Also, what've you got against good music? Or is it just some symbolic thing that you dislike the Beatles?
Well...
1) they didn't write their own music
2) they were sponsored by corporations to make watered down pop-culture music
3) said music disrupted the natural progression of rock n' roll to inject emotion into music and performance, as exemplified by Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, and even in earlier rock defining genres such as jazz and swing
4) their drug related music is self indulgent on a level unparalleled by Eric Clapton, a musician known for his unnecessarily long solos
5) they are plain overrated
I think my fifth point is what bugs me the most. They were OK, but they certainly were not the best music of their generation. They didn't even define British rock in any significant way as the Stones and The Who wiped the rock slate clean and rebuilt the genre in the U.K. and the world. In fact, as can be seen in rock n' roll, every significant band that followed The Beatles tried to be anything but The Beatles.
Actually, they did. (well, except Ringo). The lead vocal in the Beatles songs was always whoever wrote the song, with the exception of Ringo, who didn't write songs, so his songs were usually written for him by another member of the group.
2) they were sponsored by corporations to make watered down pop-culture music
So are most bands
3) said music disrupted the natural progression of rock n' roll to inject emotion into music and performance, as exemplified by Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, and even in earlier rock defining genres such as jazz and swing
It disrupted it by accelerating it. PLENTY of the Beatles' songs were love songs, and if love isn't an emotion, then we're all robots)
4) their drug related music is self indulgent on a level unparalleled by Eric Clapton, a musician known for his unnecessarily long solos
"Picture yourself on a boat on the river, with tangerine trees, and marmalade skys..." (no comment)
5) they are plain overrated
That's a matter of opinion
I think my fifth point is what bugs me the most. They were OK, but they certainly were not the best music of their generation. They didn't even define British rock in any significant way as the Stones and The Who wiped the rock slate clean and rebuilt the genre in the U.K. and the world. In fact, as can be seen in rock n' roll, every significant band that followed The Beatles tried to be anything but The Beatles.
Again, that's a matter of opinion. They DID spend a lot of time making fun of other band's music (Back in the U.S.S.R., parody of Back in the U.S.A.), or just proving to other bands that they COULD do certain types of music (members of one band said the Beatles couldn't do true rock, then the Beatles came out with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which blew almost every other rock song out of the water), and they are the only band in history to take all five top five spots on the U.S. charts. Addmittedly, they were not an example of U.K. music, but I'm not sure they were trying to be. Also, the Rock Genre didn't NEED to be rebuilt- in fact, rock had really changed for the better because of the Beatles. (Listen to Elvis's top songs, then listen to all the #1 Beatles songs, and you will find two things: 1) the Beatles had a LOT of #1 songs, and 2), they were much better (although that IS an opinion as well.)) Most bands that followed the Beatles didn't take after them because they knew that the Beatles had secured an up-toppable place in Rock'n;Roll history. In fact, you also have some imitation bands, like the Monkeys. Modern rock bands are putting foward their own styles of music, such as Metal and Heavy Metal, much like the Beatles put foward their own style of music.
Comments
Well...
1) they didn't write their own music
2) they were sponsored by corporations to make watered down pop-culture music
3) said music disrupted the natural progression of rock n' roll to inject emotion into music and performance, as exemplified by Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, and even in earlier rock defining genres such as jazz and swing
4) their drug related music is self indulgent on a level unparalleled by Eric Clapton, a musician known for his unnecessarily long solos
5) they are plain overrated
I think my fifth point is what bugs me the most. They were OK, but they certainly were not the best music of their generation. They didn't even define British rock in any significant way as the Stones and The Who wiped the rock slate clean and rebuilt the genre in the U.K. and the world. In fact, as can be seen in rock n' roll, every significant band that followed The Beatles tried to be anything but The Beatles.
Hard Day's Night - THE BEATLES!!!!
hates:
god hates us all - slayer