The Beatles: Do You Like Them?

[Topic]

I havent really listened to em @ all, i dont even know one of their songs :(

No,I don't.

No, not at all.

They're pretty good.

No not really. I think they're a great band but it's definitely not my type of music.

Never listened to their songs and I don't want to.

Meh, haven't listened to enough of their songs to really say if I like them or not.

The Beatles are killer. One advantage the Brits have over us Westerners.enterawesome

I definitely used to like them a lot when I was younger, but not as much now.

I'll still listen to them once in a while, though. Especially "Hey Jude", "Eleanor Rigby" and "A Day in the Life".

And even though I don't listen to it as much as I once did, Sgt Pepper is still on of the best albums of its time.

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]The Beatles are killer. One advantage the Brits have over us Westerners.LJS9502_basic

They are good, but a bit overrated tbh

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="enterawesome"]The Beatles are killer. One advantage the Brits have over us Westerners.Danm_999

Perfect example of media-hype programming public opinion. The annoying baby-boomer generation keeps hammering the message down everyone's throats that the Beatles are somehow timeless and awesome. Enough sheeple buy into the message to perpetuate the meme. They may have been special in their day, but they're no longer interesting or relevant. They should be relegated to the dustbin of history like the popular big band groups of the 40s and the jazz musicians of the 20s and 30s. Their time has passed.

Perfect example of media-hype programming public opinion. The annoying baby-boomer generation keeps hammering the message down everyone's throats that the Beatles are somehow timeless and awesome. Enough sheeple buy into the message to perpetuate the meme. They may have been special in their day, but they're no longer interesting or relevant. They should be relegated to the dustbin of history like the popular big band groups of the 40s and the jazz musicians of the 20s and 30s. Their time has passed.

bogaty

Why? The Beatles quality may be in debate, but their wealth, success and influence are not. Danm_999

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

Perfect example of media-hype programming public opinion. The annoying baby-boomer generation keeps hammering the message down everyone's throats that the Beatles are somehow timeless and awesome. Enough sheeple buy into the message to perpetuate the meme. They may have been special in their day, but they're no longer interesting or relevant. They should be relegated to the dustbin of history like the popular big band groups of the 40s and the jazz musicians of the 20s and 30s. Their time has passed.

Danm_999

The fact that baby-boomers are still in positions of control on most editorial boards for nearly all media. They control the content so they control the message.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Why? The Beatles quality may be in debate, but their wealth, success and influence are not. LJS9502_basic

Success and influence are interesting because I'd bet if we weren't force fed The Beatles were both they would not be so considered by so many. Yes, as with all bands their fans would say that....but it seems more media influence than anything else TBH. Conditioning that the band is as important.

LJS9502_basic

No

meh theyre ok

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="bogaty"]

Perfect example of media-hype programming public opinion. The annoying baby-boomer generation keeps hammering the message down everyone's throats that the Beatles are somehow timeless and awesome. Enough sheeple buy into the message to perpetuate the meme. They may have been special in their day, but they're no longer interesting or relevant. They should be relegated to the dustbin of history like the popular big band groups of the 40s and the jazz musicians of the 20s and 30s. Their time has passed.

bogaty

The fact that baby-boomers are still in positions of control on most editorial boards for nearly all media. They control the content so they control the message.

One of my favorite bands, probably the most innovative rock band..Ever. If you plan on listening to them pick up any album after 1964.

The Beatles are my favorite band. I've been buying the new remasters and it's like experiencing an old movie in HD, it's amazing. The Beatles are one of the only pop bands respected in almost all genres of music. I'm a jazz and classical guitarist and in both of those fields I often hear people say, "I don't like much pop music but I love the Beatles". Covering Beatles in jazz is pretty popular too, to the point where a couple of Beatles songs are considered jazz standards now (Michelle and Yesterday).

They were a band that matured as they went on and created amazing pieces of work in their studio years. Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, and Abbey Road are some of the greatest albums in pop history.

You don't see what the wealth the Beatles generated for Britain as an advantage?

Ok, logical question then; why is the media force feeding the Beatles? Why is the media attempting to portray them as so influencial? Is the media falsifying the fact they are the best selling artist of all time? Is the media falsifying the fact that Yesterday is the most covered song of all time? Or, Occam's Razor, is it just that they were a popular and successful band?Danm_999

The media force feeds The Beatles starting with they "hysteria" of their coming over. You have to look at the political landscape. You also have to understand that what initially sold the band was the boy band statues. They were "cute" and the girls went crazy. Now...take that away and what do you have in the early 60's? An okay pop band. The early songs were quite catchy but I don't think even the most ardent Beatles fan would say they were great. Most Beatles fans liked what came later more.

And when we talk of what came later we are seeing influences on The Beatles. But with all mainstream music.....the mainstream is what gets the radio play. It's what people gauge music on. And I think if one were honest......and the British Invasion hadn't come at the right time and place and the band had the look...which was culled for them....The Beatles would have been just another band.

Now I'm not saying they were a terrible band. I'm not saying they wouldn't have fans. I'm saying they wouldn't have the hype.

They started to grow on me after playing Rock BandOblivionfan10

No. I don't like them at all. At. All.

Arguably the most influential band of all time.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]You don't see what the wealth the Beatles generated for Britain as an advantage?

Ok, logical question then; why is the media force feeding the Beatles? Why is the media attempting to portray them as so influencial? Is the media falsifying the fact they are the best selling artist of all time? Is the media falsifying the fact that Yesterday is the most covered song of all time? Or, Occam's Razor, is it just that they were a popular and successful band?LJS9502_basic

The media force feeds The Beatles starting with they "hysteria" of their coming over. You have to look at the political landscape. You also have to understand that what initially sold the band was the boy band statues. They were "cute" and the girls went crazy. Now...take that away and what do you have in the early 60's? An okay pop band. The early songs were quite catchy but I don't think even the most ardent Beatles fan would say they were great. Most Beatles fans liked what came later more.

And when we talk of what came later we are seeing influences on The Beatles. But with all mainstream music.....the mainstream is what gets the radio play. It's what people gauge music on. And I think if one were honest......and the British Invasion hadn't come at the right time and place and the band had the look...which was culled for them....The Beatles would have been just another band.

Now I'm not saying they were a terrible band. I'm not saying they wouldn't have fans. I'm saying they wouldn't have the hype.

No I don't see that wealth matters in the least in relation to music. Music is an art.LJS9502_basic

Wow, really?

So you really don't understand why the British must be extremely pleased with the Beatles, given their immense profitability?

Do you really not understand, or are you being obtuse to not concede the point?

The media force feeds The Beatles starting with they "hysteria" of their coming over.You have to look at the political landscape. You also have to understand that what initially sold the band was the boy band statues. They were "cute" and the girls went crazy. Now...take that away and what do you have in the early 60's? An okay pop band. The early songs were quite catchy but I don't think even the most ardent Beatles fan would say they were great. Most Beatles fans liked what came later more.LJS9502_basic

The Beatles were not the first, nor were they the last British artists to be introduced to the United States.

Your point doesn't explain why they succeeded, but why, for example, Cliff Richard failed before them. Why the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Zombies, all who rode in on the wave the Beatles created, are not replicated as such in decades since.

You speak of a political landscape that chewed up and spat out plenty of other British artists in the United States, but you don't explain why this didn't happen to the Beatles.

For them to have succeeded where others failed, they needed to have had something more. I suggest it was popularity.

The Beatles were already immensely popular in the United States before they visited. Their record representation in the United States, Capital Records, did not issue singles for their songs (when they did, I Want To Hold Your Hand sold 1.5 million). The fact is, their popularity was racing ahead of their media exposure, not the other way around.

By the time they came to the US, by the time they visited the Ed Sullivan Show, the audience had existed for years.

And when we talk of what came later we are seeing influences on The Beatles. But with all mainstream music.....the mainstream is what gets the radio play. It's what people gauge music on. And I think if one were honest......and the British Invasion hadn't come at the right time and place and the band had the look...which was culled for them....The Beatles would have been just another band.

Now I'm not saying they were a terrible band. I'm not saying they wouldn't have fans. I'm saying they wouldn't have the hype.

LJS9502_basic

I disagree. As I've stated, earlier attempts to push UK artists on the US in rock and roll had failed miserably. It was the Beatles who had succeeded.

The British Invasion did not create the Beatles, it was the other way around.

Yep, I like the Beatles