Red Mosquito

Lament wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:If you're allowed to condescend in such a generalized way, then I'll go ahead and say it's a fact that the only reason people claim to not like the Beatles is that they're just being brats and rebelling against something for the sake of it. If what you say is true, then it's also true that people who dislike the Beatles aren't listening to the Beatles. They never have. They made up their minds before they took the time.

BurtReynolds wrote:Even claiming that The Beatles are just ok isn't enough to keep Beatles fans from foaming at the mouth, so I dont think its the same.

Apparently so, since if you'd read my first post here, I have no problem being up front with what material from the Beatles I do enjoy. But I'm just rebelling by only liking some of their material and being generally indifferent to them for the most part.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Lament wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:If you're allowed to condescend in such a generalized way, then I'll go ahead and say it's a fact that the only reason people claim to not like the Beatles is that they're just being brats and rebelling against something for the sake of it. If what you say is true, then it's also true that people who dislike the Beatles aren't listening to the Beatles. They never have. They made up their minds before they took the time.

BurtReynolds wrote:Even claiming that The Beatles are just ok isn't enough to keep Beatles fans from foaming at the mouth, so I dont think its the same.

Apparently so, since if you'd read my first post here, I have no problem being up front with what material from the Beatles I do enjoy. But I'm just rebelling by only liking some of their material and being generally indifferent to them for the most part.

Again, who's foaming? I gave a condescending, tongue-in-cheek response to a condescending generalization.

Soma. wrote:God I wish Lament posted in OB more often. I guess he would if he had the thirst for new music to warrant such forays. He writes so well.

Lament wrote:

Soma. wrote:God I wish Lament posted in OB more often. I guess he would if he had the thirst for new music to warrant such forays. He writes so well.

Thanks. I'll try to pop in here more often. My few excursions over here have been pretty enjoyable. There's some good discourse in the OB threads I've checked out.

doug rr wrote:we love having you around even if you're wrong about things a lot everything

Lament wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

Lament wrote:

Soma. wrote:You posted 300+ times in the LB hype thread.

I don't see what that has to do with this though...

The Beatles were obviously far more sonically adventurous and groundbreaking, as were many other bands. Both bands (and many other bands) were far more influential in every way possible. And if that's the main thing that gets you off, that's awesome. But for some of us that's only one element of a much larger equation, and probably not even the most significant one

There are maybe only a handful of artists in the history of popular music that have music that has engaged my emotions and sense of self and have connected to my specific set of human experiences the way Pearl Jam's finest material has. I've been exposed to the entire Beatles catalog my entire life, and there's nothing in it that makes me deal better with being in my own skin the way something like Corduroy or Present Tense or I Got Shit does, and that definitely counts for something. So while I don't doubt that plenty of discerning music fans do find there to be vast majesty of riches in the back catalog of the Beatles or Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or whoever (and I do acknowledge that all of these acts have material that I do enjoy), their respective equations don't add up to even a portion of what the equations put forth by Pearl Jam or the Smiths or Bruce Springsteen or PJ Harvey or the Clash do.

This is a great post.

Thanks man. For what it's worth, I realize I left in a reference to "both bands" in the first paragraph from when I had a Led Zeppelin reference in there with the Beatles, so the "both bands" in question aren't the Beatles & Pearl Jam, in case it reads like that.

Thejambi wrote:I've never been asked to defend my dislike for a band more often and aggressively than for the Beatles. I don't know why nor do I know why it is a barometer of my musical tastes or merit. As a unit they just don't "move" me , at all. That is the only blanket statement I can make as far as why I don't like them.

evenslow wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

harmless wrote:

evenslow wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:90% of it is the vocals for me.

From two of the best rock vocalists of all time?

What about a nice harmony song like "If I Fell"?

It's this kind of thing that I hear Beatles fans say and I just can't stomach it. Really?

Yep.

Yep.

Sarah. wrote:I made harmless listen to Helter Skelter. I think he kind of liked it.

EJ wrote:

Sarah. wrote:I made harmless listen to Helter Skelter. I think he kind of liked it.

Please tell me he's heard it before.

Sarah. wrote:I made harmless listen to Helter Skelter. I think he kind of liked it.

EJ wrote:

Sarah. wrote:I made harmless listen to Helter Skelter. I think he kind of liked it.

Please tell me he's heard it before.

Lament wrote:

EJ wrote:

Sarah. wrote:I made harmless listen to Helter Skelter. I think he kind of liked it.

Please tell me he's heard it before.

I heard he rocks out to this all the time...

EJ wrote: I'm beginning to wonder (a fearing wonder, that is).