Posted on 12/22/2004 11:56:06 AM PST by qam1
Greg Hassall and Charles Purcell do battle over the fab four.
FOR
OK, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da is the most annoying song ever written. And you won't find Revolution No 9 on too many iPods. But how many bands' dud tracks can you count on one hand? The Beatles deserve their place in the pop pantheon. They revolutionised the way pop music was written, recorded and talked about. They were funny, charismatic, hungry to learn and unafraid of controversy. They matured spectacularly over seven tumultuous years, then quit on a high note with the peerless Abbey Road.
They were a genuine band, in that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. The three writers spurred each other on and checked each other's excesses (McCartney's sentimentality, Lennon's bile and Harrison's cod mysticism). In one throwaway B-side, Rain, they created the template for psychedelic Britpop, a genre lesser bands spend an entire career mining. Their refusal to write the same song twice resulted in a catalogue of breathtaking diversity, while producer George Martin gave the recordings a unique, uncluttered sound that refuses to date. And, as the age of the drum solo dawned, Ringo kept it real, underpinning the Beatles' sound with undemonstrative precision.
Greg Hassall
AGAINST
Pretty much everyone in the '60s must have been on drugs - that's the only reason I can imagine why the Beatles were so popular. They had about three decent songs: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Eleanor Rigby - and that other one, the one that doesn't suck. It's a riddle greater than the pyramids as to why a group of English fops with ridiculous hairstyles could make entire crowds of grown adults faint in awe. John Lennon? A prancing popinjay. Paul McCartney? A ponce. George Harrison? Vanity in the shape of a man. Ringo Starr?
A cool dude - the only one.
OK, so the Beatles recorded on top of a building. Big deal. OK, so they hung out with the Maharishi. Is that supposed to give their dire tunes spiritual worth?
"But they were a major influence in the history of rock'n'roll," some might bleat. Sure they were - but does that mean the baby boomers have to force their boring Beatlemania down our craws year after year, decade after decade?
I'm glad Yoko Ono helped split them up. She's the true heroine of this story. Too bad she's also a lousy artist.
And Wings. Don't get me started on McCartney's sad side project. That's another story.
- Charles Purcell
I'm curious as to what sort of crappy music all these oh-so-contrarian "The Beatles sucked" posters listen to.
The writer must think RAP is the best thing that ever happened to the music industry.
A "Beatles = Poo" Ping.
Me too - barely! I have never understood the absolute frenzied obsession the Beatles engendered.
Anyone who thinks the Beatles (including the 5th Beatle genius George Martin) weren't great and deserving of their fame is soft. End of story.
Not every song they ever did was great certainly, but as a whole their original song catalog is pure brilliance.
One Puckish thing I always wanted to do in my bar days though, was walk into a bar with a juke box that had the whole beatles White album on it, was pop a $5.00 bill in and play Revolution #9 ten times, and then walk out before it came on.
I think it's right on both counts. The Beatles mass produced the cheesy pop love song, that certainly makes them an icon of the industry as they did alter completely, but most of their songs are boring pap. They didn't start making listenable songs until they got into drugs and started doing wierd stuff, even then a lot of it is pap but it's at least moderately interesting pap.
I object! "Wings Greatest" was one of my favorites as a teenager.
The McCartney I and II albums weren't half bad either. after that, well...
Anyone who has the gall to claim the Beatles sucked knows effin' zip about music.
"Julia"
"Day in the Life"
"Norwegian Wood"
"Here Comes the Sun"
"Penny Lane"
"For No One"
Simple beautiful music, lyrically complex and many new recording techniques invented and used for the first time. If you can't enjoy their music it's only because you can't understand where Rock was and where they took it. To give you a hint, "Sugar Shack" was a hit on the charts shortly before The Beatles arrived.
Yeah, but he shacked up with the unbelievably ugly Chrissy Hynde. UGH.
The Beatles wer great. No comparison to the trash put out today. They were revolutionary in many ways....using orchestra music, mixing, on and on. Only a person with little knowledge of the evolution of music would not recognize their contributions. As far as songs..Yesterday, My Life, side 2 of Abbey Road, ER, etc. Pick up the CD that documents how these songs were put together. No one did these things before them.
The same can be said for AIDS, but that doesn't make it good.
The Beatles were timeless. 100 years from now their music will still be listened to and discussed/studied, as will the whole "Beatlemania" era.
Sure, someone else would have come along eventually, but at the time they changed music completely. Music was stagnating, with artists like Pat Boone being at the top of the charts. The Beatles gave popular music a swift kick in the pants and started the ball rolling.
I can understand how some people (as is evidenced in this thread) don't like them, but to ignore their influence on popular music and culture is folly.
Personally, I love their music and always will.
"Anyone who has the gall to claim the Beatles sucked knows effin' zip about music."
Bears repeating.
They might as well wear signs around their necks declaring their stupidity.
My sentiments exactly. F*** the Beatles.
And for the guy who asked what we listen to....I enjoy classical music, jazz, older country & western, late 70s - early 80s rock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.