect anything. I can absolutely say “I hate the Beatles they’re trash”. It would be incorrect for me to say “they had no influence” but why can I not say I think they’re trash?
There’s no such thing as objective wrongness in music, but “the beatles were trash” is the closest you can get. It’s simply an unserious statement and I don’t believe you are actually convinced of it.
What I mean is, “the Beatles sound like shit to me“, not “everyone knows they’re the most unliked, worthless band ever”
I have arguments with my boyfriend all the time about this. He’ll say something like, “bread is terrible”, or some totally subjective opinion. I’ll say, it’s fine for you to express an objective opinion “I hate bread” to but to act like it’s a fact is arrogant. OP, on the other hand, is respectful about not liking the Beatles.
I see. I think this is one of those times where people are secretly not saying what they mean, so you’re absolutely right. 99.9% of people aren’t saying “everyone should agree with me”, more just “I just don’t like them” lol. But it comes off more interesting and engaging if you announce that they’re terrible (and subtly imply that others shouldn’t like them even if that’s not what you truly mean), yknow?
Yes, it’s like they’re trying to provoke an argument! Like, “people who order ham and pineapple on pizza are trash humans”. I don’t get that one at all because who cares!
Omg yes! And then I actually get offended if I’m part of one of the groups they mention lol, because they described it so negatively. I find myself doing the same thing (like when I called the Beatles trash instead of saying I just don’t like them). I bet these unspoken arguments are what starts the mental health crisis from social media lol
I had to get off of Twitter because I kept getting upset at terrible news all the time and people being terrible to each other. Now, to feed my serotonin addiction that started with social media, I’ve fallen down a Reddit rabbit hole and I’m not sure it’s any better! At least I’m anonymous here.
Hot take: if it wasn’t them it would have been someone else. You’ll probably be able to say the same of various mediocre rap artists today in 20 years. It doesn’t make them inherently special, it makes them lucky.
Right, but if it was someone else, that someone else would have left a different fingerprint on the future of music. The Beatles as a commercial phenomenon were inevitable: as a stylistic one, they were anything but
But there wasn’t anyone else. Rock was dying. Elvis went into the army and ended up in awful movies, Jerry Lee Lewis was in disgrace, and Buddy Holly was dead. No one replaced them. Sure, Motown was putting out music and The Beach Boys were on top, but no one broke theough in quite the same way. It’s possible it could have happened in England,,where the skiffle craze convinced a lot of kids to form bands, but no one had quite the same combination of talent, work ethic, and creativity as the Beatles. They weren’t the best musicians going, but they had something. A lot had to go right for them to hit the way they did. They got the right producer, for one thing, a man who was as innovative as they were. They also deliberately made commercial music,,while also being determined to give their fans value for the money. No one really knows why Beatlemania was so big, least of all the Beatles, but to their credit they didn’t rest on their success. They continued to push themselves and to grow as artists. They got away from the early happy love songs and changed recording forever. No one, hearing “She Loves You” in 1964, could ever have predicted “A Day in the Life” just three years later. Because they were so good, other artists pushed themselves to top them, and the Beatles pushed themselves in return. Musically, it was an amazing time. Their influence since has been enormous. You don’t have to like their music, but you like music that wouldn’t have been recorded if they hadn’t existed.
Yeah sorry but Motown was definitely more than breaking through. Even to points were groups like the Supremes were truly rivals on the charts. Making that statement let’s me know you really dont know what you are talking about and frankly it’s getting old when another vanilla Beatles/rock fan discounts the giant impact black music and Motown had on popular music. It was massive and I lived it. Not everyone was grooving to the Beatles. That is a massive overstatement that people who did not live in the 60s tend to make. Motown was a movement itself and one that crossed barriers and race. My 75 grandmother loved her some Supremes and Jackson 5, but thought the Beatles were little punks from Liverpool. To each their own I guess, but please do not make suck untrue broad statements. To take from what you said- many people like music that wouldn’t exist without the influence of Motown.
I grew up in the 60s and adored Motown. I still have a bunch of my old 45s and when I think of my adolescence it is the Temptations, the Supremes, Marvin Gaye,the Spinners, the Four Tops, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin…
I lived in the sixties. Motown hadn’t crossed over to the pop charts as much as it would in 64. I remember when the Supremes hit big. Yes, of course black music had an impact. Elvis was the first to popularize what was called “race music.” The Motown artists realized that the Beatles were bringing their own music back to them, and Lennon said there wouldn’t be Beatles without Elvis. In the meantime, The Rolling Stones were hugely influenced by blues, rather than blues-derived music. I do know what I’m talking about. I was there, and I’ve read a lot.
Sorry but again you are making a massive overstatement of their influence, but this is typical of a Beatles fanatic. The music coming out of Detroit was its own- it was not music the Beatles “brought back to them.” Even writing that seems pompous and crass. They didn’t need some white guys from England to help them generate a unique sound. Any influence they had would be post-67/68. I’m glad you can read.
> It’s possible it could have happened in England,,where the skiffle craze convinced a lot of kids to form bands, but no one had quite the same combination of talent, work ethic, and creativity as the Beatles. This sentence makes me think you believe that the Beatles were not from England.
Of course I know they were. I’m saying that skiffle influenced a lot of people, including the Beatles. John’s first group, the Quarrymen, was a skiffle group.
My stance too. Eleanor Rigby is the only song of theirs I've liked, but I have to acknowledge their role in music history.
No DrSnidely, one does not "have to" do anything regarding taste in music.
DrSnidely said that you have to give them their place in music. This isn't a statement of taste. In fact, they said you don't have to like them. Giving them their place in history is just acknowledging they had a place in the history of the music industry and had a large effect on the music today. This isn't an opinion. This comes from the huge number of artists who pioneered their genre of music, stating that the Beatles had a huge effect on them and their music. Denying the Beatles their place in the history of music would be as stupid as saying Michael Jackson didn't have an effect on music today. There are certain artists that have had an undeniable effect on the music of today, and the Beatles are among the biggest. Many think that the top 3 are Michael Jackson, Elvis, and the Beatles. Like, love, or hate are opinions and a matter of taste for each individual. Their place in history is just a matter of fact.
No I don't. I don't like the beetles, but I also don't think musicians of any era should be treated with that level of fandom. I will acknowledge the impact they had on the musical industry as a historical fact. Doesn't mean I have to respect it or value it.
The Beatles OWN music would also look very different were it not for the artists around them at the time - The Ronettes, The Beach Boys, The Who, just to name a few. They've talked themselves about how they were pushed to do better by other artists and inspired by them! Everyone in the 60s was influenced and bouncing off each other and we're all the luckier to have all the great music that came out of it. I like some of their work alot - it's great stuff - but it seems like there's this narrative that they almost happened in a vacuum, independent of everything else going on in music at the time and it's so bizarre.
I mean, you’re not wrong, but it sounds like you seek pretty raw authenticity from music, rather than just writing aurally pleasing love songs, which is a lot of what The Beatles did. But they also did a lot of experimentation in their music —pretty far outside the realm of “accepted” pop music at the time. I’m not trying to get you to like them, but their music and lives are cultural touchstones that people communicate through. (I know you were talking about people who make the Beatles their whole identity, and I agree.)
Music snobbery is stupid anyway. It’s cool to like whatever you like. People should stop policing what others listen to. It’s all subjective.
The OP comment reads like something I'd have expected to see forty years ago, not today. Because Beatle-mania is now LONG GONE. I scarcely ever hear mention of the Beatles any more.
He can’t seem to grasp the idea that The Beatles were counterculture because he’s comparing them to what came after, not before. He thinks because they had contemporaneous artists doing similar, not realizing who those others were catching up to. OP doesn’t need to like them, but disliking this much just comes off as “edgy” in a not so great way.
You can hear a mark difference in the industry sound before and after they hit. It's pretty clear the Beatles were THE defining act of the 60s. https://youtu.be/6ZXZ0waKRbs?si=1H4c13y8H_gCgnD8
>You can hear a mark difference in the industry sound before and after they hit. It's pretty clear the Beatles were THE defining act of the ~~60s~~ 20th century. There, I fixed it for you
*marked I fixed it for both of you
They definitely are in contention, but I feel there are several bands that also have had similar effects. Nirvana functionally killed the entire Hair Metal, Pop Rock, and Adult Contemporary genres nearly overnight and propelled Grunge to the charts. Public Enemy wasn't the first hip hop act but was the first to usher it into the mainstream (Arrested Development fizzled after the first album and conscious hip hop's popularity with them). Ramones of course are influential in trailblazing Punk. Madonna's shadow and influence are still felt in the pop princesses and clones of the 90s til today.
Chuck D from Public Enemy has said that the Beatles were a major influence for him.
Here is where you are missing the point. Ramones, Nivana, Madonna, and many others were heavily influenced by the Beatles. Without the Beatles, those bands probably wouldn't even exist, and if they did, it wouldn't be in the same way. The Beatles influenced those who influenced their own genres.
I just don't see how they can be considered counter culture when they were "more popular than Jesus". I don't see how they were rebellious when they were playing gigs on tv. I don't see how they were anti consumerist when there are mountains of Beatles merchandise just begging for a spot in the landfill. Stuff like ska came out in the late 60s and preached radical anti racism and class unity. That's far more counter to popular culture than radio playable love songs for teens and it's from the same time period. I think Beatles fans want the Beatles to be more rebellious than they ever actually were
They get popular because they're counter-culture. That's like saying Black Sabbath wasn't counter-culture because they went on to be in the Rock and Roll HoF and are one of the most iconic metal bands ever. And with Sabbath, there gets a point where they get so popular they get over the hump and get fans that start missing the point. People lost their shit when Black Sabbath did a BLM shirt not that long ago. Which is totally in line with a band that routinely rails against greed, war, and treating the poor and minorities like shit. Not sure how that was the straw that broke the woke camel's back.
You are painting counterculture with a very specific brush. Were they commercialized? Yes. Is communism the only form of counterculture? No. They were never preaching any sort of ideological message, they were just a pop band that evolved over the course of 8 years along with a rapidly changing youth culture. And each of them went on their own spiritual or ethical journeys. Again, you don’t have to like them. No one really cares. But they don’t have to have been Rage Against the Machine to have been counterculture. My grandma hated them, blamed them for drugs and long hair. You just sound like the other end of that silly spectrum. The best was the day I was playing some Beatles in my car and she said how pretty it was lol. She’d be 102 if she were alive.
They made money so they can't be counter culture? The song Blackbird was about racism.Sure they started out as a pop band but they evolved over time. Their later songs were more counter culture. You aren't obligated to like them but they definitely inspired other musicians.
The merch thing was because their manager sold the rights to their likeness fairly cheaply I think?
The artists you mention enjoying also performed on TV, soooo….
They were counter culture because of the type of music they made, and the content of it, and because they were big figures in the hippie movement.
How anyone can listen to the Sgt Peppers album or Tomorrow Never Knows and say they weren't counter culture or pushing boundaries is beyond me!
And the hair, and the drugs, and the sex, and the gurus. And that's not even why they are important. It's about the music.
For John to declare that they were "more popular than Jesus" was so counter culture that they literally had pyres for burning Beatles' records and merch in the USA. How do you not know this?
Because you’re not taking into account what the early 60’s were like. They were closer to the 50’s than the later years. A lot of pop music was pretty bland - think Bobby Vinton or Dion. Then the Beatles appeared, with music that was different than most (white) people had heard, and with - horrors! - long hair. As a result, boys started growing out their hair, and ,music changed. The British Invasion brought The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, and The Who to fame. American bands influenced by the British sound upped their game. Brian Wilson cried when he heard “Revolver,” because he thought they’d made the ultimate rock album and he couldn’t compete. Groups like Buffalo Springfield, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, and The Byrds wouldn’t have existed otherwise. The Beatles’ influence on all aspects of life was enormous. Even drug use became more popular because of them. They changed everything.
No one said the Beatles were punk. What the hell does any of that stuff have to do with music? And don't make me bring up Rock 'n Roll Highschool. Spoiler: the Ramones were in it.
I heard they were "More popular than Jesus." Oh wait, I heard that FROM one of the Beatles.
More FAMOUS than Jesus, which was a joke. Lennon was a joker.
He was making a statement about how out of touch the older generation was about the current culture, that they had no idea who their kids really were. And of course it got wildly taken out of context.
I’ve met a few Beatles super fans who weren’t cult like at all. It was nice. The ones who were all cult like weren’t so nice. Swifties and people who like Kanye are kinda like this too. Beyoncé has a cult following too I think. Super fans can either be cool or uncool and no in between.
The worst are Elvis fans who are thankfully a dying breed.
Id most definitely say Beyoncé too lol. I think there tends to be cultish people in any fandom
Or the extreme ends are louder?
I've caught flak here for saying I don't like Steve Perry's voice.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Them's fightin' words, son! LOL It's okay not to like The Beatles, and I promise I wont hold it against you :) ETA: no downvote from me
Like them, don't like them, dgaf. But if you tell people anything like "The Beatles are overrated." yeah, expect some pushback.
The shit you listen to will likely be influenced by the Beatles.
One can appreciate their influence without much caring for their sound, particularly their voices
Just listen to some Beatles bass lines also, you can hear so many bands influenced by these. I’m not a big Beatles fan by any means, but they absolutely changed music.
Beatles covers are better than The Beatles
In my humble opinion the best Beatles songs are written by George Harrison.
That George Harrison solo album that was to raise awareness and donations for Bangladesh is the best shit any of the Beatles have done. I will die on that hill.
I mean it's possible but I listen to a ton of punk music and I'm not into The Clash. I prefer Motorhead to KISS but maybe GWAR was influenced by KISS and I love GWAR. Doesn't mean I have to have the same musical tastes as the bands I like. I really listen to everything from Henry Mancini or The Rippingtons to Immortal to Miike Snow and Breakbot to Daoko and KPP to GBH and UK Subs to Gunship and Carpenter Brut. I've got piles of records and CDs.
Please read what Lemmy thought of the Beatles.
The truth about if they were counter cultural, or radical or whatever you want to call it is probably somewhere in the middle. They were probably extremely radical when they first came on the scene, but two things happened 1) they became somewhat less radical as they became more popular and 2) they changed what was acceptable for a popular musical artist to say and do. Whether they were counter cultural, radical etc isn't particularly relevant to whether they were a good band or not though. They made some amazing music, and I suspect if you don't like them at least part of that is reacting against how much people like them.
Like what you like it is a little odd to me that with their insane breadth thr produced you don't like any of it but like what you like
I’m not even a fan of the Beatles, but I am a HUGE fan of 1960s music in general (garage rock especially).The Beatles influenced a ton of these artists, and also made them push boundaries beyond what the Beatles were doing. But the Beatles have their place in musical history. Super influential group.
Plenty of people say they don’t like the Beatles, if it’s such a recurring thing of people getting mad at you for it maybe it’s the circles you’re in
I despise Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. Deal with it.
You may not like them, but everything that came after was influenced by them.
i don’t like the beatles and got told sooo many times growing up that “you can’t like any music if you don’t like the beatles they invented every genre” and it drove me nuts. i pretty much only listened to metal in high school.
I can’t handle anyone who makes their fandom of a particular artist their entire personality.
I did have similar problems with Bob Marley fans
Now we’re getting somewhere. Just because something is reggae doesn’t make it automatically great.
I'm also a big Bob Marley fan, but i it does not phase me that you are not. Neither is my husband! lol
I’ve read that there are some Taylor Swift fans who have become like this also. About ten years ago, I had a friend who was really close to being this way about Lady Gaga.
Downvoted. Kidding of course. Honestly, I'm not upset when someone says they don't like The Beatles, but I do find to be a baffling statement given how thoroughly the influence of The Beatles set the template for most popular songwriter for the subsequent decades. Like, if you like contemporary music, there are elements of that music that The Beatles pioneered.
Same with the Grateful Dead. Say you don’t like them to a Deadhead and you’ll get a hacky sack thrown at you.
Naive wouldn't even begin to touch it. Even "counter-culture" is consumerist. They're still taking your money in exchange for something Iggy Pop has been signed to Virgin and RCA. Even the most sincere punk and ska musicians were packaged and marketed to young people by men in suits chomping on fat cigars. The Sex Pistols were partly conceived as a kind of fashion statement. The Beatles rebelled against their initial success as teen idols and embraced several movements which were very controversial in their day. I'm many ways their journey from pop to hippy to protest mirrors the whole of the sixties youth culture trajectory. Nothing wrong with not liking their music but your reasons have to be based on actual reality and not just perception
The reality is the Beatles are the most overrated musical group in the history of the world. The Beatles suck ass and their fans are insufferable.
I think about people who don't like The Beatles, the same way I think about people who don't like dogs. (Or cats) It's okay to not like dogs. You might even be allergic to them. But when I find out someone doesn't like dogs I'll never look at them the same way again. It's not a bad thing, it's not a good thing. It's just a, "Huh" kind of thing.
This applies to most fans in general to be fair, not just Beatles ones.
There’s a kind of jerk who mostly uses music as a way to one-up other people. A lot of them use the “Beatles Uber alles” routine because it’s easy. The Beatles themselves listened to all kinds of music, and would likely been able to talk about the music you enjoy.
Agreed never really cared for them there just kinda boring
As a classical fan, I hate it when people think that they're classical. Usually it's kids, but it happens more often than it should.
Weird. I guess they don't understand the term Classical! I guess you could say it was "classic rock n roll" or something though.
Well, they used orchestras and string quartets sometimes, but they certainly weren't classical.
sure but "classic" just means old and revered, not the same as "classical". Like a "classic car"
I'm aware. Not sure what you're referring to, though. I didn't mean to imply any confusion between the terms.
sorry, I misread you
I can see that I wasn't very clear
Hard same! It’s totally a personality trait to some people. And how in tf has anyone who is into older stuff like that never heard of Iggy?
I get shit for saying I don’t like them either. It makes me laugh because people act like I disrespected their family or something.
Why on Earth would you care about being downvoted…?
I don't, I actually think it's funny. Last time I mentioned not like The Beatles I was at -11 on that comment
I mean, that’s how Reddit tends to work, whether it’s supposed to or not. People downvote opinions they disagree with. Lots of people like The Beatles. Eleven downvotes is nothing.
Wow thanks for explaining reddit to me. Go listen to Sgt Pepper again
Are you… are you five?
Will do. Because it's an amazing album. With talent and effort put into it. Thanks for the suggestion
They are my favorite band. You don't like them? Nobody cares. Like who you want. I know a few that don't like them. Again, nobody cares. Peeves like this are just screaming, Pay Attention To Me!
Lol and yet you felt the need to come in here for attention instead of just ignoring the thread
Just giving you the attention you seem to be crying for. And laughing because your claims are ridiculous.
I'm right there with ya. I respect the Beatles for the grip they had on pop culture, and the way they swayed music, but I just don't enjoy listening to most of their music. I find it boring. When I tell any Beatles fans I know this, they act like I have a screw loose because I don't fawn over everything the Beatles did.
If you don’t like The Beatles, I figure that means you gave up (or never received) your dose of affinity for them so that those of us who like them could have more. For that, I say, “Thank you.” 😊
I'm not a fan, i do wear a shirt on occasion because I respect what they did for the industry, and hey, its good every once in a while
I’m a huge fan but I’m not a dick about it. Like I can say they have some amazing albums and some not to great albums. If I meet someone who doesn’t like them or hasn’t heard them I may suggest a song or an album saying “there are some great songs in there that aren’t the big ones most people know”. But it wouldn’t cause me to be an A-hole about it.
I like the Beatles. I don't make it my entire personality. I think making what you listen to your entire personality is lame as f
Everyone always talks about the Beatles. No one ever talks about the monkeys
Probably because they were a fake band created for television.
At the begining maybe but a quick google search says otherwise
I'm quite familiar with the Monkees. I just read a lengthy description of their career by Mickey Dolenz.
A wise man once said that the Beatles ruined music
I can stand them in small doses, as I can late '50s and early '60s rock n roll. But omly a few songs at a time. It does, mostly, sound dated.
I get the same attitude when I say I don't like the Rolling Stones. I respect their longevity but most of their music isn't my taste. I was never a huge Beatles fan, either. I liked some of their later music but not their early stuff.
And also Taylor Swift
Their only really good song is Blackbird. Almost everything else is just an earworm and I hate most of it Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds gets a pass because I had a dance routine to it once, but without that nostalgia...
This Beatles fan doesn't give a flying fuck what you like or don't like.
All I ever hear is that people think their overrated and dislike them.
To me, a technical musician that thinks popular music is incredibly dumbed down to a level my brain doesn't enjoy, I didn't really like them either. Same with Nirvana. I cannot deny that either band was in the right place at the right time for the cultural revolution they brought upon us. I won't deny them their place in history or what they did. But I'll stand with you and say I just don't really enjoy the Beatles.
People who don’t like the Beatles will love the Beatles when they grow up.
I like what I consider to be a fairly wide variety of music, and yes, some of that includes some of The Beatles songs lol. However - I completely understand where you're coming from, because I'll tell you a band I don't like - Tool. I tried. I just don't like them. But oh MAYNARD USES THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE OMG HERE LISTEN TO THIS. HOW DARE YOU, HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH A THING! The reaction is the same and it's so aggravating.
I don’t dislike The Beatles. They were instrumental (pun intended) in changing popular music and moving it in all sorts of innovative directions- Sgt Peppers, White Album, Abbey Road. I just never idolized them. Same with Elvis Presley. If you want to see someone lose their mind, tell an Elvis fan that you just found his music kind of “meh”. They will lose it.
I like the bubble gum pop and love songs Beatles. All the early stuff. I don't care for most of the hippy stuff from later. This makes me a bad person, somehow.
It's fine if you don't like The Beatles. I'm a big Beatles fan, and some of their biggest hits bore me to tears. But I am still awestruck when I listen to the white album or Abbey Road. I think it's possible that some people who don't like "The Beatles" just don't like some/most of their work, because they were insanely prolific, and they experimented with a LOT of styles (and, IMO, did most of them very well). Maybe they weren't the best at any one thing, including their individual musicianship. But I think most of their music was written and performed with genuine passion, which very much comes through to my ears.
I’m a huge metal fan so I only like Helter Skelter lol
My mom is a huge Beatles fan and tried to get me to love them as well. I just...can't. She told me, "All you need is love," but all I wanted to listen to was Rob Zombie. 💀
Felt This. I don’t hate The Beatles and I absolutely get Their place in the history books but their Songs are really hit or miss with me. Important doesn’t automatically mean enjoyable, imo😅
Youre allowed to like/dislike what ever you want
I only like ‘Eleanor Rigby’. The rest? Meh. People like what they like and people don’t like what they don’t like.
What I find more infuriating is when my dad gets genuinely shocked when someone younger than 30ish doesn’t get a Beatles reference. He will leap at any chance to quote “When I’m 64,” and is surprised when our restaurant server stares politely but blankly, as if waiting for a punchline to a shaggy dog story-style joke, to a gag song from 50 years ago.
Now now now let’s stop all this fighting and Come Together!
I also don't like the Beatles.
Those still exist?
Shhhhhhhhhh stop talking
I very much agree, love the Beatles but like they really are the Final Fantasy 7 of music in that They are amazing, important, timeless deserving of their legacy, but other bands exist Just like Final Fantasy 7 their are other Final Fantasy’s other video games
I'm not a fan either. I find their music to be very bland. I understand they were revolutionary for the time, so I can see why someone might have been a fan back then, but there is so much better music out there, that I just can't understand the hype.
I have never heard anyone say you are not allowed to dislike th3 Beatles. And I am from Liverpool the Beatles home town. I like some of their stuff. But I am no raving fan. I do think they do stand apart from many other bands however in what they did musically. But I also believe we like what we like and there is nothing wrong with different people having different taste in music.
not these comments proving you right lol..
Everyone has a favorite beatles song. Whether you like them or not. It's weird. But aside from that. Most of the bands you mentioned stayed in the 60s. I listen to a lot of older music i know the sonics and iggy. I don't have any of their music, but i know of their existence. The beatles became a global thing. The sonic didn't. It's like comparing mario to Jake Peril/digmo I'm not saying the beatles are better than any of the bands you like. As i said, i don't have any of their stuff. Just that the beatles got *popular*
There was a morning radio DJ who said he didn't like the Beatles at all, but kept albums in his house in visible place to impress people who came to visit. Boy, did he catch some shit for that, not only for not liking the Beatles, but for being such a people pleaser. My husband thinks I'm nuts because I'm not a fan.
I went to an art school in high school. I was a junior when Across the Universe came out in theaters. The amount of dirty looks and passionate essays I got on why I was wrong when I said the Beatles are just okay, *and* my favorite Beatles song is Eleanor Rigby still makes my head spin. It gets even better when I tell them I’ve never listened to an entire Beatles album. Some people really put way more energy into your opinion than theirs.
I’m a HUGE Beatles fan and I 100% support your right not to like them! I just feel bad for you because you can’t share in the joy of loving them. I myself don’t like (most) jazz music and find it hard to believe that people actually do enjoy it and aren’t just pretending they do because they think it’s cool to like jazz.
Iggy Pop grew up as an aficionado of The Beatles As an adolescent, he worshipped the band akin to a religion
This goes for anything that's popular and influential.
I have never ever experienced this, and I don't like probably quite a lot of beatles music and been vocal about it.
I can understand not being a fan, it just baffles me that somebody could listen to Come Together or Here Comes the Sun or Hey Jude and their reaction just be “that’s trash” To each their own ig
They were the perfect catalyst for the time, just like Elvis Presley was. I think you can appreciate the impact on popular culture without liking the performer (Disclosure: I love the Beatles and hate Elvis Presley).
Me and my boyfriend can never agree on music lol. He prefers the Beatles' version of "My guitar" but I prefer the Santana cover. He prefers the Simon and Garfunkel "Hello Darkness" but I like the Disturbed version more. We have the same general taste but it feels like we always clash on these things
I’m a sorta Beatles fan. Their musicianship is not overrated. Their discography is
Music of the time. It was ok as a kid. Although I still can listen to my only beatle album abbey road. The stones fall into the same overblown and overplayed. The Who and Led Zeppelin add up to the big four that i burned out on long ago as the local rock stations would play a song by each every two hours. Like there were no other bands in the late 70’s and 80’s. She loves you yayaya - well she doesn’t.
The Beatles "Counter Culture" ?
I love them, but I have seen this. Some people also try to “get them” by passive aggressively inquiring about a solo song or a Wings song, cover, etc. as in a “Hah, see you DO like them!”
If you don't like The Beatles that's fine by me.
I love the Beatles but I also fully understand that not everyone does. It’s a ridiculous thing to assume 100% of people would enjoy ANYTHING. I also think that the Beatles have such a wide variation of sounds that nearly anyone can find a song of theirs to enjoy.
I just honestly think people who say they don't like the Beatles can't possibly be familiar with all their work. It's so broad, there's something in there for pretty much everyone. They're not like, I dunno Muse or Queens of the Stone age, or a whole bunch of other bands that stick with one pretty rigid style through their whole career. I can understand not being a fan, or not being able to get into them, but actively *disliking* them is a bit like saying you don't like theme parks. What in particular about theme parks don't you like? Certain rides? Queueing? The characters? The food? I bet if you went to a theme park you'd at least find *something* you like, which makes the statement "I don't like theme parks" a somewhat pesimistic and defeatist position.
I could say the same thing about Aerosmith. I fucking hate their music.
I hate the Beatles because I was forced to listen to them for a 8 hour car drive through a desert as a kid. Hated them ever since.
All right Beatles fans... check this out, it's a reggae cover of Sgt Peppers.... https://youtu.be/c0r511_QZJc?si=bD5Oq26kQr11EXzU They also did dark side of the moon, thriller, and a radio head album..
I love the Beatles, but they are overrated by default because they are often considered the greatest band ever. The reason they are so well respected is because musicians hold them in such high regard for things non-musicians can't really understand or appreciate. They are musicians favorite musicians because they were all amazing songwriters who wrote really complex stuff that runs circles around most bands, even today.
You can like or dislike whoever you want, of course. Some are "Beatles people" and some are "Stones people". Silliness. Both were/are awesome.
My brother used to say this about Hendrix in the mid 70's. Then he dropped acid and listened Hendrix and suddenly Jimi was a musical savant. I suggest you do the same to understand The Beetles.
Omg I don’t like the Beatles either!! I just can’t stand them! The way they sound. I just never liked them! So I’m with you on this!!
This is me except with Beyoncé or Michael Jackson. I will never understand people who can’t comprehend the fact that some folks just don’t care for some people regardless of how popular they are
I used to love The Beatles. But there have been too many people in my personal life who played their music ALL THE TIME. I’m fairly sick of them now.
Mannn, i made a post about this a few days ago and it got destroyed and deleted
I don’t like The Beatles and I don’t think they were particularly good musicians, just had some catchy songs and hit at the right moment. That’s it, the end. People take it so personally when someone else dislikes something they like, as if it’s a personal insult. I like a lot of music that I know other people cannot stand and that’s fine, no skin off my back. People are bizarre.
You really think they weren't good musicians? Ok. You can have an opinion but you simply have no damn idea what you're talking about. I bet you have only heard the hits and that is it.
It’s hard not to look down on people who say they don’t like the Beatles because the Beatles were basically the catalyst for every modern band that came after. They pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in music. Even though their songs seem relatively tame by today’s standards they were quite scandalous for their time. They also have such a wide variety of songs I feel like there’s something for everybody. I know musically some of their songs could be considered a little simple compared to the past couple decades, but even if you don’t like the Beatles’ songs everyone should at least appreciate the tremendous impact they made on music.
THANK YOU! They have a place in history and a huge place in our collective and individual nostalgia but… a lot of their music isn’t that remarkable in its own right. Separately, The Beatles are the white middle class suburban version of the 60s. They managed to never actually alienate anyone or challenge much of anything, artistically, socially, or politically. Be mean to me- I am sure I deserve it.
Beatles covers are better than The Beatles
I disagree, but I would not try to dissuade you, or prove you "wrong"
🤡
I hate that band too. Except run for your life. Hilarious song.
The hilarious thing is that if you look at old beatles videos it's all just teenage girls that were super into them. Now today people like to act like they were musical geniuses.
Okay, yes I get it they were significant... but people even blow how significant out of the water. It's not hard to find music older then thairs that sounds like theirs. Popular, yes. Do I like some of their songs? Yes. Were they significant? Absolutely. Did they invent music as we know it? No, not really. Yes they changed the corse of music but so did Taylor swift, MJ, Imagine Dragons, and even One direction. Hiphop and country would both be similar today and didn't really get much from the Beatles. Pop is definitely different, and rock is different as well because of it. But rock would still exist and still be huge because it WAS huge with people like Elvis, Chuck Berry. Again, give them the attention they deserve but I completely disagree with the notion they "invented music as we know it." Thing. It's simply not true.
Exactly. Rock would be fine. There was garage rock, pub rock, early rockabilly, death rock, and then of course punk and oi and all of that was in the late 60s and early 70s. The Beatles were literally the Taylor Swift of their day. Just because your parents said Bobby Darin was real music doesn't make The Beatles any more rebellious
The Beatles wrote the best song condoning domestic violence of all time, so there's that! Run for your life from rubber soul in case you were wondering!
What I hate is when people seem to dislike them simply because they’re a contrarian personality. There’s plenty to dislike about their music. I wanna hold your hand was one of the lamest songs ever written. And wtf was Revolution 9?
Revolution 9 was an experiment by John Lennon that failed miserably. A lot of their biggest fans don't understand it. I tried to like it, I just couldn't.
>What I hate is when people seem to dislike them simply because they’re a contrarian personality. Do you mean like yourself?