Why The Beatles Suck (According to One Writer)

THE NEXT TIME you want to be told that you’re a brain-dead moron that doesn’t know a damn thing, tell a large group of people that you don’t like The Beatles. It works like a charm. I learnt this unfortunate lesson during the editorial meeting for this issue.

You see: I have always operated under the assumption that art, whatever form it may come in, is subjective.

Subjective Art

Subjective Art

sub⋅jec⋅tive [suhb-jek-tiv]
–adjective
1. Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions: his views are highly subjective.
2. Dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.
3. Contrasted with objective.
4. You like something for your own damn reasons, not someone else’s.

Apart from the delicious slice of cello-driven melancholy that is “Eleanor Rigby,” I cannot say that any Beatles song really speaks to me. I’ve listened to nearly the entire catalogue and no sparks. Therefore, I am not a fan. This doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the talent within the band and the transformative power their lyrics have had over so many generations. I just cannot lie and say that I love The Beatles.

Given my honesty and my assumption that musical tastes were personal, I was taken aback by the violent reactions to my frankness. I’ve always been entitled to like whichever musical act I pleased. However, when it came to The Beatles, I was suddenly not allowed to dislike them.

This led me to consider whether music, or art in general, really is subjective. Is it possible that there is some standard, objective list of bands, albums, paintings, movies – what have you – which we’re all supposed to like?

In that case, why do we even bother liking anything resembling art when we’ve already been told what we’re supposed to have a preference for? The answer is simple: We cannot help what moves, touches or speaks to us. We come to like these things because we derive some sort of meaning from them, whether consciously or otherwise, that is completely personal. We make associations between the piercing riffs or a dancing ballerina and the endless catalogue of moments in our lives.

Each person that told me that I was both stupid and probably hard of hearing gave me their reasons for why I should love The Beatles. “They’re the greatest band in history.” “They defined music and everything it could be for a generation,” so on and so forth. But these were their own personal reasons. The music of arguably the most critically-acclaimed and commercially successful band in the world touched them in ways perhaps only they could explain. But why would those reasons necessarily have to be transferred to someone else? Permit me to argue that one’s entitlement to enjoy a certain band’s music should then allow another to dislike it. And feel free to apply this argument to art in any medium.

Personal tastes are just that: Personal. They are guided by your experiences and preferences that are unique to you. You want to avoid being labelled as a brain-dead moron? Be absolutely and unapologetically aware of why you like something.

But then again, that’s just this writer’s personal opinion… and anyone who doesn’t like it, doesn’t know a damn thing.

text by jillremulla, web exclusive for TRAVIS Magazine

Advertisements
    • Tom
    • April 16th, 2009

    “[Beatles] defined music…”? That’s like saying if Wagner were alive and composing during the same time as the Beatles, the Beatles would compose greater musical pieces than Wagner. WTF…? Seriously, people need to get some fresh air and listen to composition that ACTUALLY defined music, like (name dropping) Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Corelli, Mozart, Beethoven, Hayden, Strauss, Wagner, Mahler, Messiaen, Ives, Debussy, Monk, Brown, Parker, Coltrane, Davis, Blakey, Corea, etc, etc.

    I mean come on, art has some basic objective standards. To confuse that with subjectivity and then claim that the beatles are better than the musicians who objectively (add significantly) contributed so much to music, …. words cannot describe how stupid and narrow minded some people can be in saying that the Beatles defined music.

    • amber
    • July 28th, 2009

    WTF, BEATLES ARE THE BEST BAND EVER.
    THIS IS BULL SHIT.

    • Jebus
    • August 10th, 2009

    Beatles suck, “great rechord”

    fuck those limeys

  1. I have to agree that everyone’s entitled to their
    own preferance!
    I am a devoted Beatles fan,I ‘m more into their
    Merseybeat sound then the later rock sound,
    which was technically ingenious!
    I myself have musical preferances too.
    I ‘m not a big fan of Reggae,Country,Hip-hop,
    Heavy Metal,traditional folk, music!
    There are some pieces that i like from each
    category,but generalizing it,they just won’t please my eardrums..
    So i respect,peoples tastes,because i too am not perfect.

    • squeehunter
    • August 26th, 2009

    I don’t like the Beatles, nor do I even think they were that good of a band. They’re like buying pizza from Domino’s.

    • ME
    • September 2nd, 2009

    Beatles are the most overated band of all time. It may of been cool at the time but to be young and into the beatles now it just misguided stupidity.

    • Jason
    • September 8th, 2009

    What I hate about the Beatles is that as someone who was born in 1978, I feel that I can relate to their music just about as much as I can relate to gangster rap…it is music that is of a time and place in which I will never experience and really understand…therefore, even if it is good…my best hope is of having a “poser” or “pretty fly for a white guy” in relation to gangster rap relationship with it. It is meaningless and foreign. It is the anthem of someone else’s generation, but not mine.

    Stop worshiping things that are not of any relevance to your own life. And stop eating up all of the crap that ultra-self-important generation of the baby boomers has forced down your throat because they think they are SOOOOO damn important. It’s obnoxious generation tyranny at its worst. There is awesome music being made today…and if you’re not lazy and REALLY appreciate music, you’ll find it my friends.

    • Socrates Jackson
    • September 10th, 2009

    Nice article.

    Yes; Beatles-fans have fitted “artistic” to their own definition. They are misguided by historical subjectivity, and therefore make judgments that are wholly non-empirical. I used to be a Beatles-fanatic, but I too have opened my ears to the classics and jazz. Coming from this, I seem to only respect few rock musicians nowadays (i.e. Captain Beefheart, Doors, Velvet Underground, Robert Wyatt, etc.)

    When you are compounded by Beatles-fans, you must let them understand that only two things are objective in this world:
    1) Logic
    2) God (if He exists)

    Opinion and personal beliefs are not apart of this for obvious reasons. The reason rock critics have listed The Beatles as no. 1 is hindered by the fact that so many people will buy their reviews; the critics have learned that they can make a living off of penning something marketable. This is a reason why rock music has never elevated itself to becoming a serious art form because rock critics care too much about what sells more. This was never a problem with Jazz, nor Classical music because they never sold much to begin with.

    • Nico
    • September 12th, 2009

    Yes! I am not the only one! I just can’t stand The Beatles. I read this blog a few days ago who were actually bashing The Beatles in a humoristic kinda way. It was funny, informative and contained facts. I don’t know if you accept URLs in your comments, but if you do, here it is: http://www.whythisblogsucks.com/

  2. Well it’s absolutely fine that you don’t ‘like’ them. But you have to respect them, you can’t just say “Oh, they suck and are overrated.”

    For a start, they were one of the most experimental and innovative bands and still are to this day. Just listening to Revolver or The White Album, Abbey Road or Magical Mystery Tour, they encompassed such a wide range of influences and innovation that few bands have been able to match to this day.

    Also, they pretty much changed the entire radio industry. Just look at the industry before Sgt. Peppers and then after. Trust me, The Beatles deserve the hype.

    • Craig
    • September 28th, 2009

    They suck, they’re over-rated, they are no longer one of the most experimental and innovative bands ever. I’ve listened to The White Album, Abbey Road, and Magical Mystery tour as well as modern bands who are more innovative and draw from a wider range of influences. Fuck the radio industry. Beatles are important, but not that great, and certainly not still cutting edge or innovative, give me a break.

  3. There is a very cult like fanaticism around the Beatles. As rock bands go, they are about the most institutionalized. And yes, people do get pissed when you tell them you don’t care for The Beatles. I have never understood why. If your favorite band is the only most popular in the world, why would you care, right?

    • John
    • November 4th, 2009

    Well, you’re not saying that you don’t like The Beatles. I can respect that. What you’re saying is that The Beatles suck, and in that, you’re plainly wrong. Yes, all art is subjective, but there is art that is plainly great, regardless of whether it “speaks” to anyone or not. The Sistine Chapel ceiling might not speak to, say, a Buddhist or atheist, and for that reason, they may not like it, but it’s still great. And Craig, yes, the Beatles have not been innovative since 1970. Nor has Beethoven been innovative since 1827.

    • BryBry
    • November 9th, 2009

    I get the catchy melodies and experimentation and blah, blah, blah, but I don’t find myself emotionally moved by any of their songs. I can’t name a single one that touches me. I’m sitting here trying to think of one. Can’t do it. And about the experimentation, it doesn’t take much creativity to put your voice through four signal processors or play a tape backwards. That doesn’t count as creative. That’s just goofing around. Connecting a bunch of second rate songs; also not creative. Anyway, my main point is that the songs are missing something visceral. Oh, I thought of one, ‘Don’t Let Me Down’.

  4. What is wrong with you people? The Beatles have always sucked motherfucking dick ever since they were even called The Quarry Men; they are one of the most repulsive bands in the history of mankind, even Slayer are better than this bullshit!

    • Randy
    • November 21st, 2009

    now i know people are entitled to opinions but dont tute your fuckin horn to me about how great the beatles are i mean the only song i think is descent is Revolution and still isnt as good as i think david ruffin covering “I want you back” but the beatles earned lots of money and im just some dude on the internet who am i to contend with there fame i guess they earned it but……. The Temps will always be the greatest to me

  5. Think of it this way… The Beatles were basically the creators of the modern rock/pop format.

    They were the first to incorporate progressive elements with tuneful riffs and melodies that also managed to open up to mainstream audiences and critics alike.

    As a result, the overwhelming majority of popular music bands you have heard for the past 39 years basically owe their sound to The Beatles.

    The Beatles were the next logical stepping stone in the evolution of music. First there was Ritchie Valens, Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters and THEN… The Beatles. Get it?

    • beatles forever
    • November 23rd, 2009

    vai se fuder, beatles são os melhores!

  6. Sim faz! Obrigado.

    Lol, it took me a while to figure out you were speaking Portuguese there. At first I thought it was Spanish and I was like… “what?”

    haha

    • Ace
    • November 26th, 2009

    okay so even if they were first that doesn’t mean our generation should like it.
    fuck they suck
    everybody neeeeds to get over them!!!!!
    every band has a couple good songs1!
    so do they, so what makes them soo special!!
    MOVE ON.

  7. Yeeha!!! More people who hate the beatless!!!

    Man alive, their fans are moronic, blinkered, indoctrinated, self-gratifying sycophantic imbeciles!!! If you don’t believe me, check out the link to my Amazon page above or suckmybeatles.com.

    They didn’t invent, innovate or revolutionise anything. They just tweaked it for the masses. Or rather their record company did!!

    Nope, they’re shit, always have been always will be!!

    • Craig
    • December 1st, 2009

    Not that they are bad, but there is some good music in the world before and after The Beatles.

    • Cleo
    • December 8th, 2009

    Growing up and to this day I’ve come across and listened to a lot of Beatles music and while I respect the band, I can’t say that their music strikes me as anything spectacular.

    Many say that they were innovative and changed so much in the music industry but I’m sure there was at least a hundred other bands doing the same thing at the time. The Beatles simply got lucky. If they hadn’t been discovered I’m sure something else would have have come along and changed the industry eventually.

    It may be that I’m from a different generation and I don’t understand the hype that was The Beatles but then again that in itself is a explanation. Times change and so does the music.

    Everyone has different taste and people should not be subjected to the same music over and over just because a generation found it inspiring to their time.

    • Meade
    • December 17th, 2009

    I LOVE COUNTRY MUSIC! Patsy Cline and Johnny Cash were great, NOT The Beatles!

  8. Hey Meade, you’re forgetting Brooks & Dunn, Merle Haggard, and Willie Nelson.

    The Stones wrote some great country too.

    • Marie
    • December 18th, 2009

    Jonathan,

    I’m glad you think it’s “absolutely fine” for people to not like The Beatles. That’s mighty generous of you.

    And no, they don’t HAVE to respect The Beatles. They CAN, should they choose.

    You chose to feel about them the way you do. Perhaps you can afford others the luxury of such a choice. Thanks, you’re the best!

  9. But you have no reason to hate them.

    • TurdFerguson
    • January 3rd, 2010

    Kurt cobain’s shits had more talent then the beatles

    • Stephen
    • January 9th, 2010

    TurdFerguson.. You sir are a jackass! Someone should punch you in the face for making such an idiotic statement

    • Bri Audio
    • January 17th, 2010

    Lol I have tons of respect for Kurt Cobain’s work on Nevermind…but that’s one album. Bleach had highlights with mostly filler. The Beatles had many classic albums and evolved over time…Kurt Cobain knew grunge music was extremely limited in potential and had a ceiling that had been hit with Nevermind, and blew his head off because of it. If he stayed alive and kept making music his legend wouldn’t be what it is today…that’s how it goes. Anyways, this writer seems like he is arguing personal preferences vs. quality. To say that you don’t like The Beatles is fine…but your headline is “Why The Beatles Suck”…ummm that isn’t personal preference guy, that’s talking about them in terms of quality. I think the author knows the difference, but is just a natural contrarian (which is ironic to me considering most contrarians force different opinions because they don’t wanna be like the rest of us, but subconsciously lose all individuality when taking on this attack vs. popular society). In terms of lyrical quality, melodies, and song writing, The Beatles greatness can’t really be disputed. You say all art is subjective, but it really isn’t. A child’s stick figure can’t be compared in quality to the Mona Lisa, an elementary school play can’t be compared to Donnie Darko, Illmatic is better than Nastradamus, etc.

    • Bri Audio
    • January 17th, 2010

    I also don’t understand why so many posters say they can’t appreciate something unless they can relate to it. Do you not like mob movies because you haven’t lived the life of a mafia don? Do you dislike war movies because you were never in the military? Why would you only want to listen to lyrics that fit your life? To each his own, but I find it refreshing when I listen to an artist who has something different to talk about.

    • Dakota
    • January 28th, 2010

    BEATLES ARE THE BEST BAND EVER
    every other band might as well give up because no one will ever be better or as big as the BEATLES

    • Joel
    • March 28th, 2010

    It is interesting to note that not many of the world’s best musicians go out of their way to praise the Beatles. Many are like…”Oh yeah…err…um…they were great. *cough, cough*” Musicians who can afford to slam the Beatles tend to do so. Look at Charlie Watts: http://www.spinner.com/2010/01/29/charlie-watts-blasts-beatles-and-elvis/3

  10. Joel, I wouldn’t exactly call that ‘slamming’.
    If anything, he smacked on Elvis a bit, but it’s well known that The Stones all came from different musical backgrounds.

    Bill Wyman – Rock n Roll

    Keith/Mick – Blues

    Charlie – Jazz

    Brian Jones – Psycedelia/folk

    It’s not surprising either that Watts wouldn’t pay much heed to art/rock when it’s clear he’s mad enough about jazz. Nice try though mate.

    • Todd
    • April 28th, 2010

    @Jason
    Jason – like what? You don’t really have any backing to your argument, you’re just ranting. The Beatles are perfectly understandable and I’m twenty. I’m not a massive fan but nonetheless I’m aware that they were possibly the most influential band of all time, and that’s not because they’re shit, it’s because they changed music. Beforehand it was bits of the same old jazz and repeated blues, then suddenly there’s multicultural fusion and actual clever music all over the place…
    And speaking of relevance to your own life, what do you listen to that’s so relevant? Elton John? Please say Elton John. Or Boy George.

    @BryBry
    BryBry, you’re an idiot. Do your research and then try and combine the sound of a classical North Indian rag and tal with Western music and make it sound good.

    • aide
    • June 26th, 2010

    YES PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH ME.
    THERE ARE MANY OTHER GREAT BANDS OUT THERE WHO ARE BETTER THAN THE BEATLES
    BUT PEOPLE THESE DAYS TEND TO BE INTO THE PAST..RELATING TO THEM.
    but search around music and you’ll notice there are bands much better than them.
    they had some good songs but not to get the fame they did.
    theyre overrated.
    and some people dont even like them but just because everyone does, they say it too.
    sorry beatles…but youre like whatever.

    • mike
    • July 25th, 2010

    THE BEATLES ARE DEAD THE ROLLING STONES ARE THE GREATEST AND LONGEST ROCK IN HISTORY SO TO ALL YOU BEATLES THE BEATLES SUCK

    • CudiZoned
    • August 8th, 2010

    Let me start off by saying turd ferguson, sweet name, dumb comment (I love nirvana btw)
    Anyway, I think it’s entirely incorrect to say the beatles sucked. Sure, it’s fine if you don’t like them. But trying to say they sucked or are overrated shows u don’t know crap about music. Without the beatles there’s no Zeppelin, clash, or nirvana. Everyone deserves an opinion but it’s just a fact the beatles are legends

  11. Aren’t you all a bit silly?

    As some said before, there is a different kind of subjectivity. I don’t like Van Gogh’s painting, still, I respect his works for it’s influences and genre. You can not like the Beatles, but come on, be realistic. You can not deny their influences, and if they would have really sucked, they wouldn’t have had any kind of influence on any kind of musical genre.

    However. They have.

    They revolutionized pop/rock/psychedelic pop with Revolver, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band, etc. Abbey Road, an album which didn’t really did anything in terms of advancement in music, is a very balanced album where the true genius shows.

    If you listen closely, you will discover all kind of hooks and musical explosions. Look at ‘A Day In A Life’ or ‘I Am The Walrus’, or to say: ‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy). IMHO, these songs really shows what the Beatles were all about. Resonant (Yes, they always do show emotion, especially John), adequant, diverse, full of melodies and excellent ideas, original, all what a good band needs.

    So, in short: The Beatles deserve the hype. Period.

    • Dogshit
    • September 2nd, 2010

    It’s amazing, the Beatles sucked and were the most overrated and least talented panzies in monkey suits playing simple 4/4 cords on simple instruments. Drugs and alcohol made them sound good to hippies and even modern day hippies. Then the peace and love taught by the Beatles to hippies threaten you with death when you say you don’t like them. It’s also like telling a liberal that Obama sucks.

    If you like them, great, but don’t tell me I’m a retard when I say I don’t like them. Because most of the time people do this, they are way below average income for the standards of decent living. You are just sheep following mass advertisement after you smoked some hash!

    • Dogshit
    • September 2nd, 2010

    @ME

    Amen to that, but at least Dominos has some flavor in their grease filled garbage.

    • Dogshit
    • September 2nd, 2010

    @CudiZoned

    Without the Beatles Music still would go on you retard. Probably even better.

    • Bryan
    • September 3rd, 2010

    @Dogshit

    Doesn’t it sound like maybe you’re being a negative nelly?

    “Beatles sucks, Dominos sucks, hippies suck!”

    Is there anything you do like? Obviously not yourself since you named yourself “Dogshit”. You can go back to listening to Korn.

    This article along with the majority of the comments are silly. It’s music there’s no black and white areas to what is good and what isn’t. You like some stuff you don’t like others. We might as well compare which is better night or day, or apples and oranges.

    • Dogshit
    • September 6th, 2010

    First off the Dogshit name was for the BEEALS> that’s how they pronounce it. And I don’t like Korn, I like Metallica, Led Z, etc.

    I was born in 64 and Miley Cirus singing rap with Justin Beiber humming in the background, with Britney Spears on backup have more talent then 500 Beeals bands.

    Hey, I am the Eggman, I am the Walrus, coo coo kee chu, and other songs like it in carnival style music!

    ??????????????????????????

    How much and what kind of drugs do you have to do before swapping your dread headed non bathing girlfriend who hasn’t bathed in months for someone like her for the night, to really enjoy that shit!????

    Only shame is that Yoko Ono or Mark David Chapmman didn’t come along much sooner to break this band apart before it poisoned the world.

    Do you know what the difference between Ringo Starr and a stopped watch is? The stopped watch is actually on time twice a day!

    And what you call music makes country music, even rockabilly in the 80’s sound good. Go vote for another Democratic Pres.

    • bob roberts
    • September 10th, 2010

    I am 40 years old. I used to be suckered into thinking the greatest band in the world are…you guessed it THE BEATLES.

    As I have matured, I can appreciate their contributions/songwriting/general savvy marketing of themselves (up to the current “re-releases/remastered/no itunes (just wait they will go onto itunes all the news org will pick it up like it the second coming of Christ (another overrated concept btw).

    Anyway my arguement I don’t know if you have covered it, is that they suffocate any more contemporary music. At the end of the day, their families/heirs/record companies have a very vested interest in telling and selling you their music.

    I once got in an arguement with a beatles fan. I said that basically it is like a guy who owns a 66 Ford Mustang telling you that it was the greatest car ever built in terms of style and value and function. However, this middle-aged guy has a very vested interest in keeping the market value for his car as high as possible. Your 95 Honda is very likely better in every way, however you will be told over and over that the mustang is better. the 95 honda probably is faster, safer, better handling, etc. but you will still be wrong not to mention a 2010 honda/toyota/ford.

    Another arguement, is that the Beatles prevent people from having their own experiences. Maybe the music of today is not as good as the beatles in some technical fashion however you song to your first love shouldn’t be from 1966 it should be from 2000’s at least or whenever your birth began. Why should your love song be that of your mothers? Your time on this planet is finite, people should experience and feel lucky about that (they get to experience the best of everything to THIS day.)

    Anyway, best.T

    • Nick
    • September 23rd, 2010

    This happened to menhirs recently, I brought up how I thought the beatles sucked and was immediately ridiculed for it. I’m a musician myself, and sorry to say it, but they had no talent. What most people think of as innovation is actually just stupidity. Musically the chords they use make no sense. No good musician would ever do that, which is why no one can thoroughly replicate their sound. And I do know how to play several beatles songs on guitar and drums. Theory wise it just doesn’t work. Metallica sells on average 200,000 more albums per year than the beatles do. They aren’t my favorite band, but that’s just an example of a band with talent. There are plenty more bands that have had more influence on music today. I’ll continue with metallica for now; pink Floyd and Beethoven inspired the original bassist cliff Burton to write the epic song Orion. Randy rhoads studied under classical guitar geniuses, and he probably wouldve been the best guitarist ever if he was still alive and he didn’t worship the beatles. As far as respect goes, would you respect a bunch of pot smoking preppy whining bitches in a crappy rock band if the music industry and society didn’t tell you you had to? I pity you if you would.

    • Nick
    • September 23rd, 2010

    I’m on my iPod as I type this, autofill is pissing me off, so like in the first line, it should read “this happened to me recently” but it reads “this happened to menhirs recently”. Sorry for any other errors that I haven’t spotted.

    • Conor
    • November 17th, 2010

    @CudiZoned

    I just had to jump on this one, but please tell me how exactly the absence of the Beatles would mean no Clash?

    I’m in no way a Beatles fan; while I respect what they’ve done for music and their generation, I just can’t get into them. Lyrically they make me want to punch an infant.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but the Clash came into things with a Punk Rock sound infused with the reggae of the poor black populous who was struggling for equality at the time… Really, the Clash did more for giving the people a voice than the Beatles ever did or could. And I mean an actual voice; speaking out against inequality, violence, corruption…

    You can’t even begin to compare the two, so how exactly would one be the direct relation of the other?

    Cheers,
    Conor

    • yonnie
    • November 28th, 2010

    @Conor
    The Clash started out as a punk rock band. Punk rock was a direct result of Progressive rock. Progressive rock was started by the Beatles.

    Most of these comments are quite ignorant. Dogshit is just trollin so ill ignore him.

    The Beatles were the first alternative rock band. They were the first popular music group to break away from a cookie cutter formula and really make music for themselves.

    @Nick
    The chords dont make sense? It sounds like you havent even listened to very much Beatles. Go listen to the White Album, and come back and tell me that they suck. Your mind will be blown after listening to that album. Its so diverse, with elements of rock n roll, jazz, blues, musique concrete, psychedelia, electronic, rockabilly. NO ONE was making that kind of music at that time.

    I would encourage everyone who doesnt think the Beatles were innovative to listen to “Tomorrow Never Knows”, recorded in 1966. Once you listen to that, youll truly realize how influential and important the Beatles are. It is the single most important song of the past 50 years.

    • B
    • December 4th, 2010

    Yeh, I’m trolling. Yeh, the Beatles where the greatest and the most innovative, and invented everything from peanut butter to blood typing.

    Watch this on youtube and if you still stand by your comments then you are a pot smoking fucking retard that has sex with his daughter like John Phillips to Mackenzie Phillips.

    It’s amazing, the lyrics and music is so clear and well thought out, as well as performed.

  12. Who was first, last, reputation, staying power, are nothing but the shit between my fingernails.

    They can sing “love and no war”, and bounce like puppets on a string on stage and have the shiniest mushroom hair, and they can write over 9,000 songs.

    I. Don’t. Care.

    I will never add them into the equation. I will not let Fans and Yes-Men do the thinking for me.

    Besides, time sheds its skin every new generation.

    In 3 decades,what will they be now to the future teens?

    They left there mark, no argument. However, “art” is a very ambiguous, universal and subjective term. What was in effect in the 60s will not work now.

    Yes, they were “great song writers”, were. Looking at them now, compared to the likes of Phoenix, Matthew Good, Layne Staley. Come on, you are entitled to like and hate anything, absolutely, but lets keep with the times at least.

    Personally, classical music is the purest, most sophisticated, beautiful, ethereal and cathartic form of music, period.

    No four man playing parade will break that. Never.

    Well…

    Maybe Matthew Good.
    Maybe Diablo Swing Orchestra.
    Maybe not, but they come pretty close.

    • snobo
    • May 13th, 2011

    @Jason
    “ultra-self-important generation of the baby boomers has forced down your throat because they think they are SOOOOO damn important”

    OMG I can’t wait for the Boomers to die off already so we can stop hearing about the effing sixties! Black Boomers excepted; they actually made some real changes. But those white hippie granola assholes just fucked and got high and never shut up about it.

    • YOMAMA
    • May 14th, 2011

    I despise the beatles and despise the hippies, but Snobo, your race lies around smoking crack, fucking, and creating little tar colored bastard future gangstas that deal drugs, listen to cop killer rap, clog up the court system keeping it real, and suck up the welfare and medicare that these granola hippie white assholes pay for in taxes.

    Yep, black boomers made a big difference didn’t they? And if you are white making those statements, then it makes it ten times worse and shows your loyalty, class, upbringing, intelligence, and dickhead-ness.

    • anne
    • May 30th, 2011

    Because meth and rusty trailer parks and corporate welfare and songs about shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die and keeping a girl “under my thumb” are better somehow?
    At least black boomers made some civil rights legislation happen.
    Those patchouli-stinking granolas never paid anything in taxes. They panhandled.

    • Sean
    • May 31st, 2011

    @Jonathan
    They suck dude….

  13. I’ve always found Beatles songs gay. A bunch of boys singing pretty sucky songs. Every time I hear some pussy singing along with one of this shit songs, I punch him in the face.

  14. @B
    You must be fucking kidding.
    That’s the most shitty song I have heard in a long time.
    A generic drum patter, some piano just slamming in the background, a very innovative and varied lyric (“why don’t we do it in the road” repeated ad infinitum), and a generic vocal performance with some gay falsetto somewhere.
    Please die.

    • carrie
    • September 6th, 2011

    @Tom What the heck?! The Beatles were a ROCK/POP band not classical?! You don’t effing compare rock with classical?!?!

    • carrie
    • September 6th, 2011

    Just because you think they’re overrated does not mean they suck.

    • Dillon
    • February 15th, 2012

    Yeah you’re pretty dumb…I don’t think its the claim that you don’t like them so much as you saying that they suck…theirs a difference between “not my cup of tea” and “they suck”…

    • Dogshit
    • March 2nd, 2012

    The beatles are not only, “not my cup of tea” but the beatles suck hard, REAL HARD!

    • Anonymous
    • May 27th, 2012

    It is fine to not like the Beatles. Also, for their only decent song I think you picked a very good one. (I absolutely adore the Beatles.) It’s just when there are annoying and attention seeking ignorants who go around yacking on about how the Beatles suck to everyone they meet, giving terrible reasoning, and expecting people to be OK with that. It’s fine to hate, that is something that is out of our control, and is only in our heads. But spreading hate is never a good idea. That said, as a Beatles fan I do NOT try and convert anyone who says they don’t like the Beatles! I just gasp and question their sanity, before accepting their opinion.@Randy

  15. FUCK YOU ALL BEATLES HATERS

    • Anonymous
    • September 2nd, 2012

    this web site is a waste of time ,,,,bunch of idiots making stupid comments get a life beatles were a great band and still are in 2012 and beyond ,,,,,,,,

    • Scry
    • October 13th, 2012

    @Anonymous Nostradamus knows here knows the future. Is Jesus coming back any time soon? Dumbass

    • Anonymous
    • November 25th, 2012

    You still didn’t explain why the Beatles suck. You just explained that you did not like their music.

  16. Everyone has the right to dislike whatever the hell they want.

    • elmore
    • March 25th, 2014

    @Jason
    I’m a boomer and I don’t like the Beatles and here is something else I don’t like, Generation X. You people are the biggest bunch of ass wipe crybaby fools yet. I look at you tattoo infested pierced scumbags of generation X with utter contempt. Do the world a favor and get the ultimate piercing, a railroad spike driven in your ear, that way we won’t have to look at you inbred nazi hillbilly white trash right wing bums. You shit bags salute the vary swastika your grandparents fought against. You like to say your tattoos are a story of your life. In that case you only need one, a toilet on your forehead, so you can flush your dead brain away. I’d like to see what you wannabe thugs look like when you get older and all that ink runs together on your worthless hides. You look like hideous monstrosities now. What are you going to look like later on? If some of you people are the result of our free love in the sixties, then we should have tied socks around our cocks and cut the pollution off at the source. And as for you boomers who agree with this walking freak show, you’re probably the parents of these fools. If we boomers had known that we were going to protect a generation of ungrateful swine then maybe we wouldn’t have protested the draft and a lot of you inked assholes would be drafted and dead in some foreign war. Here is something else, you cases of arrested development didn’t know, many in the World War 2 generation silently supported the protests of the sixties. That’s why King Nixon ended the draft. And to Gen X women who think us old guys want you guess again. You fat slob dick droppers are the biggest pigs yet. I feel sorry for any fool that would marry one of you. With your clothes off you probably look like a road map. You Gen X women could help save the planet, get a tattoo on your belly that says DROP LOAD IN REAR, that way you creeps won’t procreate and future generations will be spared your retarded offspring. I noticed your big complaint was about money not about the direction of the country, just yourselves, you hypocrites. You people in Gen X need to take personal ownership and responsibility for what you are, if that sounds like a me generation then all the better. It’s hard to believe that because of your own failure you’re blaming the baby boomer generation. Go do something with your worthless lives instead of being crybabies. So you want to be like your grandparents generation, then go do it and in twenty-five years your kids will tell you what sucked about you. I can just imagine what they will say like my worthless parents were to busy getting tattoos instead of razing me. Maybe you could start the draft again so your kids could complain how their eighteenth birthday was like a death sentence and they had to go fight in some civil war halfway around the world to support the US military industrial complex. You fools don’t have a clue of what type of world it would be if you reverse the changes that were put in place because of boomer protests. So don’t complain just do it and maybe some dumb ass TV news reporter will write a book about your deeds, I think a good title would be: THE GREAT ASS GENERATION.

  17. Whoa. Hard day at the office, eh?

  18. I constantly emailed this blog post page to all my associates, since if lie to read it afterward my friends will
    too.

    • smallmoose
    • May 4th, 2016

    As much as classic rock sucks *ss compared to modern music, I actually like The Beatles. :) They’re on of the very, very, very few classic rock artists that I like. However, I find them insanely overrated. I mean, yeah, I think they were good, but… best band ever? Definitely not.

  1. September 23rd, 2014
    Trackback from : rock bands a-z

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: