Page 1 of 2

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:33 pm
by smeggypants
100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)


click on iamge if you can't read it. :)
Click on image for full size:
Image

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:36 pm
by phild05
Hmm, there's a lot to be said about the 5th Beatle (George Martin). He transformed many a Beatles track. However, there's no way they sucked. Even at the end of their life as a band, Let It Be (the live stuff) is pretty good for an impromptu gig. And I still believe, "I Am the Walrus" is the best pop song ever. Probably the first prog pop song ever too. There's some pretty innovative stuff on the White Album that doesn't feature George Martin so it's pretty much a band album.

I'd say the article is full of crap basically :)

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:38 pm
by Resonance
The Beatles did not suck.

Love the Beatles. One of the best bands ever imo.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:07 pm
by Rocky
The Beatles were the best group ever to come out of the UK.

Fantastic, brilliant, amazing, awesome.
They will go down in musical history as the pride, not only of Liverpool, but of Britain.
:jig:

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:58 am
by smeggypants
I respect the talent of the Beatles, although not really my kind of music. Although I do own a pristine serial numbered copy of the White Album. :)

I'm waiting for Lord Nibbles to find this thread ( he's not about today for soem reason :chin: - hope he's OK ), he hates the Beatles with a passion. :rofl:

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:03 am
by Resonance
Oh well.

Let it be..... :hmmm:

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:17 am
by Mr Squirrel
Like Smeggy, i respect them for their involvement and input to music in general.. I also am 'proud' in a sense that such an iconic band were 'British'. But thats about it.
I feel that they were 'overrated' and hyped up to be something more than they were. I dont deny that they created some fantastic music but the 'god like' status is pushing it. The Beach boys were pushing more technical production techniques at around the same time with 'better' results but for some reason, they got shadowed by the 'coolness' of the mopheads from the 'pool.

As stated, respect where respect is due but i had a great tom tit earlier but dont feel it warrants framing in a case for my adoration in another 40 years time.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:55 pm
by Gunner 51
If Annie 27 saw this, she'd hit the roof!

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:17 pm
by wotsit2
:rofl: i love it :D

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:30 pm
by Dolls
Well from 14 onwards i grew up with the beatles, I remember me and me mate walking around with a transitor radio listening to *Love Me Do* now this was completley different music to what we were all getting....ie: lots of american music (actually which I loved) but this was something soo different and I said to my friend one night *this is really big *.....I knew it......

Ok I loved their earlier stuff......with the beatles and such.....when Lennon left that was it....John Lennon was the click behind them.....As for fucking Ringo Starr.....just a fucking no hoper drummer that got lucky in the gold trail.

Paul Mccartney is a total wanker and he looks fucking awful and should retire totally out of the music scene NOW! Embarrassement. Effin dyed haired shop lifted face or shite I've every seen.....Thats what makes it sad. :mad: :mad:

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:38 pm
by Rocky
Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:54 pm
by Dolls
Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.




Queen oh yes rocks :squeeze:

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:24 pm
by Mr Squirrel
Gunner 51 wrote:If Annie 27 saw this, she'd hit the roof!


Heh.. Without having a cheap 'go' at Scousers... Its typical (indeed, scouse law) of a Scouse to 'love' the Beatles. I have never met a scouser yet that, when questioned of their musical tastes, 'The Beatles' isnt the first thing that passes their lips. Being from Sheffield, i dont pour out a succession of 'Sheffield' bands just because they hail from my home city but with Scousers, it seems like a betrayal of their heritage if they dont love the Beatles.

Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.


There is quite a fine line between 'best' and 'most popular'. They are probably the biggest British 'Pop' product ever but i dont think quantity matches quality. Loads of Ford Focus's are built in Britain ever year but i would suggest that an Aston is far superior in terms of 'best'.

Rocky wrote:Queen.. runners up.


Interestingly, i believe it was in late 2010 that Queen officially overtook the Beatles in the record sales statistics. Nod a bad feat considering that the Beatles had a 10+ year head start on Freddie and the boys.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:51 pm
by phild05
Early Beatles stuff is awful. Dolls is right though, people knew they were special to begin with, just a boy band maybe, a Take That of the times. The early songs were Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis homages/covers. But they worked up from that and honed their skills. Don't forget these guys could play, none were virtuosi, they just hit the beat in the studio, competent or slightly above. George Martin tarted it all up and they went gold every time. They got better, wrote more complex songs, surreal elements were added, sound FX were used, orchestras, string quartets, brass, odd time signatures, all added to the mix to make the songs more interesting. Innovative, nothing like it at the time. You have to see these things in their historical context. They spawned a few bands too; The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Animals, Pink Floyd, the list is practically endless. The Mersey scene happened because of them.

The article posted above is just plain ignorant :roll:

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:56 pm
by smeggypants
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.




Queen oh yes rocks :squeeze:


Much prefer Queen. better songs, better musicianship and way way way way way better voice! Few could touch Freddie for Vocals.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:49 pm
by Channel Hopper
Now, about Bob Dylan and his fetish for fucking tambourines.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:51 pm
by Rocky
smeggypants wrote:
Dolls wrote:
Rocky wrote:Beatles the best Brit group ever, no other group will ever come close to them. Beachboys, minnows in comparison.

Queen.. runners up.




Queen oh yes rocks :squeeze:


Much prefer Queen. better songs, better musicianship and way way way way way better voice! Few could touch Freddie for Vocals.


The Beatles can't be compared to any other group because they had a sound of their own that was inimitable, That and their music was what made them unique, plus, they all had personality and charisma, unlike many other well known groups. I saw them perform at the Granada in Walthamstow many years ago. In one word they were Fabulous.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:15 pm
by Channel Hopper
Rocky wrote: I saw them perform at the Granada in Walthamstow many years ago. In one word they were Fabulous.



Compared to anything Walthamstow had on show then, or now, they would have been.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:02 am
by Rocky
Channel Hopper wrote:
Rocky wrote: I saw them perform at the Granada in Walthamstow many years ago. In one word they were Fabulous.



Compared to anything Walthamstow had on show then, or now, they would have been.


You obviously know very little of the history of Walthamstow.

100 Reasons why the Beatles Suck(ed)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:17 am
by Channel Hopper
Rocky wrote:You obviously know very little of the history of Walthamstow.


I've only been working round there for the past 35 years, so you are correct, and my father passed away a few years back so I couldn't possibly comment on his experience onwards from 1946.

[Link To Youtube Video]