I Love I Hate The Beatles

The issue's more of a "rock" thing, I think; the Beatles tend to be either very polite or very arty. They're moppety and bouncy; their psychedelia is anything but "heavy"; they kind of create pop/rock by bringing all that quaint music-hall stuff into the picture, doing a lot of the work of reconciling the "blackness" of rock'n'roll with the musical history of everyday white people. They were also, obviously, huge, and so even their weirdnesses aren't strident: they're inviting and accommodating; they ask you to follow the band into something, as opposed to that model where the band is where the band is and you can only watch.

I think a lot of contempt for that stuff gets mixed up with talk about familiarity and overexposure and pedestals. I could be very wrong about that, but I think what's bothering some people isn't that the Beatles are central and celebrated and everywhere, but that they represent some kind of softness and politeness at the same time, and something about the combination of politeness and celebration (teacher's pet!) is offputting to them.

One of the main differences I have now from when I started this thread is that these days I don't really care that other people like them, whereas before it was a huge thing. I didn't understand why people would privilege their music over that of, say, the Silver Apples. Now I am more reserved. I find it facile, but it's not the fault of any individual that there is a cult built around them. And I have structured my thought processes to accept that there is a very very fine line between the good and the bad - so a change of instrument in a melody line (vocal to theremin for example) can be enough to make an okay song, or on occasion a rubbish song, a brilliant one. Because sometimes it removes politeness, or adds it where it's needed.

But there would soon be the R&B Revival, Garage rock and Stax/Volt, which would make The Beatles considerably less against the "system" by comparision. And the fact that The Beatles were getting increasingly more "arty" and at the same time brought in an icreasing amoung of pre-rock popular music (music hall, but also Tin Pan Alley elements and even elements from classical music) into their music further contributed to the "derebellization" of The Beatles. Not to mention the fact that they were the first ever rock band to get favourable pieces in Sunday newspapers.

And even more today, with the baby boomers long since representing establishment, one can understand that whoever feels rock should be about rebellion may dislike The Beatles. But then, isn't the entire rebellion idea a bit outdated in itself? After all, a lot of typical teen music (that is, music that has been rejected by older generations, such as disco, boy bands, synthpop/new romantics) from the past 30 years has not been particularly rebellious by nature.

One could also argue that the entire idea of the psychedelic era (and later prog rock) of popular music being "art", kind of introduced by The Beatles and George Martin, may have put off fans of "black" music. But then, explain the increasing complexity and "artiness" of jazz, a music form where at least 90 per cent of the leading stylistic innovators throughout history has been black.

Also, I don't think "rebellion" is the issue here so much as "edge" or something.

The Beatles can be very twee, even! Very twee. (Saying "but it's in a subversive way" holds not much force for me, since I think stuff like 90s indiepop twee is subversive, too.) People play their songs for children.

Woah, that's probably my favourite part of their entire catalogue!

As for the Beatles, these days I listen to Abbey Road most.

It's just a counterexample, not a counterargument, but no other huge rock/pop band of the late 60s would have put something like "Revolution 9" on one of their albums. In retrospect, it seems weaker now because there has been so much unearthed old found-sound collage, and so much new found-sound collage since, that "Revolution 9" sounds like it's hovering in a more benign stasis, relatively speaking. But in 1968, mainstream wasn't exactly sure how to react to that song, collectively. So you have to give them that.

Probably the best thing Paul ever did was "Helter Skelter". He wrote it supposedly because he heard that the Who had written "the loudest song ever" and he had to do something to challenge them and release it first, or something like that. Again, most of the song doesn't sound heavy compared to, oh, SUNN0)))))))) or Fu Manchu today or whatever, but it was pretty out there for its time. I'd say the epilogue to that song still sends chill down my spine as George and/or John is thrashin' away, and Ringo cries out at the end of the song, followed by more guitar noise/feedback.

: D

Way more people would like The Beatles if all of the vocals were changed to theremins. Does anyone want to start that tribute band with me?

And nabiscotm.

Well, John's "Plastic Ono Band" would have been the worst Beatles album ever.

Was that from Dave Marsh's The Book of Rock Lists? Anyway, Alfred, five stars in the first RS Record Guide ('79 red cover edition).

my favorite solo beatles album, though, might be mccartney's first (and i'm pretty indifferent to pretty much all his post-'70 stuff, a few fun singles aside): as tossed off as it is, there's a real sense of something sad and lost in all those broken, throwaway tunes - it really does sound like an album made by a guy sitting alone in his house trying to cheer himself up. you can tell how bereft he felt without the other three. and the way the whole record builds up to "maybe i'm amazed" is incredible.

i've always found ram totally unlistenable because of PM's habit of going "do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do" on every single fucking song.