Why is it so hard to get away with hating the Beatles?

[trooper6]

First my qualifications:
1. I have a PhD in Musicology.
2. I specialize in Popular Music.
3. As a grad student I was a TA for a Beatles class.
4. I regularly teach the History of Rock and Roll (as well as a lot of other popular music studies classes).

Here's my opinion on the matter:

The Beatles are not the best band in the world (that is a meaningless thing to look for).
The Beatles are not the most important band in the world (that is another meaningless thing to look for).
They aren't genius. (That is another meaningless term)
They didn't write the best music of all time (what does that even mean?)
They didn't revolutionize music, though they were part of a revolutionary time...but there have been many musically revolutionary times...and why is it better to be revolutionary than to be evolutionary?

But the crux is here:
They aren't even the most influential of bands--because you have to ask influential to whom? And when?

Lot's of people didn't care about the Beatles back in the 60s. You won't find the Beatles on the R&B charts or the Country and Western charts. There are entire groups of people back in the late 60s who cared more about the Temptations or Loretta Lynn or Miles Davis than the Beatles. Heck, even in the realm of rock, there were people who preferred the Beach Boys, The Doors, The Who, The Stones, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin or Gerry and the Pacemakers to the Beatles.

And of course as nearing9 pointed out why aren't people talking about Chuck Berry or Fats Domino...or Elvis?

Why is it always the Beatles? The answer is the same answer why, when I ask my students who the more important and best composers of all time are, they all answer the "right" answers: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and Brahms.

Why, are Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and Brahms the "best" composers? Because the field of Musicology/Music History was invented by Germans in the 1870s at a time when they were trying to create the fiction of a unified Germany (rather than small Kingdoms and Principalities and Duchies)...they didn't have a strong colonial presence like Spain, France, or England--so they fought for dominance through music. So all the "best" composers all "happen" to be Germans and just "happen" to not include any French, Italian, English, Spanish, or Russian composers. Because it is about validating the new German state.

So what is this Beatles worship about? It is about the Baby Boomers. The Baby Boomers were the ones who started Rolling Stone magazine. The Baby Boomers are the ones who were the most celebrated music critics. And it is the Baby Boomers--but mostly those guys (mostly white) who were of a class that could afford college-- who are the ones who still control of the structures that judge what is most important in terms of popular culture (Rolling Stone, MTV, VH1, etc).

And they were too young to be invested in Rock'n'Roll of the 1950s...the people that actually started the genre. They also aren't all that interested in music that came too far after their glory days. Are the Beatles the best? No. But Baby Boomers think so and they control discourse.

A great example of the outrageousness of this is Rolling Stone Magazine's list of the 500 Greatest albums of All Time.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_500_Greatest_Albums_of_All_Time)

The top 10?
1 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band The Beatles June 1967
2 Pet Sounds The Beach Boys May 1966
3 Revolver The Beatles August 1966
4 Highway 61 Revisited Bob Dylan August 1965
5 Rubber Soul The Beatles December 1965
6 What's Going On Marvin Gaye May 1971
7 Exile on Main St. The Rolling Stones May 1972
8 London Calling The Clash December 1979
9 Blonde on Blonde Bob Dylan May 1966
10 The Beatles (also known as The White Album) The Beatles November 1968

So, the top 10 albums of all time are all (with one exception) from the 1965-1972? The time that the boomers had their heyday? Really?
Somehow 61.8% of the greatest albums of all time just happen to come from the 1960s and 1970s? And there are only 29 albums on the list from before 1960? Of the greatest albums of all time?
The only women in the top 50 are Joni Mitchell, Carole King, and Patti Smith (and Nico guesting in on the Velvet Underground)? Really? Madonna first shows up at 237?

And of course, if you aren't singin in English, you aren't on the list.

The Beatles are fine--I have no problem with them. I always teach them in my classes. But the Beatles have become a fetish object for a generation who are awfully full of themselves.

Compare the Rolling Stone list with a list compiled by Spin magazine, made up of people younger than the Rolling Stone owners:
1. James Brown - Sex Machine
2. Tom Waits - Swordfishtrombones
3. Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde
4. The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead
5. Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin Ii
6. Television - Marquee Moon
7. Sly And The Family Stone - Fresh
8. Elvis Costello And The Attractions - This Year's Model
9. Rolling Stones - Exile On Main St.
10. New Order - Low-Life

The Beatles don't show up even once on Spin's Top 10.
Or what happens if you look at the RIAA's list of top selling albums of all time:

1 EAGLES/THEIR GREATEST HITS 1971 - 1975, EAGLES
2 THRILLER JACKSON, MICHAEL
3 LED ZEPPELIN IV LED ZEPPELIN
4 THE WALL PINK FLOYD
5 BACK IN BLACK AC/DC
6 DOUBLE LIVE BROOKS, GARTH
7 GREATEST HITS VOLUME I & VOLUME II JOEL, BILLY
8 COME ON OVER TWAIN, SHANIA
9 THE BEATLES BEATLES, THE
10 RUMOURS FLEETWOOD MAC

Or what happens if we look at top selling global albums.
1. Michael Jackson, Thriller
2. AC/DC, Back in Black
3. Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
4. Whitney Houston, The Bodyguard
5. Meatloaf, Bat out of Hell
6. Eagles, Their Greatest Hits
7. Var. Dirty Dancing Soundtrack
8. Backstreet Boys, Millennium
9. Bee Gees, Saturday Night Fever
10. Fleetwood Mac, Rumors

and if we look at the pre-Rock era we have to look at the domination on the charts by Bing Crosby.

But what we get is the same story...The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles. And I like the Beatles. But they aren't the only game in town.

 

[Con Carne]

They Made their contributions to the music world. Big freakin deal. So did, Elvis and Metallica. They're all legends in their own right. I could personally give a rats ass. I don't like any of them musically but I will give respect where it is due. Metallica is another one of those bands that people get hated on for hating. I've never understood it.
I know I'll probably get more hate for this, but I think Across the Universe was an alright flick and it would have been much better if it didn't use the Beatles for the soundtrack. Ugh.
No I didn't like Mama Mia. As much as I dislike the Beatles, they're still okay in my book when compared to Abba!

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I understand completely.

In the same vein I've been met with disgust and disbelief that, as someone who likes metal, I don't listen to Slayer, Metallica or Black Sabbath.

Fans really, really anger me sometimes.

 

[Hatchet90]

You really can't say that you hate ALL their music because they have amassed such a large range of music that everyone has at least one song that they like from them. I think it's just said to be edgy or, in some cases, ignorance is the reason for the hate. But at the same time I think that the kids of my generation really take refuge in liking the Beatles (and all classic rock for that matter) and consider themselves some kind of all knowing music buff. I think that annoys me a heck of a lot more than someone hating the Beatles. Thinking that you're better or more knowledgeable just because you listen to the Beatles or classic rock really bugs me.

I went through "that" stage, but I've discovered that while the Beatles are awesome and have their place in rock history. I don't consider them the best band EVAR and they are certainly not without their faults (i.e. I don't like most of the White Album). I think the most amazing thing about them despite all the hatred and all the overbearing love, is that they transcend generations. My parents passed on their Beatles vinyls to me just like I'll pass on my Beatles cds to my children.

And hey, it's a hell of a lot better than Bieber.

I love The Beatles, they are by far my favourite band of all time! And its funny that your avatar is Yahtzee, because, he too loves The Beatles. I don't really like McCarthy that much, hes talented as hell, but the rest I love, especially Lennon. Theres many reasons why people love n' hate The Beatles.

They're your favorite band of all time? Yeah I don't like Paul McCarthy either. (It's McCartney)

 

[Kortney]

To be honest, when I hear someone say they "hate" The Beatles I do think "This person is fairly ignorant". Wait, let me explain:

There's nothing wrong with hating their music. Nothing. But to completely ignore the massive contributions they made to modern music is downright silly. I can guarantee the Beatles were a serious role in creating the genre of your favourite band today (most likely). They were revolutionary and they changed music forever. You have to pay serious respect for that - objectively.

But yeah, if you don't like their music - that's fair enough. Just acknowledge what they did and I'm happy.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

The Beatles aren't the only band that people think is immune to criticism, it's just the most popular, and they actually aren't immune to criticism, they just have the most diehard fans as a result of the music they produced.

Ever album The Clash did up until Sandinista! was considered a Punk rock classic, and while there are people that didn't love every album The Clash ever did (Kurt Cobain being a famous example), their fans continue to dominate their haters to this day; the only difference being that they played, of course, Punk instead of Pop, and thus didn't appeal to everybody. The Gorillaz, obviously a much more recent band, also has a set of followers that wouldn't question any creative decision by the band and loved every studio album with a passion, but, again, they don't have the sheer numbers because of their genre.

A couple other notes on bands mentioned:

As someone in this thread was referencing (poorly), Tupac had legions of fans, but he also had legions of haters, his massive popularity came from being the defining figure of the West Coast during the East Coast-West Coast rap wars, and unlike the defining figure of the East Coast, Biggie Smalls, he didn't have any major rivals in his own city until after his death. Today Tupac is more loved than hated, but it's also worth noting that he did several albums during his career and never produced one "perfect" album, as compared to artists such as Biggie, Eminem, Jay-Z, Nas, and (going back a ways) Public Enemy and Run D.M.C., all of whom had at least one album that's considered a real magnum opus. He's not immune to criticism and never was, and he often lashed out at his haters, critics and rivals in music and IRL.

The Stones were another group mentioned in this thread. They're actually closer to being the exact opposite of immune. They caught shit for music they did while the Beatles were hot, they took shit for just about everything they did in the 70's between Exile and Some Girls, they took shit through the 80's for acting like a band that was half-split-up and they've continued to take shit to this day for just being a big, famous rock and roll band that has often been perceived as the ultimate sell-outs. They were immune from criticism for one period of time between the late 60's and the early 70's when they put out four of the best albums ever in a row, after that you could (and can) find a critic just about anywhere.

Led Zeppelin also has carried the reputation as being immune to criticism; ironically their now-famous business practices came about partly because of Jimmy Page's reaction towards criticism from the Rolling Stone. They weren't even acknowledged by the media as the artistic and commercial success they turned into until close to the end of the band.

As far as the Beatles go, you made a thread on a message board and got more people to say they're sick of the hype than you got savage fans threatening to find where you live. I think they put out at least four of the best pieces of music of the 20th century, and while those albums were more accessible than the Stones' best albums and more demographic friendly than The Clash or The Notorious B.I.G., they're just a few great pieces of music among many that have come out in the past 100 years.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I think it's because people can really get touchy when people say bad things (or think people are saying bad things) about stuff they like.

I do like the Beatles, but I like to think I'm pretty open-minded too.

 

[Artina89]

I am not a huge fan of the Beatles, but I can appreciate the effect they had on a lot of artists. For me, it is simply a case of that I don't like listening to other peoples music that much, if you understand what I mean. For example, if I can hear my roommates music and it is so loud that I can't hear what I am watching/listening to I will tell them to turn it down or put on earphones as they are being rude otherwise. I mean they don't mind telling me to turn music down so I have no qualms about telling them to turn it down either, Beatles or otherwise. I try and be courteous and turn down my computer as much as possible so that I can hear it, but it is not disturbing anyone else.

(Sorry for kinda straying off topic, but that sort of thing really grinds my gears)

 

[Waykunbayk]

None of their songs i really like and bands of today easily outdo them by a long shot.

'None of their songs I really like' - I think a large amount of people would agree with you nowadays (though I do wonder whether you've listened to enough Beatles. 'None' implies you've listened to them all and find them all unappealing). Personally, it's not an opinion I hope the majority will share one day, but it is an opinion, and it's yours, so whatever.

But please don't start calling your opinion facts. 'Bands of today easily (lol) outdo them by a long shot' is just ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is. Let's put aside simple things like the massive differences between modern and '60s sound quality/production (a lot of which The Beatles helped popularise among recording artists), and the internet's revolution of music (you couldn't just listen to a new band on YouTube, or download pretty much any song, any genre, any time like you can nowadays), and The Beatles are still better, to use your phrasing, by a long shot.

Early Beatles is not perfect. If their legacy was only based on their first 4 albums, I doubt they'd be anything but a nostalgia act. But it's two things (in my opinion, anyway) that have separated them. First: they were the punk before punk. Pre-Beatles, you typically had a frontman and his support. Think Cliff Richard and the Shadows/Bill Haley and his Comets/Elvis. While they could be fantastic musicians, it was rare for an act to actually write their own material. The Beatles were unconventional: there was no single frontman, John and Paul typically sharing, and George and Ringo at least given one song an album; like Elvis, they brought raw energy which businessmen and marketers wish they could imitate; and of course, they wrote their own songs, and not just songs, but massive hit records filled with catchy melodies and popular love lyrics. John had the edge and the blue notes; Paul stayed major and smiled; George and Ringo did what they had to. Good songs and a bunch of unconventional-but-easily-recognisable characters empowered Beatlemania, in my opinion. (To go back to what the OP said about music not needing context: I totally agree, but The Beatles are an 'experience', and there is so much more to their impact than the music.)

The second thing, I think, that separates The Beatles is their later period. Beatles records were always distinguished by eccentric genre choices - on one (take With The Beatles for example), there could be a number of straight rock n' rollers, then an R&B (Rhythm and Blues, thank you) classic, then a show tune. An early Beatles album was always surprising for its choice of genres (remember, there was no YouTube, so to have an eclectic knowledge of music in the first place showed great devotion to the art), but the later albums seemed to do away with genres altogether. This is why I think 'pop' has become such an all-encompassing label - the pop of the '60s (in turns influencing and influenced by The Beatles) became almost indescribable. Instrument choice became central (with Beatles and Beach Boys anyway), and non-instrument sounds became almost standard. Rock and Blues and Gospel and Folk all still existed and still exist, but Beatles music especially was an amalgamation of influences. Because of this, their music is surprising and novel, but (and this is why I think the later period makes them legendary) has enough emotional depth to keep it grounded, accessible and relatable. When their songs became more than love songs, they became timeless - separate from genre, and from time, their later songs are purely human, which is what makes them so continuously popular.

Beatles music was different, sounded different - because so much music ever since has strived to imitate them, it's hard to tell why they were so unique. I suppose they do sound quite ordinary compared to the extravagances of modern music, but it is a fact that no other group that ever formed has put out such a high quantity of high quality songs (self-written and all in the space of 6/7 years, to put the cherry on).

All that said though, I do feel that half of the sustained commercial success of The Beatles comes down to advertisers and marketers. The Beatles are still a goldmine, and I don't think we'll ever be allowed to forget it.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Because they influenced just about every other band out there today. From the Ramones and Ray Charles to Jay-Z and Jimi Hendrix, just about every modern successful artist has some influence taken from the Beatles. The Beatles popularized the record albums, They were one of the first to preform a concert in a large stadium and were the poster child for the rock n Roll movement in the 60s and 70s.

Dislike them all you want,but most people have at least one Beatles song they love, even those who claim to hate their guts. No one can deny their impact on music.

 

[trooper6]

But please don't start calling your opinion facts. 'Bands of today easily (lol) outdo them by a long shot' is just ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is. Let's put aside simple things like the massive differences between modern and '60s sound quality/production (a lot of which The Beatles helped popularise among recording artists), and the internet's revolution of music (you couldn't just listen to a new band on YouTube, or download pretty much any song, any genre, any time like you can nowadays), and The Beatles are still better, to use your phrasing, by a long shot.

You, too, are presenting your opinion as fact.

Early Beatles is not perfect. If their legacy was only based on their first 4 albums, I doubt they'd be anything but a nostalgia act. But it's two things (in my opinion, anyway) that have separated them. First: they were the punk before punk. Pre-Beatles, you typically had a frontman and his support. Think Cliff Richard and the Shadows/Bill Haley and his Comets/Elvis. While they could be fantastic musicians, it was rare for an act to actually write their own material. The Beatles were unconventional: there was no single frontman, John and Paul typically sharing, and George and Ringo at least given one song an album; like Elvis, they brought raw energy which businessmen and marketers wish they could imitate; and of course, they wrote their own songs, and not just songs, but massive hit records filled with catchy melodies and popular love lyrics. John had the edge and the blue notes; Paul stayed major and smiled; George and Ringo did what they had to. Good songs and a bunch of unconventional-but-easily-recognisable characters empowered Beatlemania, in my opinion. (To go back to what the OP said about music not needing context: I totally agree, but The Beatles are an 'experience', and there is so much more to their impact than the music.)

The Beatles were not unconventional for having no frontman. You only have to look to the Beatles influences to see groups with no frontmen...specifically, all the Doo Wop and Girl Groups that they themselves were covering in their early days: The Crystals, The Orioles, The Isley Brothers, The Marvelettes, etc.

Yes they wrote their own music (thought they did their share of covers as well). And so did all of the jazz combos. And Chuck Berry. And Little Richard. And Bo Diddley. And any other number of pre-64 musicians.

And of course, the Beatles, rather than being unique in the early period, were one of many Beat bands in Liverpool--one with much better marketing and management than the other local bands.

The second thing, I think, that separates The Beatles is their later period. Beatles records were always distinguished by eccentric genre choices - on one (take With The Beatles for example), there could be a number of straight rock n' rollers, then an R&B (Rhythm and Blues, thank you) classic, then a show tune. An early Beatles album was always surprising for its choice of genres (remember, there was no YouTube, so to have an eclectic knowledge of music in the first place showed great devotion to the art), but the later albums seemed to do away with genres altogether. This is why I think 'pop' has become such an all-encompassing label - the pop of the '60s (in turns influencing and influenced by The Beatles) became almost indescribable. Instrument choice became central (with Beatles and Beach Boys anyway), and non-instrument sounds became almost standard. Rock and Blues and Gospel and Folk all still existed and still exist, but Beatles music especially was an amalgamation of influences. Because of this, their music is surprising and novel, but (and this is why I think the later period makes them legendary) has enough emotional depth to keep it grounded, accessible and relatable. When their songs became more than love songs, they became timeless - separate from genre, and from time, their later songs are purely human, which is what makes them so continuously popular.

Ella Fitzgerald, The Supremes, Ray Charles, Elvis...they too were also very eccentric in genre choices.
And relatable to whom? Lots and lots of, for example, African Americans in the middle of the 60s didn't find the Beatles repackaging of their music all that relatable. Lots and lots of rural southern European Americans didn't find the Beatles all that relatable. A lot of women who found the early Beatles relatable found the later Beatles less so. Rockers who preferred the London sound over the Liverpool sound found them not so relatable.

They are not timeless. They are specifically of their time period and of their location. To remove them from their time period and their context only diminishes their accomplishments and their importance. And it also obscures the way that music works differently in different moments. To like the Beatles in 1964, when they were new meant something different if you were a Liverpudlian and who knew the Merseyside Beat scene and knew the Beatles and sort of punky guys playing in sweaty grungy nasty clubs along with a bunch of other working class bands than if you were an American who was reeling from the Kennedy assassination and for whom the Beatles were foreign and exotic. Liking the Beatles in the 60s as a college student when you could claim them as part of a much larger rebellious counterculture is very different than liking them now, when they are no longer countercultural--but actually used conservatively.

Beatles music was different, sounded different - because so much music ever since has strived to imitate them, it's hard to tell why they were so unique. I suppose they do sound quite ordinary compared to the extravagances of modern music, but it is a fact that no other group that ever formed has put out such a high quantity of high quality songs (self-written and all in the space of 6/7 years, to put the cherry on).

All that said though, I do feel that half of the sustained commercial success of The Beatles comes down to advertisers and marketers. The Beatles are still a goldmine, and I don't think we'll ever be allowed to forget it.

The Beatles were not all that different. They were of their time. Of a context. Doesn't make them bad. But the hype around them is more about Baby Boomer marketing and complicated racial and class and age issues than some inherent genius--and also larger changes and solidifications of the music industry. The Beatles' record company spent 1million dollars marketing Sgt. Peppers. No album had ever been that commercially marketed before. That is also part of it.

Are the Beatles better than Ray Charles? Miles Davis? The Doors? The Beach Boys? Elvis? Aretha Franklin? Frank Zappa? Little Richard? The Mills Brothers? Frank Sinatra? Dusty Springfield? The Who? Loretta Lynn? Louis Jordan? Johnny Cash? Bill Monroe? Robert Johnson? The Supremes? Louis Armstrong?

Doesn't matter. It's the wrong question to ask.

Better to ask...in what ways were they Beatles important to this group or that group at this or that moment?

Anyway, may want to check out: How the Beatles destroyed Rock'n'Roll by Elijah Wald.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

They're one of those bands that almost anyone can find some song they enjoy.

I wasn't a big fan until I heard this...


Chemical Brothers, Oasis... both spent entire careers ripping this song off.

I still don't like a lot of their stuff but Revolver and St Peppers, especially this song, are two of my all time favourites.

SNIP

That was a very informative and interesting read, thanks!

 

[Waykunbayk]

But please don't start calling your opinion facts. 'Bands of today easily (lol) outdo them by a long shot' is just ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is. Let's put aside simple things like the massive differences between modern and '60s sound quality/production (a lot of which The Beatles helped popularise among recording artists), and the internet's revolution of music (you couldn't just listen to a new band on YouTube, or download pretty much any song, any genre, any time like you can nowadays), and The Beatles are still better, to use your phrasing, by a long shot.

You, too, are presenting your opinion as fact.

Fair enough - I try and be objective but I'm a fan >.< you know

The Beatles were not unconventional for having no frontman. You only have to look to the Beatles influences to see groups with no frontmen...specifically, all the Doo Wop and Girl Groups that they themselves were covering in their early days: The Crystals, The Orioles, The Isley Brothers, The Marvelettes, etc.

Yes, there have always been pop groups, but a rock n' roll band with no lead singer was a curiosity. Even in The Beatles time, as it still is, rock n' roll bands typically had a front man. It was the convention.

Yes they wrote their own music (thought they did their share of covers as well). And so did all of the jazz combos. And Chuck Berry. And Little Richard. And Bo Diddley. And any other number of pre-64 musicians.

You're absolutely right. I would never try to diminish the massive, massive contribution that countless other pre- and post-Beatles artists have made to pop culture. The Beatles phenomenon was 'right time, right place, right face', absolutely. The Beatles are unique in that respect, though.

And of course, the Beatles, rather than being unique in the early period, were one of many Beat bands in Liverpool--one with much better marketing and management than the other local bands.

While they might have had a financial advantage, Brian Epstein was supposedly an incompetent businessman. I suppose owning a record shop would give you less experience in music management than you'd think.

Ella Fitzgerald, The Supremes, Ray Charles, Elvis...they too were also very eccentric in genre choices.
And relatable to whom? Lots and lots of, for example, African Americans in the middle of the 60s didn't find the Beatles repackaging of their music all that relatable. Lots and lots of rural southern European Americans didn't find the Beatles all that relatable. A lot of women who found the early Beatles relatable found the later Beatles less so. Rockers who preferred the London sound over the Liverpool sound found them not so relatable.

OK, fair enough. I wasn't actually trying to say that the globe fell in love with The Beatles and forgot every other artist. People have their tastes, absolutely. However, The Beatles are still unique in the sheer number of people (if we're judging by record sales) who have enjoyed their music. I don't believe this is because they had a genius marketing strategy (perhaps now they do) - I think the music spoke for itself, and was helped along massively with a fat budget.

Are the Beatles better than Ray Charles? Miles Davis? The Doors? The Beach Boys? Elvis? Aretha Franklin? Frank Zappa? Little Richard? The Mills Brothers? Frank Sinatra? Dusty Springfield? The Who? Loretta Lynn? Louis Jordan? Johnny Cash? Bill Monroe? Robert Johnson? The Supremes? Louis Armstrong?

Never suggested it.

Anyway, may want to check out: How the Beatles destroyed Rock'n'Roll by Elijah Wald.

I actually might do, cheers.

 

[Purple Shrimp]

I have no problem with people disliking the Beatles in theory, but most of the time people who express a hatred of the Beatles have little knowledge of their music. if they want to dislike the Beatles, that's fine, but they should at least listen to more than just Yellow Submarine and Hey Jude before making up their mind!

They were immune from criticism for one period of time between the late 60's and the early 70's when they put out four of the best albums ever in a row, after that you could (and can) find a critic just about anywhere.

I hope you mean Their Satanic Majesties Request and not Exile on Main Street. agree on Let It Bleed though, that's my all-time favourite album

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Hard to say, but no one has the right to slag you off because you don't enjoy their music.
Occassionally the heavens open, planets align and a band is in the right place at the right time, making the right music and it just changes the musical landscape permanently. Say what you want about The Beatles but there isn't an artist around currently that will be remembered in 10 years time, let alone 50.
When I was younger my dad tried to get me into The Beatles and I just waved him off saying "Nah Dad, they're old news, they've got no edge, blah, blah, blah". Decades later I've discovered their music on my own terms and found that I was wrong, songs like "Helter Skelter" and "Hey Bulldog" have an edge to them that I just didn't appreciate in my angsty days. They really were musical pioneers of their time.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I have no problem with people disliking the Beatles in theory, but most of the time people who express a hatred of the Beatles have little knowledge of their music. if they want to dislike the Beatles, that's fine, but they should at least listen to more than just Yellow Submarine and Hey Jude before making up their mind!

They were immune from criticism for one period of time between the late 60's and the early 70's when they put out four of the best albums ever in a row, after that you could (and can) find a critic just about anywhere.

I hope you mean Their Satanic Majesties Request and not Exile on Main Street. agree on Let It Bleed though, that's my all-time favourite album

I hope you're not one of those people that complains about Exile on Main Street but claims to like Their Satanic Majesties Request, because then we would have a problem.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

I don't think it's hard at all. Fuck the Beatles. There, I said it. The world isn't going to come crashing down around me. In a way, I think they're probably overrated. How many other bands are people still gushing over from that period? (compared to the Beatles)

 

[zombiesinc]

I know I've listened to a few of their songs on the radio, but I don't have a single one of their songs on my iPod. From what I heard I wasn't left all that interested in listening to more of their music.

Because they're not very unlikable. They never did anything bad and they weren't douchebags. They just made really groundbreaking music and were outrageously popular. Their music and them as people are so well-liked that not liking them makes others think you're the unlikable one.

Wait, what?

Because they're such awesome guys 'n made such awesome music anyone who dislikes them suddenly becomes unlikable? Regardless of who they were as people, what type of music they created or how 'well-liked' they were as a group doesn't mean everyone should automatically like them or their music.

Saying you dislike The Beatles to get a reaction is different, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with disliking a certain band or genre.

 

[Daveman]

Well I think if you flat out "dislike" the Beatles then you probably haven't listened to it all. There's a lot of almost progressive stuff later on and the classic rock and roll tuneage of their earlier material, they're just one of those bands that push all the buttons. Kind of like a cross between Take That and Radiohead. That said I hate both those bands. But together they make this freakish hybrid that is just epicly intelligent and catchy.

I'm also not gonna say they're the best band ever because personally I still listen to more Tenacious D than the Beatles. But I do think the whole "I hate the Beatles" attitude is a bit silly and I couldn't comprehend how you could feel that way after listening to all their material.