So who here doesn't really like the Beatles

[darth_vedder]

stip, do you ever play the Beatles for your little one? They make great music for kids...some of the early pop songs are a great way to introduce rock n' roll, and songs like "All You Need Is Love", "Octopus's Garden", and "Yellow Submarine" are good sing alongs for kids. Those songs are far from my favorites but the younglings seem to like 'em.

[Soma.]

I'm gonna have to gift you a nod of the head there. Try to envision a fan of an over-the-hill band who, through the use of metallurgy spectacles, can justify not completely disowning said band. I'm no Corgan apologist, but at least I'm a realist.

[Heathen]

actually some of the music on oceania was okay until Corgan opened his mouth. But this isn't really a thread about thinking the Pumpkins lost it. this is a thread about not liking the beatles.

how excited would you be about a McCartney/Corgan duet? music would be just steel drums

[Soma.]

stip, do you ever play the Beatles for your little one? They make great music for kids...some of the early pop songs are a great way to introduce rock n' roll, and songs like "All You Need Is Love", "Octopus's Garden", and "Yellow Submarine" are good sing alongs for kids. Those songs are far from my favorites but the younglings seem to like 'em.

Can confirm. When I was 7 years old my class sang "Octopus" for a school production.

[digster]

And, whether you love it or hate it, at least that's what Ed was trying in Backspacer. I'm not trying to say that Backspacer is as good as the Beatles, or even in the same ballpark. One is the originator of many of today's pop melodies and musical tendencies, and the other is just a great rock band wanting to have "fun".

I don't think the 'concept' of what Ed was trying to do on Backspacer is the issue with me; not every genre is created equally with each songwriter. Ed may have been emulating the Beatles, but that means little on its' success or failure, which I guess is a more personal thing for each person.

As for the debate, stip and pretty much everyone else is free to like or dislike whatever, but I disagree with this whole thing;

After my listening experience yesterday I certainly feel stronger in my view that part of the appeal of the Beatles is the ideology of The Beatles. What they were doing at the time HAD to have been really powerful to have built the following they did? I'm not denying that. How could you? But once history becomes mythologized it changes how we view history. And people rarely recognize the mythology they are living with as mythology.

I get that some of this, maybe even a huge part of it, is just that my tastes run in a different direction, and it is simple aesthetics. But is that ALL of it? I'm not so sure.

There are plenty of acts that were topping the charts in the Beatles heyday, and even afterwards, that have been relegated to history's dustbin as the decades went by, but The Beatles continue to maintain the stature and import they held in pop music basically since their breakup. Don't you think the shine would have worn off by now if the appeal of the Beatles was built on an 'ideology?' It absolutely would have; over four decades is a long time to maintain a devoted and massive fanbase on something so frivolous. So yes, I'd say it is mostly your taste. There's nothing wrong with someone's tastes putting them in the minority on a band or piece of music; there's a few PJ songs I love that I'm certainly in the minority on, but it doesn't mean there's a kink in the devotion of the majority opinion.

[McParadigm]

Well, I find it amusing that so many songs are dismissed as trite or shallow or whatever, just because they came after the fact of the Beatles. The Beatles set a precedent of writing songs which, sonically, often had a happy, shamefully "child-like" (not childish) aesthetic. And, whether you love it or hate it, at least that's what Ed was trying in Backspacer. I'm not trying to say that Backspacer is as good as the Beatles, or even in the same ballpark. One is the originator of many of today's pop melodies and musical tendencies, and the other is just a great rock band wanting to have "fun". But it still intrigues me that we sometimes have so much difficulty accepting things on their own terms. Anyway, I'm going to look for that list of essential Beatles songs that someone posted, and try again with them. They deserve more of a chance than I gave them yesterday in the jumped-up, anxious state I was in.

I don't know about other people, but I really appreciated the attempt at playful on Backspacer. I liked that they went for that, and I think that they even sometimes got there. I also think it's worth noting that, to the public at large, Backspacer is considered a late-era highlight and a refreshing moment from a band that had spent a long time not being worth listening to.

Where I think that effort ran into trouble was: 1. playful is not their natural motif, and a little bit of that heavy-as-lead Pearl Jam emotional core pops up throughout the record. So instead of feeling straight-up lighthearted and fun, it sometimes has a really weird feeling kind of like "Your life is hard? HA! Not my problem!" And I think it says a lot that Johnny Guitar, one of the songs that really manages the playful without dipping into something bigger, is one of the more popular songs among fans. 2. Pearl Jam fans. People who are going to spend tons of money on unremarkable remasters, corny merchandise, "exclusive content," and multiple copies of the same record for a band who have like six hundred songs about dead kids, being abused, or running away from your problems probably have an underlying aesthetic they were drawn to. There's a type of bite, or minor key hum, that inhabits a lot of that music. Backspacer does not adhere to that aesthetic, so it's not going to be a big hit with that crowd.

Frankly, in a lot of ways the not-quite-below-the-radar pop scene (calling it indie feels so inaccurate right now) seems like it's really gotten into that whole 60's childlike motif. It's sort of hip to have your band do a song on a kids' show, "playful" and "goofy" have become positive review descriptions, and ever since Yoshimi there's been an underlying acceptance of storybook or cartoony elements showing up in songs.

[stip]

actually some of the music on oceania was okay until Corgan opened his mouth. But this isn't really a thread about thinking the Pumpkins lost it. this is a thread about not liking the beatles.

how excited would you be about a McCartney/Corgan duet? music would be just steel drums

I think I'd be pretty depressed knowing that, after it was over, my life would have peaked.

[stip]

stip, do you ever play the Beatles for your little one? They make great music for kids...some of the early pop songs are a great way to introduce rock n' roll, and songs like "All You Need Is Love", "Octopus's Garden", and "Yellow Submarine" are good sing alongs for kids. Those songs are far from my favorites but the younglings seem to like 'em.

there is lots of other music I think she'll like that isn't the beatles. I wouldn't turn it off if she wants to hear it, but she isn't discovering it here

[stip]

Well, I find it amusing that so many songs are dismissed as trite or shallow or whatever, just because they came after the fact of the Beatles. The Beatles set a precedent of writing songs which, sonically, often had a happy, shamefully "child-like" (not childish) aesthetic. And, whether you love it or hate it, at least that's what Ed was trying in Backspacer. I'm not trying to say that Backspacer is as good as the Beatles, or even in the same ballpark. One is the originator of many of today's pop melodies and musical tendencies, and the other is just a great rock band wanting to have "fun". But it still intrigues me that we sometimes have so much difficulty accepting things on their own terms. Anyway, I'm going to look for that list of essential Beatles songs that someone posted, and try again with them. They deserve more of a chance than I gave them yesterday in the jumped-up, anxious state I was in.

I don't know about other people, but I really appreciated the attempt at playful on Backspacer. I liked that they went for that, and I think that they even sometimes got there. I also think it's worth noting that, to the public at large, Backspacer is considered a late-era highlight and a refreshing moment from a band that had spent a long time not being worth listening to.

Where I think that effort ran into trouble was: 1. playful is not their natural motif, and a little bit of that heavy-as-lead Pearl Jam emotional core pops up throughout the record. So instead of feeling straight-up lighthearted and fun, it sometimes has a really weird feeling kind of like "Your life is hard? HA! Not my problem!" And I think it says a lot that Johnny Guitar, one of the songs that really manages the playful without dipping into something bigger, is one of the more popular songs among fans. 2. Pearl Jam fans. People who are going to spend tons of money on unremarkable remasters, corny merchandise, "exclusive content," and multiple copies of the same record for a band who have like six hundred songs about dead kids, being abused, or running away from your problems probably have an underlying aesthetic they were drawn to. There's a type of bite, or minor key hum, that inhabits a lot of that music. Backspacer does not adhere to that aesthetic, so it's not going to be a big hit with that crowd.

Frankly, in a lot of ways the not-quite-below-the-radar pop scene (calling it indie feels so inaccurate right now) seems like it's really gotten into that whole 60's childlike motif. It's sort of hip to have your band do a song on a kids' show, "playful" and "goofy" have become positive review descriptions, and ever since Yoshimi there's been an underlying acceptance of storybook or cartoony elements showing up in songs.

this was a good post

[Kevin Davis]

We have a hilarious video of my oldest daughter running around the living room singing "Octopus's Garden" when she was about two.

I apologize if I came across as a jerk earlier in this thread. Something about the tone of threads like this--from people on both sides--just rubs me the wrong way. But it flowered into something beautiful.

[Gods' Die]

After my listening experience yesterday I certainly feel stronger in my view that part of the appeal of the Beatles is the ideology of The Beatles. What they were doing at the time HAD to have been really powerful to have built the following they did? I'm not denying that. How could you? But once history becomes mythologized it changes how we view history. And people rarely recognize the mythology they are living with as mythology.

I get that some of this, maybe even a huge part of it, is just that my tastes run in a different direction, and it is simple aesthetics. But is that ALL of it? I'm not so sure.

There are plenty of acts that were topping the charts in the Beatles heyday, and even afterwards, that have been relegated to history's dustbin as the decades went by, but The Beatles continue to maintain the stature and import they held in pop music basically since their breakup. Don't you think the shine would have worn off by now if the appeal of the Beatles was built on an 'ideology?' It absolutely would have; over four decades is a long time to maintain a devoted and massive fanbase on something so frivolous. So yes, I'd say it is mostly your taste. There's nothing wrong with someone's tastes putting them in the minority on a band or piece of music; there's a few PJ songs I love that I'm certainly in the minority on; it doesn't mean there's a kink in the devotion of the majority opinion.

Yeah, I completely disagree with stip's assumption here. If anything, they stood the test of time (they're the fucking Beatles, aka most obvious statement ever) in that the 1960s would die and over time the Beatles would lose that benefit they got from being culture. Decades later people who never experienced that time period would listen to the songs based on their merit alone. I never lived it and I've gone through their songs and I tagged them as the greatest band ever with ears that first thought they sucked and adored the heavy, dour alternative grunge scene of the 90s. It means everyone was right at the time and continue to be, even though it was a little overboard...teenage girls pissing themselves and fainting at concerts?

[harmless]

Guys, here are some Beatles songs I like, after hearing them ITT (and also thanks to darth_vedder's list):

The End
A Day in the Life (This is the kind of song Oasis and Blur took more than a page from; also, strangely, Arcade Fire.)
Don't Let Me Down (Liked this one a lot.)
Cry Baby Cry
I'm So Tired (More stuff ripped off by melancholy Blur.)
She's Leaving Home (Dem strings!)
And Your Bird Can Sing (Liked this a lot.)
Flying
Blue Jay Way
Within You Without You
I'm Only Sleeping
Tomorrow Never Knows (Great Eastern sounds here, again; Kim Thayil is probably indebted.)
Run For Your Life (It's too jolly, really, but the hilarious jealous-murder-song aspect won me over.)
You Never Give Me Your Money (One of the few Beatles songs in which I like the drums.)
I Want You (She's So Heavy)
I've Got a Feeling
Paperback Writer
Don't Bother Me
Across the Universe
I'll Follow the Sun
Happiness is a Warm Gun
Yer Blues
Helter Skelter
For You Blue
Help (One of their "pop hits" that I always did like, though it's hardly on regular rotation or anything.)

Yesterday I found The White Album fairly difficult to listen to as an entire piece. A lot of the sounds were quite harsh and grating to my ears (the vocals are less subdued / more shouty than I'd like, that harpsichord, the child-like melodies... eek). I think I like the more emotional-anthemic / melancholy side of the Beatles more than the jolly, whimsical, childlike side. But I like satire, so I'll keep trying with that. Because so much of their stuff flits from serious to whimsical, they're not the easiest band to make sense of quickly. And I guess that's the way it should be.

I think I'm going to like Revolver. Other than that, Beatles fans, it would be interesting to hear what years / records I seem to favour.

At this point, my issue with the Beatles is that they're so frustratingly various, I'm never going to be able to say I'm a fan, just that I like some of their songs.

[Soma.]

But I like satire.

Oh dear. Too easy.

[harmless]

Well, I find it amusing that so many songs are dismissed as trite or shallow or whatever, just because they came after the fact of the Beatles. The Beatles set a precedent of writing songs which, sonically, often had a happy, shamefully "child-like" (not childish) aesthetic. And, whether you love it or hate it, at least that's what Ed was trying in Backspacer. I'm not trying to say that Backspacer is as good as the Beatles, or even in the same ballpark. One is the originator of many of today's pop melodies and musical tendencies, and the other is just a great rock band wanting to have "fun". But it still intrigues me that we sometimes have so much difficulty accepting things on their own terms. Anyway, I'm going to look for that list of essential Beatles songs that someone posted, and try again with them. They deserve more of a chance than I gave them yesterday in the jumped-up, anxious state I was in.

I don't know about other people, but I really appreciated the attempt at playful on Backspacer. I liked that they went for that, and I think that they even sometimes got there. I also think it's worth noting that, to the public at large, Backspacer is considered a late-era highlight and a refreshing moment from a band that had spent a long time not being worth listening to.

Where I think that effort ran into trouble was: 1. playful is not their natural motif, and a little bit of that heavy-as-lead Pearl Jam emotional core pops up throughout the record. So instead of feeling straight-up lighthearted and fun, it sometimes has a really weird feeling kind of like "Your life is hard? HA! Not my problem!" And I think it says a lot that Johnny Guitar, one of the songs that really manages the playful without dipping into something bigger, is one of the more popular songs among fans. 2. Pearl Jam fans. People who are going to spend tons of money on unremarkable remasters, corny merchandise, "exclusive content," and multiple copies of the same record for a band who have like six hundred songs about dead kids, being abused, or running away from your problems probably have an underlying aesthetic they were drawn to. There's a type of bite, or minor key hum, that inhabits a lot of that music. Backspacer does not adhere to that aesthetic, so it's not going to be a big hit with that crowd.

Frankly, in a lot of ways the not-quite-below-the-radar pop scene (calling it indie feels so inaccurate right now) seems like it's really gotten into that whole 60's childlike motif. It's sort of hip to have your band do a song on a kids' show, "playful" and "goofy" have become positive review descriptions, and ever since Yoshimi there's been an underlying acceptance of storybook or cartoony elements showing up in songs.

this was a good post

It really was.

[harmless]

But I like satire.

Oh dear. Too easy.

[digster]

Yeah, I completely disagree with stip's assumption here. If anything, they stood the test of time (they're the fucking Beatles, aka most obvious statement ever) in that the 1960s would die and over time the Beatles would lose that benefit they got from being culture. Decades later people who never experienced that time period would listen to the songs based on their merit alone. I never lived it and I've gone through their songs and I tagged them as the greatest band ever with ears that first thought they sucked and adored the heavy, dour alternative grunge scene of the 90s. It means everyone was right at the time and continue to be, even though it was a little overboard...teenage girls pissing themselves and fainting at concerts?

Though not without exception, I'd argue that the amount and type of acclaim a band like The Beatles continues to receive 40 years on is by and large on merit. I'd agree that these types of 'mythological' attributes exist, but they're not really sustainable, especially to the degree The Beatles continue to be received.

[Heathen]

Yeah, I completely disagree with stip's assumption here. If anything, they stood the test of time (they're the fucking Beatles, aka most obvious statement ever) in that the 1960s would die and over time the Beatles would lose that benefit they got from being culture. Decades later people who never experienced that time period would listen to the songs based on their merit alone. I never lived it and I've gone through their songs and I tagged them as the greatest band ever with ears that first thought they sucked and adored the heavy, dour alternative grunge scene of the 90s. It means everyone was right at the time and continue to be, even though it was a little overboard...teenage girls pissing themselves and fainting at concerts?

Though not without exception, I'd argue that the amount and type of acclaim a band like The Beatles continues to receive 40 years on is by and large on merit. I'd agree that these types of 'mythological' attributes exist, but they're not really sustainable, especially to the degree The Beatles continue to be received.

I can think of a certain mythology that has been able to sustain itself on nothing concrete for much, much longer.

[Mike]

I'm just getting into the Beatles and love the journey so far. I'm far more drawn to their songs that don't get too weird/experiment too much. Songs where they just show their extreme talent for writing wonderful melodies. Eleanor Rigby, Here, There And Everywhere, And Your Bird Can Sing, For No One, I'm Looking Through You, Help, I'm Looking Through You, She's Leaving Home, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds... to give some random examples of songs I enjoy a lot.
Maybe with some more time I will start to enjoy their weirder and goofier side as well. Right now I don't enjoy songs like Taxman, Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite, Tomorrow Never Knows (Sorry ), Polythene Pam, Because...that much. (To give some examples of that side).
Another thing I'm not sure about yet is Lennon's voice. Sometimes I really enjoy it and sometimes he can really annoy me. I really don't enjoy his voice in Tomorrow Never Knows but love him in You've Got To Hide Your Love Away. Sometimes his singing gets kinda weird. I enjoy McCartney most of the time and think he's my favorite songwriter and vocalist right now.

Overall I'm beginning to love these guys.

[bada]

I seem to remember when I was a kid having a 45 with Thriller on one side and Hard Days Night on the other. That can't be right can it?

[stip]

After my listening experience yesterday I certainly feel stronger in my view that part of the appeal of the Beatles is the ideology of The Beatles. What they were doing at the time HAD to have been really powerful to have built the following they did? I'm not denying that. How could you? But once history becomes mythologized it changes how we view history. And people rarely recognize the mythology they are living with as mythology.

I get that some of this, maybe even a huge part of it, is just that my tastes run in a different direction, and it is simple aesthetics. But is that ALL of it? I'm not so sure.

There are plenty of acts that were topping the charts in the Beatles heyday, and even afterwards, that have been relegated to history's dustbin as the decades went by, but The Beatles continue to maintain the stature and import they held in pop music basically since their breakup. Don't you think the shine would have worn off by now if the appeal of the Beatles was built on an 'ideology?' It absolutely would have; over four decades is a long time to maintain a devoted and massive fanbase on something so frivolous. So yes, I'd say it is mostly your taste. There's nothing wrong with someone's tastes putting them in the minority on a band or piece of music; there's a few PJ songs I love that I'm certainly in the minority on, but it doesn't mean there's a kink in the devotion of the majority opinion.

Let me be clear. The appeal of the beatles will primarily be in terms of musical quality. If there isn't something there to grab people they would have faded. No question. But there is an aura around The Beatles that will certainly enhance the individual merits of the music. that's the mythology. And if anything the more time passes, the more the stories get told, the more the music gets shared, the more likely this is to only enhance the mythology. There is a difference between hearing I'm only Sleeping and I'm Only Sleeping by The Beatles.

Look at the way Nevermind (and Nirvana) are remembered. Were they a good band? Absolutely. A great band even. An important part of music history. Definitely. Do you think they're lionized perhaps a bit more than they should be? It's the same phenomena on a smaller scale.

What may change this is the way in which the democratization of music pushes against the idea of their being a canon, or even history, in music. Maybe that enhances the stature of the Beatles and any band that comes from the period where there was a common story to rock music. But maybe, in the absence of that story being told, the importance of the mythology fades, and the Beatles are finally remembered solely for the merits of the music, and not the mythology.