Your Garage Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it PME Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer WienerDog WienerDog WienerDog  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Music forum

Why are there so many anti-Beatle threads here?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 23, 2012 6:59:59 AM PST
J. Hand says:
There are so many variations of anti-Beatle threads in the music forums. If it isn't about them stealing music and ideas from somebody it's naming artists who were better than the Beatles to accusations they destroyed rock and roll. It seems every day it's something else about them and it's always negative.

I don't really know if it's the same people/person behind them all, but it seems to be driven by a fervor that usually only rascists and religious zealots have. It's always something looking to discredit them and proclaim they suck. Out of every artist I have ever known of or about, I have never seen anyone get piled on this much. Gary Glitter didn't get this much hate when it came out about his sexual weirdness and perversity. The Dixie Chicks didn't get this much heat when they dared use their right to freedom of speech. (Except from Clear Channel- Oh wait! That was a spontaneous, un-orchestrated totally random blacklisting that happened at the same time by, coincidentally, all the Clear Channel owned stations that played that kind of music.)

I swear, it seems if some current headlining music artist slaughtered his/her entire family, set fire to the building he/she lived in, went on a high speed road-rage rampage that injured hundreds, gave millions to terrorists, drowned a litter of puppies, and then sold military secrets
to the Russians and Chinese it would get 'meh' here, the thread would die within a day and a half and we'd be back to 'Name 10 inanimate objects you think are better muscians than the Beatles."

Personally, I like the Beatles but I'm not fanatical about them. I have all their releases as I do with most other artists I like. I don't listen to them frequently, but occasionally I do and enjoy it immensely. They are just one of hundreds if not thousands of artists I like and a fraction of a percent of my music collection.

They stopped being a current force in music decades ago. Their presence is really zilch other than their catalog is still for sale and they get an occasional play on radio. Nothing much else is said or written about them these days. Yet, no other artist from their era gets smeared and dissed to the degree they get hammered here. I do understand nobody likes every artist but there is just such an incredible amount of anti-Beatle stuff it is hard to believe. I've never seen a dislike of an artist more passionately displayed than love of an artist. It's so non stop and repetitive it reminds me of psycho-stalker ex-significant other type of unrelenting madness in creating hell on earth for another. Except this has no point I can see.

Worse, it's always the same warmed over opinionated rectal droppings that has been said a hundred times already. It's never anything new or original and nothing about it is thought provoking other than what's the point of it all. The Billy Joel thread makes more sense!

The questions:

Why all this anti-Beatle obsession to begin with and why isn't it enough to simply not like them?

Why do you think this obsession exists to keep going after them without pause and why exclusively here to this degree?

What do you think drives the Beatle haters that create those threads to need continual reassurance that there are others who also don't like the Beatles and need them to join the hate-fest?

Are you getting tired of seeing the same pointless issue brought up over and again?

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 8:33:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012 8:42:49 AM PST
Barry Smith says:
Don't worry! I doubt that the Beatles reputation will be affected one single iota by all this.

Also, remember there are ALWAYS more trolls on the forums than legitimate people (ratio around 80% trolls to 20% legitimate) so most of the forums are naturally off to a bad start!

As an aside: Maybe, as We Are the 20%, we must OCCUPY AMAZON FORUMS!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 8:45:26 AM PST
Because people need attention. If you pee in the corner somebody will make more of an effort to notice you.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 8:54:20 AM PST
mac says:
Maybe, if you didn't grow up with them, you don't get the power of them.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 8:57:26 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012 8:58:28 AM PST
I think it's because the Beatles are an easy target. So many Beatles fans think they're the bees knees and no other band can top 'em, so some people like to try and take them down. Beatles are good, I like them, but there's lots of great music out there that's not the Beatles. I wish the anti-Beatles threads would go away too, though...or at least go to the Beatles forum so I don't have to look at 'em! LOL.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 9:01:35 AM PST
The anti-Beatle fanaticism is a result of pro-Beatle fanaticism (of which I could be found guilty of). It most likely comes from younger people who just do not care for the music and do not understand what the big deal is. Those who were there in 1964-69 know that during those years it was more than just the music of The Beatles - it was the creation of an entire culture. The Beatles set off a pop explosion the likes of which can only be compared with the one in 1956 caused principally by Elvis Presley. Even if The Beatles were not one's favorite act in those days, they were the center of the culture that was built up around them. They influenced The Stones, Dylan, Hendrix, Motown, Stax, The Byrds, and The Beach Boys, and in turn all those acts influenced them. They also influenced fashion, hairstyles, movies, attitudes, lifestyles, philosophy, and they truly made the major record industry (as opposed to the small independent labels which dominated the 50s rock 'n' roll era) commit to rock music (how could they not when they saw how much money was to be made there). There has not been any time when pop culture had that much impact worldwide since; the closest we have come is the MTV phenomenon of the 80s, and that really seems weak by comparison (to say nothing of the music of that era seeming so empty).
But being told this music was of great importance and not having experienced the importance it set off can leave you scratching your head. Being told that repeatedly, particularly if you are told this new stuff you like today is inferior, can leave you angry and willing to spew vitriol.

By the way, The Beatles are not the only victims around here. You should see some of the comments that have been made regarding Bruce Springsteen particularly on the Classic Rock forum. Michael Jackson used to get a lot of heavy criticism around here but that has died down some lately (respect for the dead?).

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 9:05:22 AM PST
I think it's a matter of jealousy and ignorance. I display those traits myself sometimes, and that's simply a matter of being human.

For example, I can not listen to Bon Jovi. His group has legions of fans but his message, the complexity (or lack of) of his music, the band's look and marketing are the other end of the appeal spectrum to me. Does my dislike make his effort or artistic expression less valid as an artist as one I like? Not at all. Do I disrespect his effort with some wasteful, petty rant about it? Nope. Why? I actually play music. I respect anyone who does. It's not an easy business to make it in and if anyone does that's a good thing. I may not want to hear their work on the radio but I don't really listen to radio and if they came on I can freely turn the volume down or change the channel.

I suspect someone with an axe to grind with the Beatles just doesn't get them or finds a certain aspect of them unpalatable. Fair enough. But rather than leave it at that I suspect they might harbor some kind of jealousy. Maybe Beatle music looks/sounds easy to make and they can't fathom how such easy music made them legendary, rich and loved by so many. I'm sure they wish they could do the same but never bother to. And that's probably a big part of it. Rather than try to create something they are proud of and see if people enjoy it they prefer to tear down someone else's work. It's a sad way to live and probably not very fulfilling. But like someone else said, it probably won't make anyone who enjoys the Beatles enjoy them less.

My wife doesn't like the Beatles, but somehow we manage. :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 9:13:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012 9:19:04 AM PST
Yes, the Stones seem to be latest target on the Classic Rock forum. Like I said before, it's always a big name act that has a huge following and the detractors simply feel the need to take them down a peg. I must say though, I got a kick out of the "Bret Michaels was in the Beatles" thread, some of us had some fun with that one and it was quite amusing for a while, though others didn't seem to think so! ;o)

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 9:35:29 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012 9:43:48 AM PST
<<The anti-Beatle fanaticism is a result of pro-Beatle fanaticism (of which I could be found guilty of). >>
I'm 51 and because of my age people just assume I love the beatles.

their music has never been interesting to me and when I mention that I get treated like some sort of freak, I'm not alone (though a small percentage of the population).... backlashes happen.

"how can you not like the beatles?"

it has been sort of 'don't ask, don't tell' about my ambivalence towards them most of life..that gets old.
and I can be filled with 'dread' when conversations turn to them.

when the beatles come up, I've learned to say a few buzz words, nod my head and hope the conversation changes soon.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 9:43:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012 9:43:57 AM PST
vivazappa says:
Because it is cool to say you hate certain big artists...Beatles...Stones...Zep ect...

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 9:52:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012 9:57:34 AM PST
<<Because it is cool to say you hate certain big artists...Beatles...Sones...Zep ect...>>
this is a component.

but if you don't like something that 95% of the population likes,
and people treat you like you like a leper when they discover you't like it.
that can easily turn it to hate.

It is Okay not to like the beatles,

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 9:53:28 AM PST
J. Hand says:
Hi all - I guess i don't get the need to constantly put them down. There are a lot of bands I don't care for (Bon Jovi among them) and it's like "I don't care for them." and that's pretty well it. I don't have a need to tell everyone I meet I don't like Bon Jovi. Sometimes I mention likes/dislikes in a conversation to give an idea of my musical tastes. Not to pile on Bon Jovi, but "I don't care for them." is plenty for me to say. I don't need to add 20 bands I think are better, 50 songs that are better than any of their hits, etc.

I also get the 'mania' part but I look at threads like the REM was the best US band ever and while there was disagreement about that, it hasn't reappeared in 20 different spins on the same theme. And Beatle-Mania has been gone for many, many years! Surely there isn't still a hang-over of resentment! Even punk eventually got over the 'hate everything that was before' ethos and established itself as a creation in its own right rather than something defined by what it wasn't. At least I think so....

@ Venus -I hadn't noticed the Stones taking some heat yet. It does seem like after a while that bands almost become a parody of their former selves. I saw a Stones concert DVD some time back -forget the name- but it was for some people who I couldn't imagine the early Stones even giving the time of day to. They played Sympathy for the Devil and left out all the Lyrics about the Kennedys and Jesus Christ. They did Some Girls and left out what Mick says Black girls like to do all night. A lot of the concert was like that- more Vegas than rock and roll. It was almost sad and to see the tuxedo clad men in the crowd with their glammed up dates in glittery jewelry and evening gowns bopping and boogying to the Rolling Stones.

I like a few of Aerosmith's records, but not all of them They were another band who, like the Stones, I liked their new music less and less as time went on. Now, seeing Tyler on that whatever it is show -saw some cuts of him in a flyer's cap and goggles earlier- and he's another one who's a parody of his former self.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 9:58:05 AM PST
Yeah, J, here's the Stones dis thread if you want to check it out. The OP even referenced a Beatles song in his title! It's coming full-circle now!! Haha.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 10:00:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2012 10:14:31 AM PST
<<And Beatle-Mania has been gone for many, many years! Surely there isn't still a hang-over of resentment>>
and for years people who don't 'get' the beatles have had to deal with not 'getting' the beatles.

I went through it again a couple years back with my (then) 12 year old nephew and 'beatles rock band' video game,
"what do mean, you do't have a favorite beatle song?...everyone loves the beatles..what is wrong with you?""

I'm not trying to justify the reactions of some of these anti beatles types, I'm just trying to give a reason why I understand their sentiments.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 10:10:26 AM PST
I went through Beatlemania in my teens, where for a number of years they were pretty much mostly what I listened to. After so much listening to their stuff back then, I've exhausted it to the point that I just don't care to hear it much anymore. A guy I know just bought a boxed set of theirs and was amazed that I didn't fall all over the floor about it like he did. A lot of it sounds very dated now to me. About the only album of theirs that I'll dig out now and again and listen to is 'Abbey Road'. For some reason, that one has aged a lot better for me than some of their others.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 11:17:09 AM PST

I sympathize and understand how much of a drag it must be to be considered weird because you don't like the Beatles. I happen to love the Beatles, and have rarely met anyone who didn't think they were great, but it's your opinion, and one that you're obviously sincere about. And I certainly know what it's like to be the odd one out when it comes to bands or styles that are just taken for granted as universally loved.

That said, although I've been on these forums a long time, I don't particularly remember seeing a lot of anti-Beatles-slanted threads anyway, so I'm not convinced there even is a preponderance of these as J. Hand suggests. Then again, I've probably just ignored them :o)

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 11:22:12 AM PST
J. Hand says:
@ palJacky - Ahh, but to make such an assumption about someone such as yourself is understandable! One of my peeves about music these days- it's a trend and too often a fashion accessory rather than an appreciation for the art. If someone that young goes beyond what the top download on iTunes is and past whatever some lip-syncing scantily clad freakish pole dancer sans the pole is passing off for music these days, by filled with joy! There is hope! And even better, someone so young wants to share an experience of music with you! There may be hope in the cultural wasteland of the 21st Century after all!

Seriously, I get the part where people make assumptions about you and that it can be frustrating. I'm a heavy-set, long haired, bearded, tattooed biker with gunshot wounds (healed of course), assorted scars, and not the best manners whose entire wardrobe consists of jeans and black or dark blue T shirts and boots although I have allowed an indulgence of athletic shoes for some years now- black of course. I do keep a pair of white ones for formal occasions. If I have a shirt that's another color, it's from some bike shop somewhere or I spilled something on it.

But, despite my outlaw past and the cast of shady and dangerous characters I call(ed) my friends, I've also counted a number of people from company presidents, engineers, even a doctor or two among my friends. I have female friends who I can speak to for hours and maintain eye contact and can converse with them without the conversation becoming full of double meaning, sexual innuendo. When I had my bike shop open I had a decent sized female customer base because I didn't patronize them or act condescending towards them. I'm college educated (2 degrees), had a very successful career, retired early, follow a Buddhist path, had the same wife for 35+ years, am neither racist nor misogynistic, love animals, and was a business owner. I'm well read and a bit of an amateur historian about the WWI/WWII eras. I once wrote a magazine column and worked 10 years for a PAC on which I was a county, then regional (7 counties) director and sat on the board of directors. Anyway, people assume the hell out of what/who they think I am. Most think it's a freak of nature thing that i can assemble five words into a coherent sentence! There's more to me beyond that, but it's not something people ever think about me until they know me. And don't even get me started on attitudes people assume I hold on minorities and women! I wish at times all people did assume of me was that I was a Beatles fan! Still, I learn a lot about them and whether they are people I would care to know based on how they show themselves to me. You might say I see them for what they are. Regardless, even if it can get wearisome, it's always amusing! :-)

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 11:25:48 AM PST
It's always bad to like one artist to the EXCLUSION of other artists. Or to pretend that 100% of their output deserves 5 stars. For me "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" are the albums that reward repeat listens the most, yet I can go a month without listening to either. That particular pleasure is always available. Why not wait until you are most receptive to enjoy it?

That being said, it is hard to overemphasize what they did for rock (voices, guitars, bass guitar, and drum) to take that existing format new directions. It's a shame some young people have only heard the 5 most overplayed songs (or just bought Sgt. Pepper and stopped there.)

If you are interested in a high degree of variation in melodies, harmonies, polyrhythms, and textures, you will eventually rediscover the Beatles, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Miles Davis, and Weather Report. They're all too important to ignore. Those not interested will simply start negative threads.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 11:33:16 AM PST
J. Hand says:
@ Venus - I got the boxed set some time ago but got it from the iOffer auction site for $60 including shipping. It came from China but was totally legit, not a bootleg or knockoff. I sure wasn't going to drop a couple hundred on it!

As to it sounding dated, some of the records are like well over 40 years old. Consider next year will be 50 years (YIKES!!!) since they appeared on Ed Sullivan! I think sounding dated is allowed! My favorites are Let it Be and Abbey Road. After that the White Album, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, Rubber Soul, and Revolver. The stuff before that I like more from a historical perspective than the music itself.

Crap, I guess since I predate the Beatles records, I'm dated, too! :-( Anyway, I didn't start this to come to their defense, I just didn't get why the deep seated angst and animosity towards them. I'm surprised some of the haters haven't organized Beatles Music and Merchandise Destruction Fests with pavement rollers and big bonfires at which they could burn the Fab Four in effigy!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 11:34:11 AM PST
J.Hand-What do you mean "All the putting down of the Beatles"? I see a whole forum dedicated to Beatle fanatics. Its a small minority of us who dont like the Beatles. There's 1 negative post for every 100 overly positive Beatle posts. Typical Beatle fanatic-Noone can not like the Beatles and if 1 or 2 people say something negative its considered a flood of criticism. Beatle fanatic-thinks the Beatles can do no wrong and are delusional in thinking that each member of the band is the best at what they do-Ringo greatest drummer, George greatest guitarist etc.
Beatle fanatic will try and change anyones negative response by telling them how many records they have sold, what artists say the Beatles influenced them and how the Beatles saved/made rock and roll as if after hearing these rants one is going to change their opinion.
I'm 54 and have never liked the Beatles and I dont think of them as rock music. They are POP music. They sound like every other band from the 60s to me.
palJacky-I agree with you 100%.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 11:45:49 AM PST
Lord Impaler says:
honestly...i've never liked the beatles. the doors blow them away.

Posted on Jan 23, 2012 11:54:26 AM PST
J. Hand says:
@ Stephen - In the months I've been here I have seen a number of threads come up regularly that jab at the Beatles. Within those threads are quite a number of posts denigrating them and their music, their effect on rock music, blah, blah, blah. If you don't think there are any, that's fine. I saw enough and read enough to have a different opinion.

I'm not so enamored with them I sought out any of the threads extolling their virtues. People like them. Some like them a heck of a lot. Some like them too much. I know all that and it isn't what I was after to want to know. As I have said 3 or 4 times already, I'm not rising up to defend them, I just don't get why some people are so passionate about hating them and have the need to repeatedly express that and to get others to join in. I want to know why, after they haven't been major players on the music scene for many years, some people rag on them like they are currently out on tour. Looking for answers among those who share my thoughts and opinions isn't always the best place to find answers that run counter to my stand and my beliefs/opinions.

Don't shoot the messenger!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 12:02:20 PM PST
That's a great deal you got, J! I don't know, since I was too young to experience the 60s first-hand, I guess my reasoning behind "dated" maybe means it doesn't hold "nostalgia value" to me like it does to some. I just don't relate to lyrics about Chairman Mao, LSD, love love love, etc. But a lot of their music does have a timeless appeal, and that's the stuff I like most by them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 12:30:41 PM PST
E. Dill says:
<<The anti-Beatle fanaticism is a result of pro-Beatle fanaticism (of which I could be found guilty of).>>

I think that's true....kind of.

It has been my growing mantra that music or any art cannot be objectively judged. It is ALWAYS subjective in nature. So, when people who didn't grow up with the Beatles or did and were unimpressed or sick of them hear so many of us talk as if their greatness is a foregone conclusion, it leads to a need to take an alternative they very well may truly believe but which is, by necessity, exaggerated upon. They may really think the Beatles are ok, but with all the gushing, decide to describe them as nothing much at all. Kind of like how all the older folks on these boards talk about all the music after, say, the 60s was worthless crap.

I've mentioned before that I found a rather interesting music critic named Piero Scaruffi some years ago ( who still describes the Beatles as being the most overrated band in rock history. Does he REALLY believe that or is he so sick of being told that the Beatles are the greatest ever and that Tim Buckley was a marginal folkie at best, makes him overstate his Beatles overload. The fact is, Mr. Scaruffi has very good taste for what I like to listen to and I simply remember who he dislikes intensely and ignore his posts accordingly. He's surely still in the positive column with me based on who he HAS LIKED and led me to.

But, hey, compared to the Beatles haters and the Springsteen haters and the Jackson haters (stemming from behavior as much as musical deficiencies)....the WINNER, to me, is MADONNA. Even the metal and progressive fanatics would forgive the RRHOF and Jann Wenner personally if ONLY MADONNA would be removed from the Hall and publically described as a non-rocker in any way shape or form with a public burning of her records....yeah, I think the MADONNA hatred trumps all, at least musically, because, as we've been told a million times already, she made crappy dance music that had NOTHING to do with rock (n roll). I mean, when I listen to Great Balls of Fire or Maybeline, I always think of Rush and AC/DC.


In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2012 1:29:12 PM PST
Yeah, I wonder if all those Madonna haters know that when she was indicted the performer who did a few of her songs at the ceremony was Iggy Pop?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 58 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Music forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  146
Total posts:  1447
Initial post:  Jan 23, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 2, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions