Why don't you like the Beatles?

[ducktrapper]

I'm young enough that the Beatles never really had any appeal to my musical tastes - didn't understand all of the hullaballoo over when John Lennon was murdered, etc.  After all, I was into Styx and Yes and more 'sophisticated' rock.  The Beatles to my ear were penny candy compared to the multi-layered king-size chocolate candy bars of odd time signatures and polyrhythms and synthesizers pointy-headstock guitars.

However, once I started writing songs in the 90's, I kept hearing about how the Beatles were masterful pop songwriters.  It probably took me 10 years to finally start to dig in and learn what methods and techniques they used to make songs interesting.  I garnered an appreciation over time to where now, I do reach for my '1' CD which is a collection of their #1 hits over the years for inspiration.

I get it now, after many years of non-interest.  I can also see how some would have been saturated back in the day.  Not for me, back then I simply would tune to a different station when the Beatles came on the air.

So, I have been both one who disregarded them, to one who now appreciates them.  Thankfully I never experienced the over-saturation of the Beatles that I'm sure so many experienced back in the 60s and 70s.

"Styx and more sophisticated rock". Well you lost me right there.        

[eded]

"Styx and more sophisticated rock". Well you lost me right there.        

Yeah, I wasn't going to touch that one.

There's a lot of music out there, and a lot of tastes...

Ed

[ducktrapper]

It's hard to forgive John Lennon for giving us this. Yet she still has critics who would call this music. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSN8_YCggtI

[broKen]

...critics who would call this music. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSN8_YCggtI

So music is defined by the hearer?

[ducktrapper]

So music is defined by the hearer?

Who else? But if you don't like The Beatles and like that, it's defined by psychiatrists?  

[Walkerman]

". . . but they are given too much credit as innovators where they were rarely more than middle of the herd . . . and way too much focus is put on their dominance of Billboard charts . . ."

As one who was in the 8th grade when the Beatles appeared on the scene, and went through high school and into college with their ever-evolving music I have to say that they were the supreme innovators.  Whether in their song writing, their clothing, their instruments (think Rickenbacker to sitar), their lifestyles, whatever you want to mention, they led and the world followed.  From "she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah" to "I read the news today"...... they took us on a long and winding road of musical innovation.  They dominated the musical scene and they were copied by almost everyone ..... think sitar on "Paint it Black" to the Byrd's 12 string electrics.  That is why very few covers of Beatles song were successful .... nobody could do it better than them.  It is still true today.
As for saturation, I had barely started college when they began to breakup.  Historically, they were together for a relatively short period of time.  And yet look at what they accomplished.  That doesn't even take into account their solo careers.

[Walkerman]

I try to catch a performance of Rain every time their tour hits town.  As close to seeing the Beatles as possible.  One thing that has really upped my respect and enjoyment of the Beatles is hearing their music over a good live sound system, instead of a home stereo. I have to say ..... they wrote some catchy "pop" tunes, but they also wrote some really kick a$$ loud live type rock songs.  

[B0WIE]

I've tried to like the Beatles. I even own several of their albums. The closest I can get is an appreciation for the songwriting (mostly Paul and George) but it seems I'll never be a fan.  Maybe their appeal is more generational, as I did not hear them growing up.  When I hear the Beatles, I hear mostly bubblegum pop and some rock that doesn't hold up very well. Sandwiched in there are some brilliant tracks like Blackbird, While My Guitar, A Day In The Life, etc and I very much admire that work. I just don't feel that, as a band, they appeal to me as much as many other acts from the 60's and early 70's.

What I REALLY don't get is why people treat their tone as the gold standard and pay tons for equipment that happens to be the same type they used. I think many of their albums sound awful.  But, it's one of those cases where if you love the music, then the tone becomes endearing, even if it's something you wouldn't otherwise like.  I remember buying a Roland Space Echo (original tape version) because David Gilmore used one. It sounded amazing... when I was doing Pink Floyd covers...  But, was otherwise noisy, unreliable, and not as versatile as pedals I have.  I'm happy to be rid of it.

[ducktrapper]

I own both box sets, the stereo and mono remasters that were released in and around 2009. None of these albums approach any form of sounding awful. Consider what they were recorded with, when and how, they are totally remarkable testaments of four remarkable young men and one remarkable producer. Everything else is simply revisionism and commentary from those who weren't there, have no idea of what else was going on at the time and the impact this band had on the entire world. If you didn't hear this music in the context of the times that it came out of, it is quite possibly impossible to understand. This band has not retained the reputation and importance of the music due to hype or accident. It is impossible to over emphasize the importance of The Beatles to modern recording and pop music in general.   

[B0WIE]

I own both box sets, the stereo and mono remasters that were released in and around 2009. None of these albums approach any form of sounding awful. Consider what they were recorded with, when and how, they are totally remarkable testaments of four remarkable young men and one remarkable producer. Everything else is simply revisionism and commentary from those who weren't there, have no idea of what else was going on at the time and the impact this band had on the entire world. If you didn't hear this music in the context of the times that it came out of, it is quite possibly impossible to understand. This band has not retained the reputation and importance of the music due to hype or accident. It is impossible to over emphasize the importance of The Beatles to modern recording and pop music in general.   

It's not that it's just old or there was anything wrong with the equipment.  There are other bands of the era whose sound impresses me more. Hell, some jazz and crooner albums made long before the Beatles came along still sound incredible.
I think the missing element is, as you described, not being there. I don't get Elvis either, but I wasn't there. None of the social impact means much to me and, at face value, the music just doesn't strike me like some of their contemporaries from back then.

You describing this to me reminds me of myself describing 90's Hip Hop to millennials. They just hear raw, clumsy, primitive rap and I try to tell them that it's about the innovation, the inspiration, and the way it changed the industry.  Or, when I tell them that 80's metal was about indulgence, dreaming big, but all they hear is flamboyance without purpose.  So, I do get what you're saying.

[mike in lytle]

I think the missing element is, as you described, not being there. I don't get Elvis either, but I wasn't there. None of the social impact means much to me and, at face value, the music just doesn't strike me like some of their contemporaries from back then.

I was 10 when the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan, and I saw that, and Herman's Hermits, the Stones, Dave Clark Five, Animals, all that stuff. It wasn't just the Beatles, it was all of them. It was great. The social impact was huge, even for a young kid. We watched the program as a family. There were only three channels on TV. The nuns at school thought the music came straight from hell. Everyone started getting guitars. We got songbooks. I stopped playing Red River Valley, My Bonnie, and Grandfathers Clock and stopped listening to my folks 45's. I got a transistor radio to listen when I did my paper route.

So I guess being there was part of it.
Mike
L-05

[George]

I think being there was All of it.  I was already a teenager the first time I heard the Beatles in 1963, I was immediately hooked and I started playing the guitar in 1964.  Before the British Invasion of music we did have the early rock and roll influences, but the sound of the '60s was totally different and we just dug it.  Many new guitar players were born of that particular music era.  I have a huge respect for George Harrison because of his musical genius of the time.  I still Love Bob Dylan, Eric Burdon and the Animals and a good many more that came after the Beatles.  I think it was their influence that changed the music of the era and influenced the music going into the future.  You had to be there, the Hippie generation still rocks...

[Walkerman]

".....You describing this to me reminds me of myself describing 90's Hip Hop to millennials. They just hear raw, clumsy, primitive rap and I try to tell them that it's about the innovation, the inspiration, and the way it changed the industry.  Or, when I tell them that 80's metal was about indulgence, dreaming big, but all they hear is flamboyance without purpose.  So, I do get what you're saying...."

The same could be said for someone describing disco to another.  Say, where is disco now?  I suspect that in the not too distant future, hip hop, rap et al will join disco where ever it has gone to.  I also strongly suspect that we will still be listening to the Beatles.

[skyline]

".....You describing this to me reminds me of myself describing 90's Hip Hop to millennials. They just hear raw, clumsy, primitive rap and I try to tell them that it's about the innovation, the inspiration, and the way it changed the industry.  Or, when I tell them that 80's metal was about indulgence, dreaming big, but all they hear is flamboyance without purpose.  So, I do get what you're saying...."

The same could be said for someone describing disco to another.  Say, where is disco now?  I suspect that in the not too distant future, hip hop, rap et al will join disco where ever it has gone to.  I also strongly suspect that we will still be listening to the Beatles.

I suspect that's a rhetorical question, but seeing as how I've already proven inept at reading the tone of online posts, I'll cover my bases here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_music

For a little more knowledge about the place of disco in musical tradition and history, you might enjoy this:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+Sunday+Edition/20+Pieces+of+Music+That+Changed+The+World/ID/1490069541/?page=2

Actually the whole series is good, The Beatles even get a show:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+Sunday+Edition/20+Pieces+of+Music+That+Changed+The+World/ID/1490069544/

Iit might be worth keeping in mind that The Beatles were first a dance band. Yes those Hamburg clubs sometimes may have had other sorts of "entertainment" but when the lads were playing, people were dancing.


If indeed that wasn't in fact a rhetorical question - here's part of what happened to disco:
http://ca.complex.com/music/2013/03/an-idiots-guide-to-edm-genres/techno-2


And much as I love some Beatles tunes, they're pretty much already only existing in the esoteric realm of radio shows like the CBC one quoted above - OK, and at weddings - until the boomers offspring stop bothering with getting married

[L07 Shooting Star]

So music is defined by the hearer?

Who else? But if you don't like The Beatles and like that, it's defined by psychiatrists?   

If a tree falls in the forest..........................

[Walkerman]

"...much as I love some Beatles tunes, they're pretty much already only existing in the esoteric realm of radio shows like the CBC one quoted above - OK, and at weddings - until the boomers offspring stop bothering with getting married."

Seems no matter where I travel, there is always a radio station having "breakfast with the Beatles" on Sunday mornings.  And, on the stations I listen to, more Beatles tunes are played than any other artist.

[L07 Shooting Star]

I try to catch a performance of Rain every time their tour hits town.  As close to seeing the Beatles as possible.  One thing that has really upped my respect and enjoyment of the Beatles is hearing their music over a good live sound system, instead of a home stereo. I have to say ..... they wrote some catchy "pop" tunes, but they also wrote some really kick a$$ loud live type rock songs.  

I have attended every Rain performance here in Edmonton (3 to date).  Just like you said, the closest thing you will ever get to hearing them live only better because the PA's are better today, and there aren't any silly screaming girls to drown them out.  They use the same instruments and amps as the Beatles did as well so the sound is bang on to the originals.  Last spring, I also saw another Beatles tribute band called "Let it Be".  Their show is almost a carbon copy of Rain's show.  So much so that I thought they were a reincarnation of Rain.  After reading your post, Steve, I discovered they are two different bands.  

[mike in lytle]

And much as I love some Beatles tunes, they're pretty much already only existing in the esoteric realm of radio shows like the CBC one quoted above - OK, and at weddings - until the boomers offspring stop bothering with getting married

Links. Geez.
Richard Turner, on KSYM San Antonio, has been hosting a Beatles radio program (Best of the Beatles) for over 25 years on Sunday mornings 9 AM to 12 noon. He doesn't do wedding music. It is a great show. You can stream it. We listen to it nearly every Sunday, in the truck or the car cause we are usually going somewhere... some of it is crap (no Yoko tho), but he has a collection of Beatles music no one else has. KSYM is the local college radio station, and is actually the best radio station in town.
Mike
L-05

[skyline]

Seems no matter where I travel, there is always a radio station having "breakfast with the Beatles" on Sunday mornings.  And, on the stations I listen to, more Beatles tunes are played than any other artist.

Sounds like you're listening to satellite radio.

SiriusXM has a 24/7 Sinatra channell too . . . what station do you listen to?

[Walkerman]

Sounds like you're listening to satellite radio.

SiriusXM has a 24/7 Sinatra channell too . . . what station do you listen to?

Nope, plain commercial radio.