Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Grocery Mother's Day Gifts Amazon Gift Card Offer ctstrph2 ctstrph2 ctstrph2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now SnS
Customer Discussions > Rock forum

WHY the beatles SUCK

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2576-2600 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 5, 2012 11:25:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 5, 2012 11:28:19 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 5, 2012 11:26:25 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 5, 2012 11:27:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 5, 2012 11:28:25 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Sep 22, 2012 2:10:17 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Sep 23, 2012 11:24:37 PM PDT
The Beatles suck.

How can a band who stopped playing live shows in 1966 and started making just studio albums be `the greatest band ever'? Laughable.

Nothing is more annoying than somebody trying to convince me The Beatles revolutionized music and, without them, we would not have (insert band here).

That argument is weak and false.

I wish this statement was true because, if it was, we wouldn't have pop sensations Britney Spears, T-Pain or American Idol.

The Backstreet Boys were revolutionary. But they sucked, too.

And don't even attempt to sell me on fact The Beatles were about love and world peace.

John Lennon and the rest of the band preached love and tolerance, yet hatred and jealousy among band members tore them apart.

The Beatles supposedly quit playing live shows because crowds were getting out of control?

Unruly concertgoers never made The Who, The Clash or AC/DC hang up what they did best.

But you know what bothers me the most? The fifth Beatle no one talks about.

Wait, there is a fifth Beatle?

Yes, George Martin.

Who's George Martin?

He is the greatest Beatle (if there is such a thing) and he is to The Beatles what Rick Ruben is to Metallica, The Beastie Boys, Jay-Z, Weezer and every other band he has had his hands on. But you know so much about music, you probably already knew that.

Martin is responsible for the making of every Beatles album except for one. Without him, The Beatles would still be in a basement doing drugs and trying to make albums.

The George Martin Band would have been a better fitting name than The Beatles.

Posted on Sep 24, 2012 2:30:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 24, 2012 2:30:47 PM PDT
The beatles quit playing live because they couldn't hack it ! lets face it it is easier to play in a musty old studio without anyone watching you then playing in front of a loud smoky concert hall. They punked out! they couldn't play good music that is why. If other bands like the stones, and beach boys could hack it and play live why couldn't they? because they were a boy band that played medicre music, that couldn't stand up to a live audience. They also abandoned their fanatic fans. How pathetic. Even MJ was way better, and he always grabbed his crotch. Maybe paul should have as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 2:45:52 PM PDT
Take your medication...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 4:09:11 PM PDT
I will if you will.

Posted on Sep 25, 2012 8:25:46 AM PDT
Steelers fan says:
For which Beatle album is George Martin not responsible?
Martin was present in the studio, and fully participated in, the "Get Back" project, which became "Let It Be". His original productions exist. The superior "Let It Be" single is his work.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 4:37:39 PM PDT
A. Strong says:
I used to like Elvis before I saw the postings of a certain moron....

Posted on Sep 29, 2012 7:38:03 AM PDT
Hinch says:
I wonder why George Martin's magic didn't work on all the other artists he produced?

Gerry and The Pacemakers were talented and had some good songs. They started the same time in the same city as The Beatles. They never broke away from their original Mersey beat sound and broke up in 1967.

America had a few albums produced by Martin (1979-'85). They had several hits.

Martin produced Cheap Trick's 1980 album ALL SHOOK UP. Not a bad album, but nothing spectacular.

He produced others too. Not to take anything away from George Martin. He was a great producer, but I think there was some special talent involved with The Beatles.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 11:00:43 AM PDT
DKPete says:
Hinch, you are 100% right on that one. As crucial as George Martin was to the success of The Beatles records, he had to have the right ingredients to work with.

I've often said that without Martin, we may had never known of The Beatles as we do today; imagine She Loves You or I Want To Hold Your Hand in the hands of Andrew Loog Oldham? As we've said over and over, EVERYTHING in The Beatles' "story"...every character, every bit of unwitting all had to fall perfectly into place as it did for things to have panned out as they did.

People have asked questions such as , what would Sgt. Pepper have sounded like if Pete Best had stayed in The answer: there wouldn't have been a Sgt. Pepper...every "ingredient" (love that word) mattered and, truly, made all the difference.

By the way, I just bought the George Martin DVD...not bad...nothing fabulous..but good to have within all the other stuff story-wise like the Pete Best DVD...and just to repeat something that's been brought up...while talking to Paul, he (Martin) re-confirms the fact that at the time he commited Andy White to play on that first official session, he had no idea The Beatles had, on their own, already kicked out Pete and had taken in Ringo.

I still say he's whitewashing that a bit for Ringo's sake; I feel he didn't want to take a chance with a drummer he wasn't familiar with so he stuck with White to play it safe; just my opinion.

Posted on Sep 29, 2012 11:45:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 30, 2012 7:29:23 AM PDT
Steelers fan says:
Well, it is hard to imagine Oldham behind the Fab Four, as his handling of the young Rolling Stones presented that group as the antithesis to the Beatles' wholesome image. As such, it succeeded well. The Stones' marketing was a reaction to the Beatles. In the studio, the Stones' recorded-in-a-bathroom muddiness worked too, in contrast to Martin's pristine-clean production. Though one senses that he never really liked the man much, K. Richards pays tribute to Oldham's shrewdness in "Life"; he knew what he was doing.

Posted on Sep 29, 2012 11:48:15 AM PDT
Steelers fan says:
Martin also limited himself to the group's music; he didn't interfere in other areas of their lives, which helped to preserve the harmony. They, in turn, trusted him to get their ideas down for posterity.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 8:37:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 29, 2012 8:39:11 PM PDT
Hinch says:

Good post!

One other point. George Martin recorded his own albums too. Why didnt he use his wizardry on them?

I read something about George Harrison concerning the white album. GH was in the studio working on one of his songs. Martin came in and made some sort of suggestion. Harrison pretty much told him to take a walk.

In the beginning Martin was leading them and telling them what to do. As time went by and they learned more, they began to take more control over their work. From what I understand, whatever particular song they were working on at any given time, the main songwriter was the leader.

I havent bought the GM dvd yet, but it's on my list.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 30, 2012 5:57:08 AM PDT
DKPete says:
Hinch, by he time of The White Album, George was very much coming into his own both artistically and personally. That said, his self assurance was strenghthening. With that in mind, we have to remember that all those years prior, Martin was guilty of pushing George's original material to the side (Martin expresses guilt about this in that DVD, by the way).

The point I'm making is that I'd say that Harrison had a lot of built up resentment towards Martin. But by this time, all that stuff from the past no longer intimidated George. I forgot what song it was (that you're talking about) but, essentially, Martin suggested one way and George replied, "well I like it THIS way". two things were in play here...both George's confidence as an artist (and, specifically, behind the controls for his own songs), and his finally having enough self assurance to look at 'the boss" straight in the face and say, "guess what , you can't tell me what to do anymore."

Posted on Oct 1, 2012 6:44:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 2, 2012 3:23:00 AM PDT
I can't for the life of me figure out why the Beatles suck! I've been listening to them for 40 plus years now, bought their records in various mediums such as lp's, cassettes, cd's and haven't discovered what makes their music So Bad! I've heard people tell me that their music is outdated and primitive but my ears must be outdated and primitive because they still sound like the band I heard in the 60's. I've even tried comparing them to the bands that these people have told me are so much better than The Beatles and while I have to admit they are very good bands in their own write, I'm just not hearing anything that leaves The Beatles in the dust. This calls for more research!

Posted on Oct 2, 2012 1:56:29 AM PDT
Hinch says:
@Rand....Excellent post!

Posted on Oct 2, 2012 3:24:31 AM PDT
Well thank you Hinch!

Posted on Oct 4, 2012 2:58:42 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 4, 2012 2:58:53 PM PDT]

Posted on Oct 4, 2012 3:27:19 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 4, 2012 3:27:28 PM PDT]

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 6:09:56 PM PST
It is a long time James what pizzaria have you been hiding out of?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 6:25:40 PM PST
Okay cool. Do the research Stoner. I will help you. Now If you want the 60's check out all or most of the Beach Boys California sounds!. I bet you will fall in love with them. It will change your thinking that there aren't any groups that are better. Also check out the BeeGees. They are so awesome! The Zombies are fantastic, and I even heard Elvis Loved them, so they have go to be great! Al Green, and Tower of power is great too.
The stylistics were so unique that you have to give them a try. Timeless classics that NEVER get old or outdated!
Stuff from the 70's blows that 60's group you like out of the water and out of the galazy!
Too many artists and groups to mention here. But here are a few.
Chicago, Eagles, BeeGees Disco, ONJ, John Denver, Stevie Nicks, Barry White, Of course EJ, MJ, and Stevie Wonderful.(Wonder). The Police, Journey, Foreigner. All or most are more advanced musically and technically better. And they sound better too. You cannot say the bealtes even come close to that. There is also harder rock like Led zepplin, AC/DC, Rush, Black Sabbath, if you like it harder.
SO just take a sample!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 12:09:31 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 4:09:26 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 4:10:50 PM PST
James you fell off the end of the world. And they said it was round! Where are you now charlie brown?
[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 Rock forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Rock forum
Participants:  281
Total posts:  2831
Initial post:  Dec 20, 2011
Latest post:  3 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions