Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savage Cape
They have a few songs I like, a lot of songs that bug the shit out of me (I'm looking glaringly in your direction, Sir Paul) and a lot of songs I am indifferent to. (first sentence ended with a preposition)
I am not a big Beatles fan. The only Beatles-related album I have ever sought out to purchase in my adult life is George's Wonderwall album, and aside from that all I have is a copy of Magical Mystery Tour that I have had since I was 5. (technically, (haha) "5" should be spelled out as "five") I will not diminish their contribution to music, but I also think people shouldn't really be criticized when they say that the music of The Beatles simply doesn't speak to them in any meaningful way. (hyperbole...use of the modifier is not parallel with previous statement) This is the camp I fall into. (second sentence ended with a preposition) They are valid and they achieved something significant, but the fact is that their music just doesn't DO IT for me about 90% of the time. I'm sorry. It does not speak to me and even if it did, the overexposure one gets to their music in general society just by simple cultural osmosis is more than enough for me, and I do not ever feel the need to listen to this stuff at home for pleasure. Not ever.
The thing that bugs me is the whole "sacred cow" status they have gotten, where you aren't allowed to criticize them for writing a horrible, annoyingly catchy or overly sappy song like "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" or "Hey Jude" because they were so "significant to the development of the rock idiom."
I know they were significant. BB King was significant too, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy can't play any chords, can't sing and play at the same time, and his music simply doesn't do anything for me on any level. I am simply not into it. To put it simply, one does not NEED to be a Beatles fan or to enjoy their music in order to be a well-informed person with valid aesthetic opinions and a wide range of knowledge regarding Rock Music. When someone says they are not a Beatles fan, it is no different than not being a Pixies fan or a Dino Jr fan or any other band. It just means they don't get into that music. The Beatles have gotten to be like Jesus Christ is to Christians or Darwin is to scientists; you're not allowed to criticize their so-called "perfect vision" for fear of being labelled a myopic rube who has no clue about the "foundations of all the modern music you hear today."
It is perfectly OK not to dig the Beatles. It doesn't diminish what they did in any way, it just means that maybe you know what you like, and that doesn't happen to be this particular band's output.
|
I love how he craftily keeps returning to the point that The Beatles are "significant" (the word is used four times). He repeatedly alludes that it's no big deal if you like them or do not like them. At the same time, however, he reaffirms over and over his distaste for The Beatles. If it's no big deal whether you like them or not, then why all the posts? Why the posts every damn time this fool topic is raised? Why all the recurring threads about this very absurd topic? Please note that these are rhetorical questions (I'm taking into account who I'm dealing with here, after all) and that I neither expect or desire a reply back.
Thank heavens for people like
Malachi_Constant* who tell it like it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M.C. droppin' the hammer on these clowns
I just registered here for the sole purpose (beyond, obviously, being a huge Sonic Youth fan) of saying this... if you're gonna go and talk shit about The Beatles (let alone Floyd or Hendrix), then you really have NO business listening to or, God forbid, making music. Go crank whatever bullshit trendy white noise garbage you'd prefer to whatever frequency it needs to hit to make your head explode. You can't fuck with the Fab Four. End of story.
|