- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I said "I have a challenge for you: make me like The Beatles"
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:57 am to Jester
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:57 am to Jester
quote:
Don't be so sensitive. I was responding to the dumbass that implied that not liking the Beatles in some way disqualifies your ability to listen critically to music. Now, go back to screaming like a little girl as the Fab Four slap arse in front of the crowd.
Don't be so sensitive, I was just responding to someone basically saying people that like the Beatles essentially can't think for themselves.
The comment you responded to was stupid, or course people with brains can not like the Beatles.
This post was edited on 9/26/12 at 10:58 am
1
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:58 am to Jester
The Beatles rule and their music will live forever. They have and will always hold up. Your friend is correct. You lack music knowledge and are a loser.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 10:58 am to bobbyray21
Helter Skelter and Yesterday should be on the list
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:00 am to Jester
quote:
The point is, they ARE overrated. They put out a lot of good music, but were also held up like gods among men, which simply is not the case. Same holds true with Nirvana. People just want to act like they WERE the music of the era, when they were just the most popular incarnation of the music of the era, which several other bands were doing at the same time.
I agree. I enjoy many Beatles songs, but I personally like the Rolling Stones better. I'm also a big Nirvana fan, but I recognize bands like AiC, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden are also just as good, if not better.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:02 am to Jester
quote:
I don't see anyone bashing them gratuitously here.
calling them a boy band and saying people like it because of marketing is gratuitous imo.
quote:
If their fans can't handle that not everyone is in love with them, their love of The Beatles is pretty shallow.
I don't care if you don't like the Beatles, but don't tell me i only do because I was told to.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:05 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Don't be so sensitive, I was just responding to someone basically saying people that like the Beatles essentially can't think for themselves.
The comment you responded to was stupid, or course people with brains can not like the Beatles.
I'm the one that called them the first boy band. That doesn't mean they can't think for themselves. They clearly became more than that, but their success is definitely a product of intense marketing to go along with their talents.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:08 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I don't care if you don't like the Beatles, but don't tell me i only do because I was told to.
Fair enough, don't call me a hipster because I'm not a Beatles fan.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:16 am to Jester
quote:
Which is opinion. Most people that call The Beatles "great music" will scoff at the sound of Frank Zappa or Rush or Judas Priest or Merle Haggard. The list goes on. Quality is in the ear of the beholder.
that's just silly. There are many people, in fact most people, who like more than one genre. The Beatles also crossed a lot of genres, as they were musical dabblers in lots of pop trends of the time.
OK, I think Rush sucks, but I understand why lots of people like them. It's just not my cup of tea. But the others? I think the Beatles are great as well as Zappa, Judas Priest, and Merle Haggard. And I highly doubt I'm alone in that. Or even a tiny minority.
There's no need to try and show your critical independence by not only rejecting the Beatles, but then insulting anyone who refuses to do the same. That isn't independence, that's a childish fit.
It's very different to reject critical consensus, which I'm sure everyone does on a few artists, and quite another to think that the critical consensus exists just because we're all sheep.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:23 am to Baloo
quote:
OK, I think Rush sucks, but I understand why lots of people like them. It's just not my cup of tea. But the others? I think the Beatles are great as well as Zappa, Judas Priest, and Merle Haggard. And I highly doubt I'm alone in that. Or even a tiny minority.
Okay, go compare the word OR to the word AND. You scoffed at Rush. Thus, you supported my assertion.
quote:
There's no need to try and show your critical independence by not only rejecting the Beatles, but then insulting anyone who refuses to do the same. That isn't independence, that's a childish fit.
Did you even read the whole conversation? I was responding sarcastically to the dumbass that implied that The Beatles are the end all musical barometer, which I think you agree is stupid.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:25 am to Jester
The Beatles' music does not make my ears bleed like, say, Hits 1 stuff, but I find it utterly boring. I will not seek it out. I will not click it on Sirius. I will not leave the room if someone else is playing it either.
Now, if it was all Lennon based, and included Lennon's solo stuff, I'd break through a wall like the Kool-aid man getting out of there.
Now, if it was all Lennon based, and included Lennon's solo stuff, I'd break through a wall like the Kool-aid man getting out of there.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:31 am to Jester
quote:
Okay, go compare the word OR to the word AND. You scoffed at Rush. Thus, you supported my assertion.
First off, no one likes a pendant.
Secondly, you used "OR", the disjunctive. So the fact I don't like Rush doesn't prove your assertion that people who think the Beatles are great will scoff at other bands. Unless your point is that someone who likes the Beatles will dislike another band in existence, which is true. Also, I didn't scoff at them. I stated that I think they suck, but I see why other people like them. Big wide universe and all that.
quote:
Did you even read the whole conversation?
Yeah. Which is why I called you out for you faux tough guy stance. You're the one acting like the arbiter of all that is cool. Hey, that's what works for you. But I found your how many ever posts in this thread to be the tough guy posturing of a child. And I said so.
You are free to disagree.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:38 am to Jester
quote:
Fair enough, don't call me a hipster because I'm not a Beatles fan.
Fair enough, I made a snarky response to your snarky comment, i did not see the comment you responed to which I agree is ridiculous.
This post was edited on 9/26/12 at 11:47 am
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:39 am to Baloo
Two of Us should be on one of those lists.
Some of their early recordings before hitting it big aren't bad. Three Cool Cats isn't up to the Coasters' level but it's got a good feel to it...and shows that they should have used George on vocals more.
Some of their early recordings before hitting it big aren't bad. Three Cool Cats isn't up to the Coasters' level but it's got a good feel to it...and shows that they should have used George on vocals more.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 11:43 am to Jester
quote:
I'm the one that called them the first boy band. That doesn't mean they can't think for themselves. They clearly became more than that, but their success is definitely a product of intense marketing to go along with their talents.
I mean you are saying Beatles fans can't think for themselves, not the Beatles themselves. They are not a "boy band", that's just gratuitous bashing again. I'm guessing you are saying that because they wore matching suits and had a crafted image. That's just the way the music business was circa 1962. Bands packaged a certain way, recording songs written by others, releasing only singles. The Beatles were among the first bands to change a lot of that.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:31 pm to Baloo
quote:
Yeah. Which is why I called you out for you faux tough guy stance. You're the one acting like the arbiter of all that is cool. Hey, that's what works for you. But I found your how many ever posts in this thread to be the tough guy posturing of a child. And I said so.
Thank you for being such a sophisticated adult. If only we could all strive to be like you.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 12:54 pm to Jester
Your friend didn't include Helter Skelter? What a loser.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 1:40 pm to Jester
quote:
Thank you for being such a sophisticated adult. If only we could all strive to be like you.
You're welcome.
If only, indeed.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 1:52 pm to Baloo
Also, please note that the Beatles's body of music comes from the years 1960-1970. 11 years.
Studio albums 27
Live albums 4
Compilation albums 57
EPs 21
Singles 55
Sure, a small part of those previous numbers came after, but dear God. The amount of music recorded and released is shocking. The amount their music changed over 11 years of recording is wonderful to hear.
1963
Please Please Me
With The Beatles
1964
Meet The Beatles!
The Beatles' Second Album
A Hard Day's Night
Something New
Beatles for Sale
Beatles '65
1965
Beatles VI
Help!
Rubber Soul
1966
Yesterday and Today
Revolver
1967
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
1968
The Beatles
1969
Yellow Submarine
Abbey Road
1970
Let It Be
Studio albums 27
Live albums 4
Compilation albums 57
EPs 21
Singles 55
Sure, a small part of those previous numbers came after, but dear God. The amount of music recorded and released is shocking. The amount their music changed over 11 years of recording is wonderful to hear.
1963
Please Please Me
With The Beatles
1964
Meet The Beatles!
The Beatles' Second Album
A Hard Day's Night
Something New
Beatles for Sale
Beatles '65
1965
Beatles VI
Help!
Rubber Soul
1966
Yesterday and Today
Revolver
1967
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
1968
The Beatles
1969
Yellow Submarine
Abbey Road
1970
Let It Be
Posted on 9/26/12 at 6:06 pm to Jester
Calling The Beatles a "boy band" is just ignorant.
Posted on 9/26/12 at 8:19 pm to bobbyray21
Go to Vegas. See the Cirque thing - LOVE.
You'll understand.
part of it is the cultural significance. Like your signature pick. We can argue about greatest boxer, but no boxer or athlete has had the cultural significance of Ali.
There where a lot of technical things as well, like how electric bass was recorded that werentrue innovations. Then the metamorphosis from Clay to Ali. Put down simple love songs, etc. To create art that defined a generation.
The idea that Love is all you need was shortly replaced with the only value in society being the almighty dollar. But for a brief moment in the 60s there was the possibility of some other idea prevailing. This is not just notes. It's not just left jabs. It about taking a stand thatbthingsbshould be different than what is the accepted norm.
Hard to believe you see the greatness in Ali but don't see it in the Beatles when the core thing which makes them great is so closely aligned.
You'll understand.
part of it is the cultural significance. Like your signature pick. We can argue about greatest boxer, but no boxer or athlete has had the cultural significance of Ali.
There where a lot of technical things as well, like how electric bass was recorded that werentrue innovations. Then the metamorphosis from Clay to Ali. Put down simple love songs, etc. To create art that defined a generation.
The idea that Love is all you need was shortly replaced with the only value in society being the almighty dollar. But for a brief moment in the 60s there was the possibility of some other idea prevailing. This is not just notes. It's not just left jabs. It about taking a stand thatbthingsbshould be different than what is the accepted norm.
Hard to believe you see the greatness in Ali but don't see it in the Beatles when the core thing which makes them great is so closely aligned.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News