Customer Discussions > Rock forum

How Many people Do NOT like to Listen to beatles music?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 590 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 14, 2012 5:58:25 PM PDT
ELVIS FAN says:
Only respond if you either don't care for the brits music, don't like their music, don't listen to them, and don't have any of their albums.
Talk about other groups you like better and think they should be mentioned as the best.

Posted on May 14, 2012 7:40:43 PM PDT
i sincerely believe led zeppelin, ronnie james dio, and ozzy osbourne were so far ahead of the beatles musically. the beatles took advantage of a generation that needed to rebel. they were revolutionary in their day. they are also disgustingly overrated. hardly any musical talent, and yet their fans are in a trance, and will not believe the sheer logic that there are thousands of bands that just have more musical affinity than the beatles.

note to the general public: you can hate me if you want. this is how i feel, and i'm mostly sick of people trying to convince me otherwise. you can either ignore me, or tell me you disagree, while promoting a peaceful conversation and atmosphere.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:45:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012 12:27:12 AM PDT
Beatles' music.

Get the grammar right , EF!!!

Posted on May 14, 2012 7:58:09 PM PDT
I smell the stink of a dead horse and there's a lot of flies around, too.

Posted on May 14, 2012 7:58:34 PM PDT
A customer says:
Yeah, Ozzy Osbourne was better than The Beatles...
PLEASE.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:00:34 PM PDT
i meant mostly in his Blizzard and Diary era. when he wasn't wasted. the beatles were always wasted.

Posted on May 14, 2012 8:01:31 PM PDT
his last 4 albums weren't that great... so... on par with the beatles i guess...

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:02:56 PM PDT
A customer says:
The Beatles were arguably at their best when they were wasted. Don't get me wrong, I like BoO and DoaM, but neither of those albums are as good as anything The Beatles did in their career, in my opinion.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:05:52 PM PDT
actually, i believe john lennon is recorded somewhere as saying he thought being high would get the creative juices flowing, but in the long run, it messed with his career and his brain.

drugs have immediate positive effects, but in the long run cause stress/anxiety and brain damage.

Posted on May 14, 2012 8:12:20 PM PDT
A customer says:
Rock'n'roll isn't about the long run. It's about living fast, dying young and leaving a good-looking corpse. That's just the way it is. I am an anti-drug person, but I'm not naive enough to discount the positive influence that many an illegal substance has had on shaping music. It's a double-edged sword, indeed.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:14:13 PM PDT
great way of putting it. but i suppose in any rock career that last longer than 5 years, the drugs will have a negative effect on the music eventually.

Posted on May 14, 2012 8:24:22 PM PDT
Ive never owned a Beatles album nor do I think that highly of their music. Its too poppy for my tastes. I much prefer hard rock and heavy metal music. I even grew up during the 60s(Kid) and 70s(Teenager-early 20s) and never cared for them.

Posted on May 14, 2012 8:28:10 PM PDT
the beatles come across as too much of a boy band. think about it: who was more likely influenced by the beatles? metallica, or men without hats?
slipknot, or backstreet boys?

Posted on May 14, 2012 8:30:55 PM PDT
A customer says:
Obviously Metallica and Slipknot.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:33:30 PM PDT
oh come on... we are comparing real rock to a boy band. no more than pop. and don't tell me "hard days night", or "eight days a week" is anything but pop...

Posted on May 14, 2012 8:47:07 PM PDT
A customer says:
Um, what's wrong with pop? Some of the greatest music ever written has been popular music. You're just being disrespectful at this point. I'd bet money anyone from Metallica or Slipknot would tell you the same thing. Know your roots.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:56:30 PM PDT
sorry you feel that way, but for starters, this is the "rock" forum. we tend to talk about "rock" here.

and anyone from metallica or slipknot can tell me whatever they want. even jimmy page, my music god, can tell me whatever he wants. these are my opinions, and i can't seem to view the beatles any differently than what i have stated them to be. some say the beauty of the beatles is in their simplicity. i disagree. i like listening to music, and feeling something extreme. i don't want a "somewhat pleasant" song, i tend to be indifferent or indignant towards uneventful or boring music.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 9:02:37 PM PDT
wait... first you say "what's wrong with pop" but immediately tell me i'm "disrespectful" for saying something like that?

besides, the term "pop" may have originally been derived from the word "popular" but in case you haven't noticed, it's it's own genre.

Posted on May 14, 2012 9:03:59 PM PDT
A customer says:
Metallica is thrash metal and Slipknot is alternative nu-metal, since we're splitting hairs here. The Beatles played rock'n'roll, which was popular at the time, hence it was popular music. It's still rock. I also don't see anything but The Beatles' earliest recordings as "simple", but that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 9:07:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 9:07:41 PM PDT
well, thank you... i think

i wasn't trying to be disrespectful, but how do you voice a strong opinion like that and not sound disrespectful?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 9:07:45 PM PDT
A customer says:
So pop back in the 50's and 60's is congruous to pop of today? I hardly think so. The disrespectful part was putting The Beatles in such putrid company. Even if you don't like them, surely you can have mercy on them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 9:10:01 PM PDT
considering they get showered in praise and worship, they can probably take a few punches.

Posted on May 15, 2012 3:15:27 AM PDT
doodah man says:
ohnonothimagain!

Posted on May 15, 2012 4:05:18 AM PDT
Puh-leez. Of course they were boy-band pop when they started out... they WERE boys!! Obviously, they grew immensely as artists, musicians, writers, into men with incredible talent. I like artists from almost every genre and era, and I don't believe that liking Ozzy means I have to hate The Beatles, and vice versa. The Beatles actually have writing, playing and singing talent, unlike Ozzy, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy headbangin' and hanging out in back of my high school with a flannel shirt tied around my waist back in the day!

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 4:50:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 6:48:59 AM PDT
Snoo says:
While I will never dismiss their impact on the music world, they never have and I dont believe ever will do it for me. I don't own anything from them because it does not interest me. The same goes for the Stones and Bob Dylan.

James Howsman,
I concur wholeheartedly with many of your points !
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 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
 


ARRAY(0xa19bc6cc)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Rock forum
Participants:  74
Total posts:  590
Initial post:  May 14, 2012
Latest post:  May 27, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions