6 ms·

I never got the hype about the Beatles. So many people have told me, "well, you had to be there". Ok. So? What does that have to do with my listening choices no

I never got the hype about the Beatles. So many people have told me, "well, you had to be there". Ok. So? What does that have to do with my listening choices now? I want to hear an enjoyable song, not "I wanna hold your hand" repeated 15 million times (and that's just one listening!) EDIT: this is hilarious, and not unexpected. As soon as you say something against the Beatles, all the self-described "experts" come out to tell you "you're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong".

mixmastamyk 4y ago
It's just consistently good stuff, that's all. To a degree no one else reached. You don't have to like it, but shouldn't be determined not to either. Forget the hype, it's over. Also, the first album is basically enthusiastic teens manipulated by a record company. So try the more mature albums, starting at Rubber Soul as others said.
yCombLinks 4y ago
I've never had anyone tell me that. I love the Beatles, and I certainly wasn't there. Nor did I grow up listening to them. That being said their early stuff, like "I want to hold your hand" is pretty basic 60's pop. Everything from Rubber Soul on is the work of well refined musical masters. My favorite is Revolver.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  Lucky you, then. It has happened at least three times in this thread alone.
- rgmerk 4y ago
  To appreciate the early stuff (and I agree there’s a lot of filler on the early albums) it’s interesting to listen to what else was around at the time. Any vitality of the early rock and roll artists was long gone and the charts were filled with schmaltz like Bobby Vee. In that context, “Please Please Me” would have sounded something like “Smells Like Teen Spirit” did in 1991 when it arrived in a world of hair metal.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Great music does at least one of two things - it sounds amazing, and/or it really says something that resonates with the people in a particular time. "Well, you had to be there" says that it fits into the second category, but not the first. Another example is "The times they are a-changing". The lyrics were amazing and really resonated with a huge segment of the young. But if you just listen to it as music, you realize that Dylan can't sing, and it's not a very good composition.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  I relistened to it just now and I actually really like his singing style on this song. I think the bare and minimalist style fits so well with the meaning of the lyrics that it adds a whole layer of complexity. Of course a lot of people prefer the Byrds cover, which is great in its own way.
bitcurious 4y ago
The Beatles are like Tolkien. They had to happen for us to land where we did. Without Tolkien we don't get modern fantasy. Without the Beatles we don't get metal, punk, glam rock, etc. I think rap is probably the only modern genre that doesn't trace its lineage to the Beatles.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  Yeah. I don't think that anybody needs to like a particular piece of art, but nearly all art is enhanced by some contextual awareness on the audience's behalf. When I see people dunking on the Beatles or Tolkien, I think wow, there is a person who's really dedicated to not giving a crap about those forms of art. Which is... fine, but what a loss. You can stroll around a museum and treat strictly as a picture gallery, devoid of all context, or you can really get into things on a whole other level. So many famous works really come to life that way. Either choice is okay.
  - monkpit 4y ago
    > wow, there is a person who's really dedicated to not giving a crap about those forms of art “You’re entitled to your opinion, but if you don’t agree with me you must not be capable of enjoying music”
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      I'm specifically referring to people dunking on the Beatles, not the much much larger group of people who just don't like them or don't care.
  - moron4hire 4y ago
    I don't care for your assertion of only two sides: "Beatles fans" and "those who don't put effort into understanding art." In point of fact, all I really said was that "I don't get it". I specifically stayed completely away from making any kind of direct, critical judgement of the Beatles themselves. Maybe you might be able to see how one might see such replies as overly-defensive.
JohnBooty 4y ago
If you don't like them that's okay. A fairly huge percentage of the people who really rock music and/or make rock music think the Beatles were great. (edit: but even within that group there's plenty of dissent and/or disinterest) I guess I can identify with people who feel like they've had them shoved down their throat. I feel that way about a lot of Dylan and the Stones and a few other darlings. Funny, though. I've never heard "you had to be there" about these acts. I certainly love the Beatles and was not there. I do think that your experience with the Beatles, as with nearly all art, will be greatly enhanced by some contextual awareness on your behalf. If that's not your cup of tea that's completely OK though. There is no reason you need to like or care about any particular art. I'm sure you have other things in life that you enjoy. I might think it's a bit of a shame, but I also think it's a shame that I don't like cauliflower.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  It's not a shame to hate cauliflower. I also hate cauliflower. What is a shame is how others will try to sneak cauliflower into your meals, despite your assertions that you have already explored the full breadth of cauliflower and still find nothing there for your liking. "Oh, but you've never had it as a pizza crust!" I assure you, I have. I still hated it. Stop trying to assume you know more about my lived experience than me. So it is with The Beatles. I have listened to it. I do understand the cultural context. I still don't like it. So kindly please get off my front porch.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    For the analogy to be apt we'd need to be sneaking snippets of Beatles songs into things you're already listening to, and even then that's not as egregious as tricking you into putting things into your body. I don't think that tracks with what I said. It certainly says something about your experiences, though. People must have been attempting to cram the Beatles into your life in some extremely obnoxious ways if you feel like this. I'm sorry you dealt with that. If people obnoxiously forced the Beatles on me, I'd probably feel the same as you. I mean that sincerely.
- petodo 4y ago
relyks 4y ago
I don't think your opinion is wrong, but if you like rock music and you have a favorite band/artist, they were likely influenced by another band/artist that listened to or studied the Beatles or they have the Beatles as part of their ancestry tree of influences. There have been a lot of great artists/bands that weren't very popular (at least initially) but ended up having a major influence on music over time (e.g. the Velvet Underground). The Beatles have been one of the biggest influencers on music.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  What does that have to do with listening to goofy, Jim Henson-esque stuff like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Octopuses Garden" and having people try to gaslight you into believing there aren't a dozen better ways to spend your time?
  - relyks 4y ago
    Lol, it doesn't. The Beatles are one of my favorite bands and I really dislike some of their songs too. I was just trying to say that a big portion of their hype is because of their influence. You don't have to like them, but they deserve respect
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    No musician has ever produced 100% masterpieces. I can cherry pick bad songs from any artist you care to choose. Also FWIW some people actually like those two you mention.
  - ahoho 4y ago
    It seems odd to pick on one of the most universally reviled Beatles' songs to make your point. Three of the band's own members despised it. I don't even think the dozen fans of Maxwell's Silver Hammer would argue it's high art
petodo 4y ago
As for you had to be there argument, that wouldn't explain why I consider Rolling stones or Beach boys from same era better than overhyped Beatles. And honestly I was not really there even during Queen and Abba fame and find these two vastly superior to Beatles, which is almost unlistenable for me besides few great songs like Imagine (which I guess ain't even Beatles), Yesterday, So this is Christmas (is it Beatles?) or All you need is love.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  I think a lot of people forget that pop-music is a business. Pop bands are essentially corporations in competition with each other. I think the true legacy of The Beatles is that they were the first band to understand that about themselves. But to then assign unique artistic genius to that output--that's completely ignoring that competition existed at all. Like how some fanboys seem to think Apple invented the smartphone.
  - petodo 4y ago
    Yeah as someone using Symbian years before iphone I always find it funny they kept calling it first smartphone. Heck even in my previous dumb Java phones I was already many years before running email client, IM, games, browser, calendar and was doing almost everything I'm doing with smartphone, just the experience was not that pleasant, I was fan of Siemens phones which allowed root access to file system unlike other locked brands where you could not even share your resources with others.
bsder 4y ago
> I want to hear an enjoyable song, not "I wanna hold your hand" repeated 15 million times (and that's just one listening!) Well, at one point Dylan told Lennon that his lyrics were shit ... so you're not wrong ... People forget that the Beatles rode a technology wave, as well. TV uptake meant that the they were in the right place and right time to be a cute Boy Band. Audio recording technology underwent a vast shift and improvement in less than 10 years. The Beatles also happened to actually have talent and be very good musicians. And managed to have a band that didn't implode until after they generated a solid catalog. Maybe they weren't first at everything they did, but they were close enough to first and had a reach due to their Boy Band years that nobody else could possibly match. So, The Beatles doing something novel was invariably how anybody not directly in the "scene" would find out about it. People also forget that The Hollies were arguably more popular than The Beatles back in the UK. However, America was the music market at that point.

mixmastamyk 4y ago

It's just consistently good stuff, that's all. To a degree no one else reached. You don't have to like it, but shouldn't be determined not to either. Forget the hype, it's over. Also, the first album is basically enthusiastic teens manipulated by a record company. So try the more mature albums, starting at Rubber Soul as others said.

yCombLinks 4y ago

I've never had anyone tell me that. I love the Beatles, and I certainly wasn't there. Nor did I grow up listening to them. That being said their early stuff, like "I want to hold your hand" is pretty basic 60's pop. Everything from Rubber Soul on is the work of well refined musical masters. My favorite is Revolver.

moron4hire 4y ago
Lucky you, then. It has happened at least three times in this thread alone.
rgmerk 4y ago
To appreciate the early stuff (and I agree there’s a lot of filler on the early albums) it’s interesting to listen to what else was around at the time. Any vitality of the early rock and roll artists was long gone and the charts were filled with schmaltz like Bobby Vee. In that context, “Please Please Me” would have sounded something like “Smells Like Teen Spirit” did in 1991 when it arrived in a world of hair metal.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Great music does at least one of two things - it sounds amazing, and/or it really says something that resonates with the people in a particular time. "Well, you had to be there" says that it fits into the second category, but not the first. Another example is "The times they are a-changing". The lyrics were amazing and really resonated with a huge segment of the young. But if you just listen to it as music, you realize that Dylan can't sing, and it's not a very good composition.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
I relistened to it just now and I actually really like his singing style on this song. I think the bare and minimalist style fits so well with the meaning of the lyrics that it adds a whole layer of complexity. Of course a lot of people prefer the Byrds cover, which is great in its own way.

bitcurious 4y ago

The Beatles are like Tolkien. They had to happen for us to land where we did. Without Tolkien we don't get modern fantasy. Without the Beatles we don't get metal, punk, glam rock, etc. I think rap is probably the only modern genre that doesn't trace its lineage to the Beatles.

JohnBooty 4y ago
Yeah. I don't think that anybody needs to like a particular piece of art, but nearly all art is enhanced by some contextual awareness on the audience's behalf. When I see people dunking on the Beatles or Tolkien, I think wow, there is a person who's really dedicated to not giving a crap about those forms of art. Which is... fine, but what a loss. You can stroll around a museum and treat strictly as a picture gallery, devoid of all context, or you can really get into things on a whole other level. So many famous works really come to life that way. Either choice is okay.
- monkpit 4y ago
  > wow, there is a person who's really dedicated to not giving a crap about those forms of art “You’re entitled to your opinion, but if you don’t agree with me you must not be capable of enjoying music”
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    I'm specifically referring to people dunking on the Beatles, not the much much larger group of people who just don't like them or don't care.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  I don't care for your assertion of only two sides: "Beatles fans" and "those who don't put effort into understanding art." In point of fact, all I really said was that "I don't get it". I specifically stayed completely away from making any kind of direct, critical judgement of the Beatles themselves. Maybe you might be able to see how one might see such replies as overly-defensive.

JohnBooty 4y ago

If you don't like them that's okay. A fairly huge percentage of the people who really rock music and/or make rock music think the Beatles were great. (edit: but even within that group there's plenty of dissent and/or disinterest) I guess I can identify with people who feel like they've had them shoved down their throat. I feel that way about a lot of Dylan and the Stones and a few other darlings. Funny, though. I've never heard "you had to be there" about these acts. I certainly love the Beatles and was not there. I do think that your experience with the Beatles, as with nearly all art, will be greatly enhanced by some contextual awareness on your behalf. If that's not your cup of tea that's completely OK though. There is no reason you need to like or care about any particular art. I'm sure you have other things in life that you enjoy. I might think it's a bit of a shame, but I also think it's a shame that I don't like cauliflower.

moron4hire 4y ago
It's not a shame to hate cauliflower. I also hate cauliflower. What is a shame is how others will try to sneak cauliflower into your meals, despite your assertions that you have already explored the full breadth of cauliflower and still find nothing there for your liking. "Oh, but you've never had it as a pizza crust!" I assure you, I have. I still hated it. Stop trying to assume you know more about my lived experience than me. So it is with The Beatles. I have listened to it. I do understand the cultural context. I still don't like it. So kindly please get off my front porch.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  For the analogy to be apt we'd need to be sneaking snippets of Beatles songs into things you're already listening to, and even then that's not as egregious as tricking you into putting things into your body. I don't think that tracks with what I said. It certainly says something about your experiences, though. People must have been attempting to cram the Beatles into your life in some extremely obnoxious ways if you feel like this. I'm sorry you dealt with that. If people obnoxiously forced the Beatles on me, I'd probably feel the same as you. I mean that sincerely.
petodo 4y ago

relyks 4y ago

I don't think your opinion is wrong, but if you like rock music and you have a favorite band/artist, they were likely influenced by another band/artist that listened to or studied the Beatles or they have the Beatles as part of their ancestry tree of influences. There have been a lot of great artists/bands that weren't very popular (at least initially) but ended up having a major influence on music over time (e.g. the Velvet Underground). The Beatles have been one of the biggest influencers on music.

moron4hire 4y ago
What does that have to do with listening to goofy, Jim Henson-esque stuff like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Octopuses Garden" and having people try to gaslight you into believing there aren't a dozen better ways to spend your time?
- relyks 4y ago
  Lol, it doesn't. The Beatles are one of my favorite bands and I really dislike some of their songs too. I was just trying to say that a big portion of their hype is because of their influence. You don't have to like them, but they deserve respect
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  No musician has ever produced 100% masterpieces. I can cherry pick bad songs from any artist you care to choose. Also FWIW some people actually like those two you mention.
- ahoho 4y ago
  It seems odd to pick on one of the most universally reviled Beatles' songs to make your point. Three of the band's own members despised it. I don't even think the dozen fans of Maxwell's Silver Hammer would argue it's high art

petodo 4y ago

As for you had to be there argument, that wouldn't explain why I consider Rolling stones or Beach boys from same era better than overhyped Beatles. And honestly I was not really there even during Queen and Abba fame and find these two vastly superior to Beatles, which is almost unlistenable for me besides few great songs like Imagine (which I guess ain't even Beatles), Yesterday, So this is Christmas (is it Beatles?) or All you need is love.

moron4hire 4y ago
I think a lot of people forget that pop-music is a business. Pop bands are essentially corporations in competition with each other. I think the true legacy of The Beatles is that they were the first band to understand that about themselves. But to then assign unique artistic genius to that output--that's completely ignoring that competition existed at all. Like how some fanboys seem to think Apple invented the smartphone.
- petodo 4y ago
  Yeah as someone using Symbian years before iphone I always find it funny they kept calling it first smartphone. Heck even in my previous dumb Java phones I was already many years before running email client, IM, games, browser, calendar and was doing almost everything I'm doing with smartphone, just the experience was not that pleasant, I was fan of Siemens phones which allowed root access to file system unlike other locked brands where you could not even share your resources with others.

bsder 4y ago

> I want to hear an enjoyable song, not "I wanna hold your hand" repeated 15 million times (and that's just one listening!) Well, at one point Dylan told Lennon that his lyrics were shit ... so you're not wrong ... People forget that the Beatles rode a technology wave, as well. TV uptake meant that the they were in the right place and right time to be a cute Boy Band. Audio recording technology underwent a vast shift and improvement in less than 10 years. The Beatles also happened to actually have talent and be very good musicians. And managed to have a band that didn't implode until after they generated a solid catalog. Maybe they weren't first at everything they did, but they were close enough to first and had a reach due to their Boy Band years that nobody else could possibly match. So, The Beatles doing something novel was invariably how anybody not directly in the "scene" would find out about it. People also forget that The Hollies were arguably more popular than The Beatles back in the UK. However, America was the music market at that point.