People who insist that they hate the Beatles - C or D?

personally i like some of their stuff, but most people i know who don't are very genuine in their dislike.

People who like everything the Beatles did are frightening and strange.

However, earlier this year I was listening to some Beatles and realized I did enjoy a lot of their songs. A few years of distance from the situation finally did the trick.

Tom is OTM. And they fail to distinguish betwen the eras in some cases and cant even begin to say they like one period more than another. Barmy.

Then again, people who say the Byrds were better than the beatles are similarly ridiculous.

I like them, and somewhat revere them; for which no apologies.

I think that Tim H has hated them in the past. Possibly in the future too.

I like a lot of what I've heard (two albums plus the 'red' comp).

mark s you like everything.

that sort of fascism makes me WANT to hate the beatles, but i actually like quite a lot of their songs.

I don't mind the music but the it is overshadowed by the myths, the stories, the blah blah blah blah.

bob i agree with you about the kinks, but i think thats cos i went through a religious beatles phase at 12 and burned myself out on them somewhat.

if you have the records around i'm sure you'll get round to pulling them out someday kilian. its what having a record collection does to ya!

*shrug* So people go on and on and on about them. I also happen to adore with the biggest passion groups that the music press either elects to ignore or openly reviles, such as my beloved Duran Duran, so I feel it's all a matter of feeling (</reference="corny" classification="fannish">) here.

PF I think you've misread me. I was saying that people who like everything the Beatles did are mentalists, not that you had to like everything they did to like them. I like them and I think they made some quite bad records.

The mythology/context thing cuts both ways. Some people hate the Beatles because of what they have come to stand for critically, yes - these people can't listen to the records 'objectively' but who can or would want to listen to any records 'objectively'. But lots of people who love the Beatles love them because of the idea of what they achieved and what they were first to do - surely as valid/invalid a reason as hating them because of context.

If the Beatles' records have a certain 'Beatlish' quality (I'm not sure they do, I don't know all of them) which makes people like them then surely other people might dislike that quality too.

People who dislike the mythology of the Beatles could well be Beatles fans, I think I'd be wary of anyone who bought into it really.

Contra-dick-shun time:

I have like 10 Beatles albums but never listen to any, however. There's too much baggage there for me to even casually enjoy them without feeling the iceberg of their history-legacy breathing down on my neck, making me pressured to feel as if I should pay more attention to the lyrics/music/whatever, since its so "important." Listening to the Beatles is a ponderous task these days - shame on the mythologers!!

Also this is kind of off, the Beatles are not the tastes of society anymore. They are a historical event recorded in a specific way, over and over again.

Nowadays, though, you hardly ever hear about them, even in the music press its all Ramones and Velvet Underground and Television and so forth, which I suppose reflects the guitar music of its day just as the Beatles did in 1995-96. But does anyone out there (except possibly the Pinefox) really think they were the best band in the world ever? When was the last time any of you put their records on? Do the people out there really put Beatles records on as much as we are led to think they do?

I don't own any Beatles records... it feels like walking into a record shop and buying Revolver would be like admitting defeat, like admitting there's NOTHING else I want to buy in the entire shop. And it's a completely irrational feeling (like buying girl's drinks in the pub, heh heh).

But part of the reason why I asked it that way is that when I've run into people that say they hate the Beatles, they say it in an insistent way, like they're trying to lure someone into an argument. It didn't even really come up in conversation, they just kind of said it.

Matt I last put a Beatles record on on Wednesday. It was Abbey Road: I didn't enjoy it much.

A few years ago, as others have noted above, they seemed inescapable and the heavy rotation of their classics drove me crazy. I now find the Beatles thoroughly escapable and I have grown much more interested in actual 60s melodic pop (as opposed to 60s inflected melodic pop).

I quite like some of Revolver.

As PF says, maybe I'll work up a little hate in the future. It seems a bit pointless now.

I think one of the best 15 bands maybe. But I think most of the general public think that they're the best band ever.

**When was the last time any of you put their records on?**

Sunday - Anthology III to hear 'Come And Get It'. I ended up playing the whole of both CDs

**Do the people out there really put Beatles records on as much as we are led to think they do?**

Yes.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being suspicious of them because of the whole mythology, or anything wrong with trying them and not liking them. But I am quite staggered that so many folks here have such a *thing* about not even trying them out. Especially people with an ear for pop. I just don't understand it. Just grab a copy of Abbey Road/Revolver/Help/White Album - no-one will laugh at you, and it's not compulsory to buy the anthologies on DVD as well - just treat them like any other artist. For me,I admit I love them the mythology is optional; there are times when I've immersed myself in it, but mostly they're just *there* along with Abba, King Tubby, Chic, Joy Division, The Supremes..... all fucking great.

1. I do
2. Most weeks, I'm afraid
3. Why not?

This is different from what you then said, which was, um: "I was saying that people who like everything the Beatles did are mentalists, not that you had to like everything they did to like them."

I expect you can see the difference. But OK, it is not worth either of our precious times to bother about this point anymore. We both like the Beatles, anyway. Hooray.

I like the Doc's post too. And Tim H's, though he is saying something different.

Let's take sides: is that a valid or an invalid opinion? It seems bogus to me, more or less because, listening to the Beatles while reading the I-Mac book a few years ago this was really how I heard them.
But the effects of the book wore off, and there was no emotional connexion with these songs left over. So: claiming to hate them is a bit much, but certainly not dud.

I still don't like much that they did, but the only Beatle I actively dislike (musically) is McCartney.

one reason i don't feel bad about being an unabashed beatles lover anymore is that people who say they hate the beatles tend to big up the stones. recently i realized that no matter how many stones songs i say i like (and i do like a lot) i could never LOVE them, for so many reasons (mainly that i find their myth/reputation far more irritating than the beatles' ever was), and i do love the beatles. i could sell all my beatles albums tomorrow and use the money to buy every stones record i don't have and this would be no less true.

I don't hate the Beatles, but for me, it's the Beach Boys and the Kinks who I praise a lot more.

I often find the Kinks to be wildly overrated. Although I like them, I think.

anthology 2 (tape 2)

Who would dare, and risk getting trampled by hordes of indignant girls?

I like everything the Beatles did. Or every song the Beatles sang (I don't much like the film Yellow Submarine, or the members' houses). There are lots of songs that I think are weak (half of Sgt. Pepper, 'Piggies', 'Get Back'), but I like them enough to listen to them, to not skip them. When I'm listening, I'm liking.

The overfamiliarity: I know, but then I listen to, of all things, 'Yesterday' and I think I'm not familiar enough with the version that's on the record, which is pure and bold.

But I don't understand what liking the Beatles can actually mean, even as I'm doing it. Who is being propped up? Not the liker, not the likee. I meet people, at bus-stops and stuff, who claim to like dinosaurs, or the Romans. But I can't take them seriously unless the bus is taking them to a bone-dig, or a toga fitting. And still, 'seriously' is pushing it. And I never meet people who hate these things. Big deal for the brontosaurus, no doubt.

Abba, mentioned somewhere, are kind of the same.

I must have heard it, I know I must have, but it seems like the song has surpassed the record to such an extent that I don't need to have heard it. I suspect there are very few other acts who can do that (Sinatra is one).

Full disclosure: my favorite Beatle is Yoko. My second favorite is George Martin.

So you habitually avoid the well-known to preserve an elitist cool then?

The myth overshadows the music *as much as you let it*. So don't let it. I mean you lot wouldn't NOT buy the new Basement Jaxx just because everyone's pissing their pants about it, would you?

But now it doesn't and it's an "elitist cool" thing?

Which is it!

I dunno...being into music and ignoring The Beatles *because of the myths* is like bothering to go to the Musee D'Orsay but closing your eyes each time a Monet or a Van Gogh was nearby. Like reading Zadie Smith but not bothering with Charles Dickens. You don't HAVE to like the Beatles (in fact there's lots to dislike) but to rule them out completely on these grounds is ludicrous. Maybe there's a ton of myth and fable because they're, you know....good.

How did the Beatles become big in the first place? Through the quality of the songs alone? Through slogging round the UK gig circuit, moderindiebandstyle? Through massive record company promotion? Through originality? Through looks? Through sheer luck?

I know what you mean - the new is always more exciting. But people aren't saying that they are making the choice the way you described. They seem to be saying that buying a Beatles album amounts to giving in to some sort of mass opinion that *must be resisted at all costs*. Or as Matt said : "it feels like walking into a record shop and buying Revolver would be like admitting defeat, like admitting there's NOTHING else I want to buy in the entire shop".

I wonder how much this has to do with notions of personal 'cool'. (I'm not having a pop at you here, Matt)

Btw pop kids get The Kinks or The Small Faces or The Who instead, they're better.

I like dance music mainly, following on from that I like electronic pop music and hiphop, I don't owe the Beatles anything and yes as a point of principle I'm not going to give them anything at this moment in time.

It's not about personal cool, it's just about fairly strong feelings which though not necessarily rational, are very real.

1. I don't like any of their records, and dislike most. The simple early rocky ones are okay.

2. I don't like any of their voices.

3. I have scores of covers of their songs, loads by my favourite singers, and they almost always strike me as the worst track on whatever album they are on - for me, the success rate of Beatles covers seems lower than covers of any other act. This means I'm prepared to say that I don't like them as songwriters either.

4. I almost always resent it when someone is set up as the unquestioned top person, or group in this case, the way that the Beatles are. Any broad poll of the public for favourite group ever, you KNOW they will win it, as surely as Shakespeare is the greatest playwright ever. I resent the way they are built up as greater and more important by orders of magnitude than the Stones, Beach Boys, Who and Kinks, for example.

5. I think they were a terrible influence. I think they led to the idea that an act shouldn't be taken seriously if they don't write their own songs, that crafting proper albums is important, and various other rockist notions. Nothing wrong with writing your own songs, and I know they didn't impose the paradigm so it is somewhat unfair to blame them, but they are at the root of its spread, I think. I dislike Hendrix's music for similar reasons, while recognising that it isn't his fault.

6. I am sick of hearing them. They still crop up pretty often.

7. Contrary to what I think Matt was saying above, they are still prominent in the magazine racks. Q, for instance, make my point 4 for me: their idea of a suitable cover feature would be one album of the Beatles (this issue: The Beatles from march 26th-29th 1966), the whole career of the Kinks or Nirvana, say, or all reggae ever. The Beatles seem to be Q's cover feature at least three months out of every year. (No, I don't buy Q, but it's there in the racks every week for me to see.)

8. The mystification of some people at my not liking the Beatles, as if I am confessing to molesting children or something.

I don't think there is any hipster posing in there. I'm a middle aged guy who goes to work in a suit each day and I love many of the revered giants of music, many of them hopelessly uncool. It's not ignorance or refusal to listen to them in the first place, it's finding their music less to my taste than (literally) tens of thousands of other acts.

I often state that the Monkees wrote none of their songs, didn't play the instruments early on, were TV performers before musicians, didn't produce the records and were as manufactured as Hear'Say - just some of the reasons they were better than the Beatles. That's a joke, but it's also mostly stating my feelings about the matter - but the key missing ingredient is that I like 90% of the songs on the Monkees' first few albums better than any Beatles songs ever. And I think Jones and especially Dolenz were far better singers than any Beatles.

I rather like the live action Beatles films. They seem to me to be almost perfect pop group movies.

Something wrong with this picture.

I'm not familiar with critical history, but how does this work when their first few albums are mostly covers?

I wonder how much this has to do with notions of personal 'cool'. (I'm not having a pop at you here, Matt)

I can see why you think that, but I'm not really sure it is (I wouldn't feel embarassed going into HMV and buying the Rachel Stevens album, so I don't reckon a copy of Abbey Road would cause many problems in that department). I think in many ways the problem is pure familiarity - I very rarely buy records I'm already well-acquainted with. To me, much of the fun of buying a record is in the very thrill of not knowing exactly what's contained within and music I know well I'd be more likely to download or copy off friends. I realise this is pretty unique to me and largely irrational (hence the going to the bar comparison above).

Martin's point #3 is OTM, but (to me) has no relevance to what I think about The Beatles doing songs by The Beatles.

On point #8 - just in case i'm being misunderstood I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking them.

For some reason they seem easier to avoid at the moment, and my irritation has subsided.

OK, so hating on the Fab Four is not a hanging offence but it's also not something I can relate to really. I couldn't give a stuff about over half the Beatles catalogue but of the stuff they wrote that does strike a chord, I recognise genius when I hear it.

It's only been in recent years that I've started to have some perspective and question how good some of the stuff actually is and what my personal opinion on it is disregarding popular critical opinion which i've started to find stifling not just with regards to the Beatles but to all music.

I would say that I love the Beatles, though now i can say that i don't love 'everything' they did which before would have been difficult. I wish I could come to them fresh with no historical perspective to cloud my critical judgement - i wonder then what my reaction would be. Would I enjoy them (or indeed any other band) less without a context to place them in or does this awareness of the history add to the appreciation?

I wouldn't feel embarassed going into HMV and buying the Rachel Stevens album

For the record I would be embaressed to go in and buy the Rachel Stevens record and that's something I need to overcome - I even quite like the single. I am totally hung up on the 'personal cool' thing as Dr. C said. How sad.

Beatle-haters: C. Even if their reasons are bad it gets at something; it's another lens, even if cloudy, to look at this monolithic thing. (this is kind of an iran-contra position I guess)

I think I feel happier about getting into the Beatles now British pop is better than them again.

All of it?

The "they never had a bad song!" thing might also tie in here: you're less discriminating about these things when you're still young and besides you only have *one band* that you listen to. There's not a single Beatles song that I don't harbour at least some fondness for, but if I had gotten into, I dunno, The Chemical Brothers or Pulp or Shaggy when I was nine, I'd probably say the same thing about them.

I like "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and a lot of John Lennon's stuff, but the Beatles in general, leave me cold. And I'm sick of them, and I hated their stupid screaming girl fans, grabbing their hair and screeching (for God's sake, shut up!). There is other stuff from 1964-65 to 1970 that I find a hell of a lot more interesting.

Your mileage may vary.

what should songwriters be writing about nowadays?

This is just silly. You must hate most musicians if you really believe this. (and you don't get much more explicitly political than 'Give Ireland Back To the Irish' anyway).

I like the Beatles, though not as much from Sgt. Peppers on. I don't really like ANY of their solo work, except the occasional Lennon song (I think Plastic Ono Band is way overrated). My recent Stones discovery has made it hard to get into the Beatles mystique much these days. Though I still love Meet The Beatles, Rubber Soul, Hard Day's Night, and most of Revolver.

Does anyone at any given moment think they are wrong about anything?

Regarding another point raised upthread, while I don't believe it's possible, I *do* enjoy at least trying to approach music objectively. Context is not monolithic and inescapable except in a very general sense; we pay attention to aspects of context that we wish to, and ignore others as best we can. It's an oversimplification to say that context is unavoidable -- I mean, yeah, it is, but so what? How does that play out in your actual listening and appreciation?

I'm a lifelong fan, and yet I think I'm gradually moving into the hate camp. Although I've continued to claim to like them, I haven't really wanted to put on a Beatles album that much for about five years, and right now Rubber Soul (which used to be my favorite) is playing where I am and it's annoying the shit out of me. They sound like retards.

they're not as bad as fall out boy

listen to side 2 of abbey road really loud

But they are a lot worse than Good Charlotte.

Sugar We're Going Down Swinging > the weaker songs on Rubber Soul

I really need to go long stretches of time without hearing the Beatles to appreciate them. They've been way, way too overplayed. And I think that's why I'd tend towards saying that I'm not much of a fan. Because I really do like a lot of the songs that you rarely hear or that aren't particularly iconic ("Only A Northern Song", "Blue Jay Way", "Dig A Pony", etc.).

Except for "Strawberry Fields". I really do love that song, no matter how many times I hear it.

I've never personally known anyone who claimed to HATE the Beatles, though I've known many to be bored or indifferent.

I've only encountered die-hard haters on the internets, and they don't seem like proper people.

we had a drummer once said he hated the Beatles. He also thought U2 had a a great rhythm section. We fired him.

I don't hate the Beatles, I just don't listen to them.

I can't say I hate them yet, but their cuter stuff irritates the shit out of me now.

I don't listen to them all the time or anything - easy to get overexposed to them and not always in the mood - but man, what really gets me about them is their harmonies. I r a sucker for vocal harmonies.

Yeah. Is beautiful. Then again, I love the Star Club stuff, too.

Just for the teenage bashing, I mean.

the Beatles are probably going to go by the wayside a tad now that the boomers aren't foisting them on their kids anymore. they're not hard or ironic or fearful enough for youth of today. I don't listen to them much, but I'm glad they're there. I bought Magical Mystery Tour today.

chaki otm

there's loads of irony in the Beatles

Dude, kids are ALWAYS talking about the goddamn Beatles, which is why I (partly) understand the pointless revulsion listed upthread. Beatles, Zep, Floyd -- these bands are the holy trinity for a certain kind of sincere youth. They will never die.

no, they are 100% ingenuous

these sincere guitar-playing kids will buy charts to "Stairway to Heaven" and "She Said, She Said" forever.

I think the Beatles and Zep and Floyd appeal do very different flavors of youth

rock school franchises will make sure of it

I think the Beatles and Zep and Floyd appeal do very different flavors of youth

Yeah, twelve-year-olds and fifteen-year-olds

I really dislike the early Beatles quite a bit though. Isn't that more common?

Yesterday afternoon I actually snapped at a student for going, "DUDE, Zep ROCKS. `Stairway' is such a guitar anthem!" I gently tried to explain why you shouldn't assume anything, how it's not the conclusion that matters but the argument, etc etc until I heard myself sound pedantic and shut the fuck up.

The point is, I'm more apt to snap at a student for loving Zep and his malformed arguments for loving them than the Beatles, just because the latter have more of an emotional range. Whatever.

I actually said, "`The Rain Song' is better than `Stairway'!" and while that's probably true, it reminded me of those lit guys who say Marlowe's Edward II is better than Macbeth.

The Rain Song is WAY better than Stairway

its okay Alfred cuz you were right

being familiar with www.ilxor.com means you know where all the Beatles haters are.

even so, I can go years and not hear a Beatles song and not feel incomplete or anything. Or I could, if such a thing were possible.

that's true...than I hear an obscurity like "All I Wanna Do" or "And Your Bird Can Sing" and remember.

Lennon apparently grew to hate hearing Beatles songs as they had bad associations for him (though he was proud of them).

I like the story of a flunky being despatched to find out who it was repeatedly playing Beatles records in the Dakota appartment block that was driving him mad.

I don't like "Stairway," but it ain't no thang, y'know

But, really, the question comes down to: if you're a professional music critic how much older favorites do you have to time to hear? I'm always hearing laments on how that Sharrock, Miles, Aretha, or Eno album never gets the attention it deserves because there's simply too much new shit to assess. I've heard enough Beatles in my lifetime to never hear another note, yet will sing or marvel anew when a song plays on a jukebox or friend's car.

Yeah, there again: love me some Led Zep, can't stand "Stairway". Blame classic rock radio. And the 15-year-olds.

Alfred OTM for like 10 posts in a row.

Anthony Burgess, in an essay on Marshall McLuhan:

"His adoration of the Beatles (always, to me, an index of intellectual unsoundness) is based presumably on their having become priests of electronics."

Typical jealous Manc.

let us all stand in awe of the intellectual giant who wrote the screenplay for jesus of nazareth

I like his work but yeah he does have the classic autodidact attitude problem. Looking forward to reading the Roger Lewis bio.

Brb petitioning to change my job title to Priest of Electronics

Burgess was a devotee of symphonic and chamber music and he wrote many pieces which were never popular, even among classical musicians and audiences, but thank god at least they were intellectually sound. This was one of his more twatish pronouncements and being a twat was one of Burgess's great talents.

Technically correct: the best kind of correct.