So who here doesn't really like the Beatles

[Fuzzcharger]

British bands of the Beatles era that I like more than the Beatles.

1. The Who
2. The Kinks
3. The Rolling Stones
4. The Yardbirds
5. The Zombies

I don't dislike the Beatles as such but I wouldn't have listened to them by choice for over 10 years. These bands I still listen too regularly.

[BurtReynolds]

My life motto: If you don't like The Beatles then I don't like you and you probably have body odour

See, this is the kind of persecution and intolerance I have to face every day. I'm just gonna keep my head held high!

[Soma.]

I wish I gave a shit about The Who. I play bass and I love Entwistle's work but I just can't help but shrug my shoulders at Townsend and Daltry. I'm defected.

[Lament]

As much as I love The Who, I can easily see why certain people wouldn't like them.

I would also argue (and I bet that Pete Townshend would agree) that The Who left more on the table than any other band in history. When you first get into them it's very easy to get caught up in "THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST PERFECT ROCK BAND EVER!" fever, but when you get a few years down the road and look at things more objectively, you realize that, for how stunningly amazing they were in their finest moments (Quadrophenia, The Who Sell Out, some of the 1964-1969 singles), the flashes of perfection are few and far between, and that the blame for that lies pretty much solely at the feet of them and their individual demons.

[Soma.]

They had singles as early as 1964? I just had a genuine "whatthefuck" moment. They were rather pioneering with that in mind.

[fishbob]

My life motto: If you don't like The Beatles then I don't like you and you probably have body odour

See, this is the kind of persecution and intolerance I have to face every day. I'm just gonna keep my head held high!

No amount of antiperspirant will save you

[Lament]

I had to pop onto wikipedia to check, but I Can't Explain was December of 1964 (in the US, it was January of 1965 in the UK). Their first run of singles (I Can't Explain -Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere - My Generation - Substitute) is a pretty killer way to kick off a career (and if it weren't for A Legal Matter being released as part of a silly record label fight, that run would have carried on uninterrupted with the equally brilliant The Kids Are Alright and I'm a Boy).

[Fuzzcharger]

They had singles as early as 1964? I just had a genuine "whatthefuck" moment. They were rather pioneering with that in mind.

I Can't Explain was 1965 but yeah. Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere and My Generation sound amazing for that year too.

[fishbob]

Honestly though, I think one of the reasons why The Beatles seem to polarise a lot of people in comparison to other 60s/70s British bands is that they are probably the least Americanised.

I don't mind bands like The Who, Zeppelin and Sabbath but I never dug them anywhere near as much as The Beatles. The only other 60s/70s band I've ever gotten really obsessed with is Zappa and he's certainly not the typical American musician

[Fuzzcharger]

I had to pop onto wikipedia to check, but I Can't Explain was December of 1964 (in the US, it was January of 1965 in the UK). Their first run of singles (I Can't Explain -Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere - My Generation - Substitute) is a pretty killer way to kick off a career (and if it weren't for A Legal Matter being released as part of a silly record label fight, that run would have carried on uninterrupted with the equally brilliant The Kids Are Alright and I'm a Boy).

What Lament said

[Soma.]

Fuck my ears of yesteryear, I'm off to devour some of The Who.

[Thejambi]

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.

Most of my OMGHOWCANYOUNOTUMLIKETHEUMMOTHAFUCKINGBEATLESGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-ness is shtick. For the most part, I couldn't give a good tin shit whether or not folks like a band I like. So, I hope you're not feeling any real pressure from me on this front. I'm mostly just curious why people feel the way they do. I like the explanations. And yours is as valid as they get.

But I think the reason people, in general, are so aggressive when they meet non-Beatles fans, is because the band are so widely and universally considered one of the top two or three bands ever. When you are a huge Beatles fan, it's difficult to comprehend that people don't like them. It really doesn't make sense. Because they're so talented and their music is so eclectic and they have had such a profound impact on the pop/rock musical landscape. Few bands are so universally acknowledged. As someone who is also a huge Pearl Jam fan, for example, I couldn't say the same about PJ. I absolutely get why people don't like them.

But I get what you're saying in my own way. I've never really been a huge Stones fan. Some of their stuff is great, but they don't compare to the Beatles (or Pearl Jam, for that matter) in my mind. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to punch me for saying such a thing.

No worries. I wasn't feeling defensive at all.

[Kevin Davis]

I find it interesting that multiple people have expressed fascination with how outspoken the "Beatles fans" are in their defense of them, as though they are some kind of brainwashed horde of militants incapable of accepting anything shy of unequivocal praise for their beloved. But I wonder how many of these people are "Beatles fans" in the same way that, say, Stip is a Pearl Jam fan. Personally, I can think of probably 10 artists who mean more to me than the Beatles, but from a musical standpoint I would probably defend the Beatles in a way that I wouldn't even attempt with the others. Generally speaking I don't think these defenses are coming from some army of Pit-like superfans who feel like the Beatles are "their band"; more than most bands, I think the Beatles solicit this kind of reaction from general music fans who just think they're that good, and I think that says something.

[fishbob]

^^ what he said

[Lament]

Generally speaking I don't think these defenses are coming from some army of Pit-like superfans who feel like the Beatles are "their band"; more than most bands, I think the Beatles solicit this kind of reaction from general music fans who just think they're that good, and I think that says something.

I love your posts, but I can't get on board with this. The reactions they solicit strike me the same as every reaction I've ever seen someone have over a "sacred cow" being attacked. They don't strike me as measured because I don't (for the most part) ever get the impression that the person doing the defending is even momentarily entertaining the notion that the person doing the criticism may have a point. More often than that the reaction is less a defense and more an outright dismissal. I gave a perfectly valid explanation for why the Beatles rarely cross my mind and aren't a band I care much about one way or the other, and not a single defender has even bothered to approach my explanation. There's been a lot of outright dismissal of anyone who doesn't love them though. That seems a lot more like a Pit-esque mentality than a reasonable, measured reaction.

[Lament]

I apologize if that comes off as harsher than it should. I just don't think any artist is above criticism or discussion, and I think anytime legitimate criticisms/discussion points are just instantly dismissed (regardless of who it is), it's a cop out. There are valid reasons to both like and dislike pretty much every artist ever.

[fishbob]

I apologize if that comes off as harsher than it should. I just don't think any artist is above criticism or discussion, and I think anytime legitimate criticisms/discussion points are just instantly dismissed (regardless of who it is), it's a cop out. There are valid reasons to both like and dislike pretty much every artist ever.

That's definitely true, I have no problem with people who don't like The Beatles just because it's not their thing, that's fine. Most of the arguments I've gotten into about The Beatles have been to do with people who:

1. Judge them only on tracks like "Yellow Submarine" and "She Loves You", thereby dismissing them
2. Show a complete lack of any appreciation of their innate songwriting sensibilities

Sure, the 2nd one is FAR more subjective and still relevant to your point. My main point is: you might not hang a Michaelangelo in your house and worship it every day, but you can't deny the dude could paint. I hope that doesn't sound like an arrogant point to make when referring to The Beatles but I hope you can understand what I was trying to say.

[Lament]

Of course. I don't consider myself to be a Beatles-hater by any stretch. While I don't actually have a problem with people who choose to hate them as a cultural entity or an idea (I have my own set of issues with them as an entity), I also think any enlightened music fan should be able to acknowledge they have an immense set of strengths , and have them in proportions that have impacted modern popular music in a way pretty much no one else has (which I have no problem giving them credit for). There just seems to be an attitude (and I'm by no means attributing this to anyone here, but more as a general idea) that the Beatles had the perfect set of skills in the perfect proportions, and that's an idea that bugs me about any artist. I feel like I'm at a point as a music fan where I can acknowledge the strengths/appeal of most artists and I see the Beatles the same way I see anyone else. I have no problem understanding the aesthetic tastes that would lead someone to consider them the greatest band of all-time, but I can equally understand the tastes/preferences that would lead someone to think that they're merely a band who had their moments like any other.

[Lament]

As an aside, something that I always find fascinating when I'm able to discuss music with discerning, well-versed music fans is having them tell me which "sacred cows" they legitimately love in a way that transcends their stature and which ones they (secretly or not so secretly) can't make a real connection with. It's a good way to get a feel for where someone's ultimate preferences lie, and has in the past helped me better understand what a lot of people are getting out of bands whose appeal has always eluded me.

(I should start a thread about that, although it will inevitably turn into people arguing whether or not specific artists suck as opposed to shedding any kind of light on anything...)

[Clint72]

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?

You forget that Beatles fans are allowed to make any over the top claim whatsoever about the band and it's blasphemy to question it.

I once had a Beatles fan tell me the Beatles were the reason rock bands use electric guitars.

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.

Exactly, spot on, The Beatles are amazing even more so for the time they operated in