I was never a fan.My teenage years coincided with punk/new wave and it wasn't just the fact that The Clash had derogatory lyrics about them. They just seemed so old-fashioned..
I had a few mates at school who were big fans - one bloke in particular did his best to look and sound like John Lennon, even to the extent of adopting a fake Liverpudlian accent.
Honestly, I have tried listening to their stuff, and I know without them, we wouldn't have got so much of what we listen to nowadays. Yes, I fully accept that Lennon & McCartney wrote some cracking songs, some of which have found their way into my collection via various covers.
But I just don't get it......
Am I alone?
mp3 : John Cooper Clarke - I Married A Monster From Outer Space
mp3 : Paul Quinn - Ain't That Always The Way
mp3 : George Pringle - I'm Very Scared Buster
mp3 : Ringo Deathstar - Some Kind Of Sad
mp3 : Oasis - Whatever
Happy Listening.
21 comments:
Woah! That's fightin' talk, Mr Villain!
You're not alone. They never said anything to me about my life.
I have never been a fan of the Beatles either and am rather proud of the fact that I do not own any Beatles product.
I have always found the zealots who worship at the alter of the "fab four" to be smug and self satisfied in the extreme.
Also i have never bought into the modern music would not have been the same without the Beatles arguement, my evidence being the Velvet Underground's first album was recorded in april '66 and this is the album a lot of the music I listen to is influenced by, not Revolver or later Beatles albums.
There is a good, not altogether serious book on the subject of how to get through life's trials and tribulations without the "loveable moptops"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Life-without-Loving-Beatles/dp/0954392108.
So bring on the backlash.
Drew.
ps word verification - wines, of which i plan to indulge in later.
*lost for words*
Well done VV....once again you tell it like it is.
The Ballad Of John & Yoko
Revolution
A Day In The Life
and err that's about it for me. Everything else is worthless and redundant.
I still love 'em, but grant that not everyone else will do. Some stuff is rubbish (most of the Let It Be LP, for example) and the fact that they seem to be this sacred cow that few dare to critcise!
Am waiting to see what will happen over at 17 Seconds having announced that I am refusing to consider the Glasvegas LP or attendant singles in my end of year lists for the stunt the record co. pulled a few weeks bac, comments welcome...!
The Beatles never did anything for me. But then again, neither did Bob Dylan, Neil Young or Johnny Cash. I am the slayer of sacred cows.
Not all Ms Anglopunk.....when I was your age, I too had little time for Messrs Dylan, Young & Cash. You might change your mind in the years ahead.....or perhaps indeed come round to appreciate the 21st Century giants like Timberlake....!!
JC
x
Having been a teenager at the time of Beatlemania I have to say that I never "got" them either. I was a Rolling Stones fan from the beginning. I mean really,
"She Loves You" vs "Heart Of Stone"? "I Can't Get No (Satisfaction) vs "Hard Day's Night"? "Mother's Little Helper" vs "I Feel Fine"?
Give me down and dirty over sweet and soppy any day.
I have to disagree only on the grounds that John Lennon saved my teenage life, as I found in his media image a way out of my suburban prison of mediocrity and subservience. His death when, I was 14, prompted me to listen to music seriously for the first time in my life and I heard the Beatles from that point backwards.
No, the music world wasn't built solely on their backs. No, the Stones weren't indebted to them either by any means! (god yes I prefer their down and dirty over sweet and soppy too!!!) But in terms of the public engagement of music with social issues on a large scale, Lennon's example was pivotal and while not being the first, he was perhaps the most effective of his time. He inspired millions of us to change the world and we continue to do so in very small ways with and without music.
Whether you agree with the politics or not, the marriage of music and political activism found its true love in that moment of the early 70s with John and John didn't get there without the Beatles.
Have to agree with you JC, The Beatles leave me cold. I think The Beach Boys (Brian Wilson), wrote better songs and still influence hundreds of bands today.
Phil
Tel Aviv
Afraid I loved pretty much everything they did...and the progression from Love Me Do beat music to Tomorrow Never Knows psychedelia in 4 years was astonishing. I defend your right to not like them to the death though!
Rich
JC said ".....when I was your age, I too had little time for Messrs Dylan, Young & Cash. You might change your mind in the years ahead....."
OK, I'll give you Cash but I always liked him. As for the others it was no then, and its no now. Don't buy into his argument Anglopunk. Getting old doesn't mean you have to like Dylans whinings or Young's crotchetiness.
I'm with you JC. I've never liked Bob Dylan either.
Another spot-on post. Never got The Beatles, although I did like The Rutles enormously. The claim for every *major* act is that they affected everyone else. i heard on Radio 2 that none of this would have happened without the Everly Bros. I think it would, and I think the same goes for The Beatles too. And we would be spared the dreadful outpourings of Paul McCartney.
I went through a Beatles phase when I was in my late teens, but then I burnt out on them more than I've ever burnt out on any other artist. I can't even listen to the majority of their songs any more (with a few exceptions) and even go so far s to turn off the radio if they come on (which they do all the time considering the aggravating ubiquitousness). Worst of all, I can't help but picturing Paul McCartney's cheeky grin every time I hear them. Arrrghhh!
Big fan and always will be (but not of everything they ever did.) I'm of the "right" age for them, though, and so what. My teen nieces think 70's punk is "stupid" and irrelevant. What is sacred to one is another's scourge. And so it goes.
well, i wouldn't give much for the beatles, but it's a relief that I finally found out that beloved Tart isn't really THAT much older than me ....
To qualify my response, I am an avid music listener. I love and appreciate music in nearly all its forms. Granted, I don't listen to polka or gansta rap, I am otherwise pretty much enthusiastic about most bands and genres.
I am a Beatles fan, but listen to them only occasionally. I feel that they are the best rock band ever. Why? 1) Granted, their early stuff was much to pop for the listeners here, but compare their songs to Katy Perry or nsync. Also compare their music to that of their peers in that era. 2) Lisetn to the evolution of their music and their sound. Not many bands can say they progressed as much or varied their style as much as The Beatles. The Clash did. U2 did. The Stones? They haven't changed that much. (I'm a big fan of the Stones too). 3) Their longevity. The fact that we are having this debate over 35 years after they broke up speaks volumes. Will we be having this debate about Coldplay or Greenday in 30 years? Doubtful.
I don't expect anyone here to change their minds, but as we obviously are music lovers here, I urge you all to step away from your current bias' and listen to their albums in chronological order keeping these points in mind. Not all at once, mind you. Burning out on a band is horrible (topic of another discussion?). Just listen to one album a month or so. You may not fall in love with them, but I bet you come away with a new appreciation.
I think Max has made my point for me. I'm not biased, I just don't like them and as for listening to all their albums in chronological order, there are too many other albums out there worth at least half a listen.
Drew
This is akin to saying kids these days who are listening to Green Day are within their rights to dismiss The Clash!
Just crazy if you ask me...
Post a Comment