Red Mosquito

Lament wrote: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.

I think, on the whole, what happened in this thread is that Stip rolled out the red carpet for precisely the kind of low-grade discourse that he consistently says he wishes there was less of on this board, and unsurprisingly that's exactly what he got. The thread title suckered in a few people who were happy to associate their name with a contrarian viewpoint despite the fact that they didn't really have anything interesting to say about it, and people who disagreed came back flinging equally insubstantial superlatives, and it went downhill from there. To my mind it has far less to do with people viewing the Beatles as a sort of "sacred cow" and more with the kind of discussion it was set up to be from the beginning. It could have been a thread about Soundgarden and it would have been the same thing.

That said, to respond to your explanation, from what I gathered the crux of it was basically that while there are things about the Beatles you appreciate, they haven't hit that sweet spot deep down in your soul the same way other artists have, which is something I don't think even major Beatles fans would begrudge you. Of course that's reasonable--so reasonable, in fact, that there's really nothing to "approach," as you say, which is why the people who came in here looking for what the thread title promised ignored your post and went right back to their is-not-is-too back-and-forth, and also why they shut Jorge down when he tried to steer the thread in an interesting, thought-provoking direction. This thread was simply never meant to be either of those things.

You are right that no artistic entity should be above criticism. However, virtually nothing in this thread would qualify as criticism. I think most of the Beatles defenders here would welcome a well thought-out discussion about their music, their cultural place, etc., as RM typically does. But when all people have to offer are smug one-liners that convey nothing except how impressed they are with their own boldness in being contrarian (I don't mean you here), they come across as dwarves throwing pebbles at the toes of Colossus, and it understandably gives their opponents the impression that they have no idea what they're talking about.

My criticism was more along the lines of there being traits that are undeniably big factors for a lot of people that the Beatles in fact are at best mediocre at. I'm not saying the Beatles aren't emotionally engaging at all, or even to a lot of people, but there are definitely big shades of emotional coloring that they shied almost completely away from. I remember my short-lived fascination with the Beatles ending really quickly after discovering the Who for this very reason. Pete Townshend's music was packed with deep, brutally ugly emotions that the Beatles for the most part avoided. The Who were the band from that era that made sense to me for that very reason, and who seemed like the logical flag-bearers of the qualities that were quickly making music the single most important thing in my young life. The Beatles provided a grand mythology & a technicolor dream; The Who provided a gritty, real view of the human experience that it was easy to see myself reflected in. As I worked my way through the "classics" that kind of became the line in the sand for me. I think even the most ardent Beatles defender, if being honest with him or herself, would have to grant that in the list of the things that the Beatles are constantly being credited with being the "greatest ever" at, being a mirror and an outlet for the darker shades of the human experiences is not one of them. Sure, they had their moments, but a Yer Blues here and a Don't Let Me Down there don't add up to The Who Sell Out/Who's Next/Quadrophenia/The Who Sell Out/the early teen angst singles. And I think one has to admit that this is a huge factor in what makes music important for a lot of people. I would even venture that this is the biggest line in the sand amongst the Pearl Jam fanbase; those who are most in it for the pure musicianship and those who are most in it for the emotional engagement (and I think Pearl Jam is rare in that they have a lot of fans on both sides of that line).

Let me pose a semi-unrelated question to you, cause you're someone who's opinion I respect...

Do you think there's a difference between people rejecting The Beatles as a cultural entity versus a musical entity? And if so (cause I do), do you not see some value to that? The Beatles are definitely bigger than just their catalog of work. I find the rejection of them to be more about the idea of The Beatles than a specific dislike for their music. And I actually don't see that as a necessarily bad thing. While what I'm about to say will undoubtedly be torn apart and hang around my neck like an albatross, I don't see U2 as being all that different. I think most U2 hatred is driven by hating the idea of U2 (or the idea of Bono) than it is genuinely hating their music. Their back catalog is so huge and varied and covers so much different ground that when a fan of modern popular music tells me they hate U2, it's hard for me to genuinely believe that there is not a single thing in their catalog that would appeal to them (which is a sentiment that has been echoed in this thread with regards to The Beatles).

I'm coming from the same place as Lament.

I think people can still recognise the importance of the Beatles and like certain songs without necessarily really being into the Beatles as a whole. It's not always necessarily about being too cool for school.

Lament wrote:I think even the most ardent Beatles defender, if being honest with him or herself, would have to grant that in the list of the things that the Beatles are constantly being credited with being the "greatest ever" at, being a mirror and an outlet for the darker shades of the human experiences is not one of them.

It's hard to say--I mean, you're right, on an objective level the Beatles' music is pretty thematically tame, comparatively speaking, but I also think that the music which serves as a mirror and/or outlet for any one person's experience is going to be informed by that person's own listening spectrum, so I'm hesitant to say that any one group is necessarily "better" than any other at reflecting particular shades of emotion, just because it's so relative and different for everybody. Don't get me wrong--if someone was to come to me and say, "I tend to prefer music that is kind of dark and emotionally heavy, recommend me a band," obviously the Beatles wouldn't be my first suggestion, so to that end I follow what you're saying (of course, I don't know that The Who would be my first suggestion either). But I also think that someone with a completely different aesthetic taste could conceivably arrive at the same emotional place by way of a song like "Elanor Rigby" or "A Day in the Life" or "She's Leaving Home" or "Let it Be" that someone else could only get to through something that might appear "darker" in a side-by-side comparison, and that a third person might get to simply after hearing a power ballad on the radio. There are just so many factors that play into what affects us that it's difficult to credit any one artist with being "better" at conveying certain emotions than another, because for as much as songs try to manipulate emotion I would surmise that just as much if not more of why music moves us is dictated by connections that the artist couldn't possibly have known he or she was going to make with any given listener.

For what it's worth, I do think the Beatles made songs that express deep sorrow and longing, others that express ambiguities, and many that express pure joy, which when I really break it down isn't a whole lot different than how I hear The Who. The fact that we apparently see it so differently probably only serves to illustrate how immeasurable those traits really are.

Do you think there's a difference between people rejecting The Beatles as a cultural entity versus a musical entity? And if so (cause I do), do you not see some value to that? The Beatles are definitely bigger than just their catalog of work. I find the rejection of them to be more about the idea of The Beatles than a specific dislike for their music. And I actually don't see that as a necessarily bad thing. While what I'm about to say will undoubtedly be torn apart and hang around my neck like an albatross, I don't see U2 as being all that different. I think most U2 hatred is driven by hating the idea of U2 (or the idea of Bono) than it is genuinely hating their music. Their back catalog is so huge and varied and covers so much different ground that when a fan of modern popular music tells me they hate U2, it's hard for me to genuinely believe that there is not a single thing in their catalog that would appeal to them (which is a sentiment that has been echoed in this thread with regards to The Beatles).

I definitely believe there is a difference. I'm not sure what you mean by "value"--if you mean "significant and worth noting," then yes, I do think it has value, but if you mean "credible," then not really. I don't understand the idea of disliking music because you're tired of seeing a band's faces on t-shirts and lunchboxes, if that's what you mean. I think it's fun to examine a band's place in culture but ultimately I have nothing to offer on the subjects of t-shirts and lunchboxes, and have difficulty conversing with people who tell me that the reason they don't like U2 is because they think Bono is pompous and wears ugly sunglasses and thinks he's better than everyone else because of all the money he contributes to AIDS research. I get that those things can trickle over into the music, and that ultimately the personality of the musicians is precisely what a great deal of music strives to reflect, but usually those conversations aren't interesting to me. I mean, there's no right or wrong reason to like or dislike something, I guess, but some certainly lend themselves better to being expounded upon.

I know, as I suspect we all do, many people who hate U2, mostly because of Bono, so oftentimes after they deliver their spiel about his stupid sunglasses I will politely say, "Yeah, he does seem like a bit of an egomaniac, but that really doesn't have a lot to do with his music, does it?" Some people will flat-out admit that they can't see past the person enough to hear the music for what it is, but others almost invariably say, "Oh yeah, well, I hate his music too." It's difficult to know to what extent the cultural phenomenon is affecting the music and vice versa. I mean, I'm pretty sure I'd hate fratboys if it wasn't for Dave Matthews (and Dave Matthews if it wasn't for fratboys), but who can be sure?

Kevin Davis wrote: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.

It says something about how much we're told that they're that good.

That clears up a lot, thanks. Does that explain all those Radiohead CD's on my shelf too? I've always hated them yet somehow there they all are, homemade B-sides collection and all.

Yes.

But more seriously, you said it yourself, "It's difficult to know to what extent the cultural phenomenon is affecting the music and vice versa". And you're right, we can't be sure. But we're living in a very Beatle-centric world. The same way that people growing up in a country will speak that country's language, the Beatles are so prominent in our culture that they're the language we're supposed to speak. So why would it say something when so many people speak it? It's to be expected.

You might be right. I guess I just think it's a little cynical to assume that the totality of people's relationship with the Beatles is pure indoctrination--I do think it's difficult to know how strongly the music affects the culture and vice versa, but I also think it's more of a sliding scale than an absolute on either end. I suppose in conversations with people whom I voluntarily return to converse with I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Bad idea perhaps.

Kevin Davis wrote:You might be right. I guess I just think it's a little cynical to assume that the totality of people's relationship with the Beatles is pure indoctrination--I do think it's difficult to know how strongly the music affects the culture and vice versa, but I also think it's more of a sliding scale than an absolute on either end. I suppose in conversations with people whom I voluntarily return to converse with I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Bad idea perhaps.

Yeah you're right I was being cynical, and that's because in your assumption that it had to mean something it seemed implied that this something was that they're that good. I had just typed "what does it say though?" at first. The truth is I don't know what it really says and I doubt it says anything.

Kevin Davis wrote:

Lament wrote: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.

I think, on the whole, what happened in this thread is that Stip rolled out the red carpet for precisely the kind of low-grade discourse that he consistently says he wishes there was less of on this board, and unsurprisingly that's exactly what he got. The thread title suckered in a few people who were happy to associate their name with a contrarian viewpoint despite the fact that they didn't really have anything interesting to say about it, and people who disagreed came back flinging equally insubstantial superlatives, and it went downhill from there. To my mind it has far less to do with people viewing the Beatles as a sort of "sacred cow" and more with the kind of discussion it was set up to be from the beginning. It could have been a thread about Soundgarden and it would have been the same thing.

That said, to respond to your explanation, from what I gathered the crux of it was basically that while there are things about the Beatles you appreciate, they haven't hit that sweet spot deep down in your soul the same way other artists have, which is something I don't think even major Beatles fans would begrudge you. Of course that's reasonable--so reasonable, in fact, that there's really nothing to "approach," as you say, which is why the people who came in here looking for what the thread title promised ignored your post and went right back to their is-not-is-too back-and-forth, and also why they shut Jorge down when he tried to steer the thread in an interesting, thought-provoking direction. This thread was simply never meant to be either of those things.

You are right that no artistic entity should be above criticism. However, virtually nothing in this thread would qualify as criticism. I think most of the Beatles defenders here would welcome a well thought-out discussion about their music, their cultural place, etc., as RM typically does. But when all people have to offer are smug one-liners that convey nothing except how impressed they are with their own boldness in being contrarian (I don't mean you here), they come across as dwarves throwing pebbles at the toes of Colossus, and it understandably gives their opponents the impression that they have no idea what they're talking about.

if this makes you feel better, KD, this thread was created in response to a sequence in PJ chat, when DcT justified something being good based on Paul McCartney's opinion (PM likes it, so it must be good). I responded that this wouldn't influence me since I don't like the beatles, to which DcT's response was essentially that the conversation was now over, rendered null and void and stupid. a few other posters very quickly chimed in that they didn't like the beatles either, and i started to wonder how many closeted non beatles fans their were. This was really just intended to be a roll call thread, not a serious discussion. It wasn't meant to be trolling either. Youll notice the title was not 'so the beatles kinda suck' or 'the beatles are awful'. This was not a tangent in the beatles thread (which I avoid, since I don't care for the beatles). I figured the conversation would eventually shift to why people don't like the beatles. I was called away from RM before I could start those posts. Lament was here, though.

Note too though, the implicit assumption in your argument that to even hold the opinion that you personally don't like the beatles music requires you to justify or defend it. That the act of disliking their music itself is potentially suspect. That if there is one opinion in all of music that simply cannot be held as intrinsically valid it is this.

Kevin Davis wrote: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.

The fact that the music is that good is quite possibly why they have the defenders that they do. The fact that you cannot possibly dislike the beatles without something being wrong with you is something altogether different. That's the beatles as ideology.

to answer a question from long ago in this thread, I can appreciate the Beatles historical importance and legacy. That's untouchable and not really disputable. I do think older artists (older anything really) have a tendency to be mythologized and romanticizied beyond their actual merits. I tend to think this about lots of things though. I also think the American founders and the Constitution are quite overrated. But I do believe if the Beatles came out today they'd be remembered as a very good rock band rather than THE BEATLES. That's a counterfactual, though, and to be fair I may just feel that way because I don't like most of their music.

My college roomate and best friend is a huge beatles fan. I've heard (I presume) most of their catalog, and it is difficult not to encounter vast swaths of it by virtue of simply being alive and listening to music. Musically it's pretty diverse. I have 2 issues with it.

1. Musically a lot of it feels very 60sish to me and I generally am not a big fan of that asthetic (there are exceptions)

2. I really don't like what Paul McCartney and John Lennon sound like.

There are exceptions, obviously. Here and there they do produce songs i like. Sometimes it's odd choices too. I kinda like silly love songs. I like instant karma. (I know neither are beatles songs). But for the most part their catalog is full of songs I'd just rather not listen to.

It becomes much easier to dislike the beatles in a way that i don't necessarily dislike other bands purely as an act of resentment. When the assumption is that there is something WRONG with you for not liking an artist (a sentiment on display in this thread and with a degree of intensity not warranted by the initial posts) it becomes easier to feel an aversion for the band as an institution. If we expect people to celebrate and revere the beatles because they are beatles (and we do expect that) then it isn't surprising to see other people end up disliking them at least in part for the same reason

If was to say, for instance, that I genuinely thought (and I do) that REM was a better band than the Beatles--that they wrote better songs and that the best songs were more emotionally impactful, that the lyrics were more interesting, etc. I'd be dismissed as a moron. And not because there's anything wrong with REM. Because you're not allowed, culturally, to not think that about the beatles. And it's that, not the lunch box or the proliferation of the image, that is the cause of resentment. Not the ubiquity. The way in which the beatles close off debate and discussion about music because they are the beatles

man, I wish I was here when the good posting was happening

Kevin Davis wrote:

Lament wrote: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.

I think, on the whole, what happened in this thread is that Stip rolled out the red carpet for precisely the kind of low-grade discourse that he consistently says he wishes there was less of on this board, and unsurprisingly that's exactly what he got. The thread title suckered in a few people who were happy to associate their name with a contrarian viewpoint despite the fact that they didn't really have anything interesting to say about it.

3 of the first 4 "I don't like the beatles' posters in this thread were myself, harmless, and thejambi. You can say a lot about this group but it's not really made up of reflexive contrarians. Note again, however, the initial assumption you made here---'that one can only dislike the beatles as an act of reflexive contrariness'

Kevin Davis wrote:
That said, to respond to your explanation, from what I gathered the crux of it was basically that while there are things about the Beatles you appreciate, they haven't hit that sweet spot deep down in your soul the same way other artists have, which is something I don't think even major Beatles fans would begrudge you. Of course that's reasonable--so reasonable, in fact, that there's really nothing to "approach," as you say, which is why the people who came in here looking for what the thread title promised ignored your post and went right back to their is-not-is-too back-and-forth, and also why they shut Jorge down when he tried to steer the thread in an interesting, thought-provoking direction. This thread was simply never meant to be either of those things.

I refer you to jorge's first post in this thread:

theplatypus wrote:

about The Beatles, a Pearl Jam enthusiast once wrote:A handful of songs are pretty good

and the world held in its giggles

also, it was basically Soma that shot down Jorge's question--one of the 'you're a moron if you dislike the beatles' posters.

What the Fuck is this thread? I SHOULD LOCK THIS THREAD RIGHT NOW

E.H. Ruddock wrote:What the Fuck is this thread? I SHOULD LOCK THIS THREAD RIGHT NOW

Just another evidence of thought-provoking comments being shut down.

stip wrote:if this makes you feel better, KD, this thread was created in response to a sequence in PJ chat, when DcT justified something being good based on Paul McCartney's opinion (PM likes it, so it must be good).

Nope. I haven't finished reading this entire reply because I take tremendous issue with this. I absolutely did NOT say that.

durdencommatyler wrote:Not that it matters or should sway your own opinion in any way, it's just an interesting fact that maybe you'd like to know, but Paul McCartney has called it the best song ever written.

stip wrote:to which DcT's response was essentially that the conversation was now over, rendered null and void and stupid.

I said "I quit."

And I clearly didn't. Because here I am still posting on RM and PJ Chat specifically. Because it was (I thought pretty clearly) a joke.