To me, Tomorrow Never Knows is the ONLY Beatles tune that shows any inkling of them doing anything even remotely interesting or new or novel and not silly or simplistic and even then it's not exactly OUT OF THIS WORLD GREAT.
I will NEVER understand the craze that is the Beatles but I do think they are the MOST overrated band EVER. I also prefer Paul McCartney to John Lennon (GASP!)
And that's all I have to say on this matter.
*haha biggest lie ever, clearly I have MORE to say on this matter in the comments.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Search This Blog
Blast from the Past
Wander Here
My Designs
Free Glasses!
Feeding My Addiction
Feed Your Head (and Belly)
Powered by Blogger.
Bloggers.com
Copyright 2011 Wander Further . All rights reserved.
10 dirty hippies blowing your mind:
come on, jump on that Beatles bandwagon 40 or so years later!
the nice thing about opinions is that everyone is entitled to theirs. even when they are blatantly, flagrantly wrong! ;-P
Don't get me wrong, I've listened to John Lennon speak and have read interviews with him and I have no specific issues with the man; he was a fairly interesting guy from what I can gather. As a band though, I find the Beatles uninspiring and rather dull. I daresay he may have felt the same way at times, again from what I can gather via things I've heard and read. would my opinion be different had I been around when they were brand spanking new? I don't know, maybe what they were doing seemed vibrant and exciting at that point. I'd hazard a guess that there was some far more exciting music being made by black artists that just wasn't being heard and LONG before the Beatles banged out a few jangly chords and "revolutionized" rock n roll.
I really don't know how anyone in this day and age can't concede that they are at least a little bit overrated.
As for his solo career, it's just not my cup of tea or coffee or hell, big glass of rum.
P.S. I'm not lying; as lame as Wings could be, I enjoyed Paul's solo ventures far more than John's. Hell, I'd rather listen to George yelp out My Sweet Lord on repeat than listen to Imagine ever again.
Paul does need to be taken to task for that God awful, cringe inducing piece of ear trauma Christmas song he wrote though.
seems to me that i think we need to distinguish between what w deem a personal preference and what is historically and culturally accurate.
i'm with you in the fact that, while i like them a lot more than you, i've never been nuts for the beatles. i'm a stones man, myself. but: as an amateur musicologist and someone who -- frankly and with all due humility -- knows a hell of a lot about music, i can't deny the beatles their legacy. like it or not, they were IT. you simply cannot underestimate their impact and influence. its simply irrefuteable.
i feel the same way about bob dylan that you do about the beatles ... i fucking HATE bob dylan's music. or, at least, when he does it -- plenty of people (the dead, the byrds, the band ... just to name a few) have done it better. but i cannot refute the importance of bob dylan in the history of american music and the cultural importance that he holds in the latter half of the twentieth century. it would be crazy to argue it because it simply is.
i can name many, many bands that are revered and adored that i just never got -- the velvet underground, bruce springsteen, sonic youth, the pixies -- but i have to, in the bigger picture, recognize that a) i am in the minority and b) their impact extends beyond me and my tastes!
ultimately i suppose you are simply saying you can't get your head around why the beatles are so revered when to you they seem decidedly mediocre. but in this argument i think it is important to be objective rather than subjective, as any cursory review of the history of rock 'n roll will easily prove that the beatles place in history is well earned and well established.
oh I don't deny they were historically and culturally important, that's not my point at all. I just don't think what they did was as brilliant as it's made out to be. And I really don't think it was, I just don't. I don't get chills listening to the guitar work. The lyrics don't make me think all that much or particularly touch me. They put a lot of the obvious out there in simple terms to a simple rhythm and beat that I think humans just naturally respond to. Or they offered up the absurd at a time when people were looking for that. That may be the secret to this so-called genius I suppose. But it's not very interesting in my opinion. Lady Gaga (ick) is doing the same thing now.
I think they had the luck of timing on their side. It's kind of like Paris Hilton. She's had a huge impact on culture WORLD-WIDE (which is horribly sad), but that doesn't make her talented or especially valuable. Again, for some reason the timing of her stupidity being accepted world-wide as something interesting plays into it.
Having said that, I don't put Paris Hilton and the Beatles on the same level, regardless of how I feel about either, sheesh. But to make a point... (I'm with you on the Bob Dylan thing as well, his voice makes me want to die).
what are you fools talking about? Bob Dylan is AWESOME!
well, we'll have to agree to disagree i think.
"I just don't think what they did was as brilliant as it's made out to be. And I really don't think it was, I just don't. I don't get chills listening to the guitar work. The lyrics don't make me think all that much or particularly touch me. They put a lot of the obvious out there in simple terms to a simple rhythm and beat that I think humans just naturally respond to."
you're being subjective in your analysis, which is only going to demonstrate why you personally don't value the beatles -- not whether the beatles had actual value.
"Or they offered up the absurd at a time when people were looking for that. That may be the secret to this so-called genius I suppose."
that is waaaaay over-simplfying their impact. everything that came after was indebted in some fashion to what they achieved.
i don't mean to condescend but i say it again: the impact of the beatles on popular music cannot be under-stated. they changed EVERYTHING. whether you like them or not, whether it speaks to you personally or not ... i don't see any debate in whether this is a fact that is refuteable, i hold the iron-clad conviction that to state otherwise is simply incorrect. to me it's as non-sensical as when hard-line christians say that dinosaurs didn't exist -- you're entitled to your opinion, but i'm sorry you're wrong. evidence is decidely to the contrary.
Eh.
i forget sometimes that you don't generally like to sport-debate.
I do actually...but in writing it's just frustrating because meaning is lost, nuance etc. down the drain...you can spend more time trying to clarify your statements than actually making new ones!
Post a Comment