I don't like The Beatles, am I the only one?

[Digital Mastering System]

Try to imagine it's 1971 and one hears Beethoven's 15th quartet in A minor, opus 132 for the first time.
Now imagine that this is happening in 1932.
Now imagine it's happening right now.
There are degrees of immortality, though in time everything will wear out.
But some things are more durable than others.

That late Beethoven quartet is truly mind blowing. I saw the Danish string quartet play it and, WOW. Unbelievable composition. Last thing Shubert heard before he died.

 

[pablolie]

This topic inspired me to listen to some Beatles-inspired albums in my collection - really enjoying it.

 

[Vacceo]

Nah, you´re not rare. It´s perfectly possible to acknowledge the importance of an artist (or any art style) and not liking it at all. In my case, my music interests lie somewhere else than where The Beattles are.

 

[Madlop26]

haha, what is the real point here? I do not like The Stones, do I need to start a thread about it? if you ask me, this is more about the psychological need to go against the streamline to feel special about your own individuality,

 

[Robin L]

This topic inspired me to listen to some Beatles-inspired albums in my collection - really enjoying it.
View attachment 414705

 

[pablolie]

Oh yeah! Have that one too. Adding it now!

 

[HoweSound]

I rejected the early Beatles as a teen-ager, but embraced them with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Here is a lovely take on Lennon's music by Bill Frisell;

All We Are Saying — Bill Frisell

www.billfrisell.com

 

[rank]

Nah, you´re not rare. It´s perfectly possible to acknowledge the importance of an artist (or any art style) and not liking it at all. In my case, my music interests lie somewhere else than where The Beattles are.

1) Don't know if it's possible; 2) give examples of what you are listening to now.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

1) Don't know if it's possible; 2) give examples of what you are listening to now.

Why is it not possible to acknowledge the importance of an artist but not like them?

 

[IPunchCholla]

Why is it not possible to acknowledge the importance of an artist but not like them?

It is. In my field, visual art, it is probably much more common. There is a ton of great art, I don’t particularly like, but appreciate its contributions and historical relevance.

 

[Deleted member 81112]

I'm not saying they're not good
I'm just saying that I don't get the hype because I grew up on very different music

I am a child of the 90s too. I rarely listened to the Beatles growing up, but as I grew older my tastes expanded. I've discovered Miles Davis, Julian Lage, classical music, and, yes, the Beatles, among many other artists from assorted genres and eras. There's nothing wrong with loving grunge (I do). But, personally, I would find it depressing to listen to the same thing for 30 years. To me, that'd be like never going farther than 50 miles from your hometown for 30 years. Not a judgement, as we like what we like, and I understand that there's comfort in familiarity. You only get to experience life once, so it makes sense to me to cast a wide net and absorb as much as you can, while you can.

 

[pablolie]

in any professional endeavor you build on what what those before you created. it is good form to credit them.

The Beatles explored many different styles. it opened the door (and the ears of an extended audience) to many new things. from folkloric to nonsensical gibberish to culturally diverse to slow jams to hard edged stuff.

As I stated, I rarely ever have listened to their originals, but I bow my head to their huge influence.

many of the star acts that followed probably owe a huge debt to the Beatles, be it the Rolling Stones (who have acknowledged repeatedly they owe the Beatles) to Fleetwood Mac to Led Zeppelin and Coldplay and many others.

 

[Chrispy]

It’s hard to say why some artists don’t click for people, at least it is for me. One thing I have noticed, is that I tend to enjoy rhythm, timbre, and harmonics over melody. I like music that plays with layered structures and builds then breaks expectations. My guess is that the Beatles early music, strikes my contemporary ears as simplistic bubblegum pop, and they’re later music, which is much more in my wheelhouse, I grew up hearing at the supermarket and shopping mall, so the playfulness and experimentation is just played out for me. So I can recognize the brilliance and importance of the music and even find myself highly engaged for one or two songs (I will admit that when it comes to “when you get to the bottom, you go back to the top” I can’t help but sing along in my head.

But as much as I admire their artistic output, I never choose to listen to them. Or many from that era. The Animals and the Stones being two exceptions.

I think in my case it's quite inexplicable from any kind of logical analysis why some click for me and some don't. In my case Beatles early pop chart busting stuff was at least as good as any competition at the time (at least that were able to take advantage of record sales and/or tours). I was more focused on music content at the end of their career, my early teen years essentially, not a lot before that. I don't listen to them frequently either but just don't dislike them. The band I listen to probably a bit too much to after all these years is Led Zeppelin.

 

[Robin L]

I think in my case it's quite inexplicable from any kind of logical analysis why some click for me and some don't. In my case Beatles early pop chart busting stuff was at least as good as any competition at the time (at least that were able to take advantage of record sales and/or tours). I was more focused on music content at the end of their career, my early teen years essentially, not a lot before that. I don't listen to them frequently either but just don't dislike them. The band I listen to probably a bit too much to after all these years is Led Zeppelin.

I find Led Zed - in particular their mutant prog - becomes more interesting over time. It's a long way from "Good Times/Bad Times" to "Trampled Underfoot".

 

[Chrispy]

I find Led Zed - in particular their mutant prog - becomes more interesting over time. It's a long way from "Good Times/Bad Times" to "Trampled Underfoot".

Led Zeppelin did some very interesting stuff and was my favorite in a very key time in my formative music (and gear) appreciation. They did more ballad type stuff than many remember, too.

 

[Mal]

The Beatles did not emerge in isolation - they were a well-groomed and very well managed popular act that got on the playing field at exactly the right time. Factors other than the Beatles' musical skill were what pushed them to the "toppermost of the poppermost" in a very crowded field.

But isn't that true about all musicians? Mozart was well managed by his father in a very crowded field. Paul doesn't have the keyboard skills of Mozart but is, perhaps, his equal in writing simple, moving songs. Dickens didn't have the linguistic training of James Joyce, but would you say Dickens is thereby just a trivial artist, just "toppermost of the poppermost"? Dickens became one of the greats using simple, everyday language. Same for the Beatles in the musical world, and like Dickens they are better than most other "popsters".

 

[Mal]

I am a child of the 90s too. I rarely listened to the Beatles growing up, but as I grew older my tastes expanded. I've discovered Miles Davis, Julian Lage, classical music, and, yes, the Beatles, among many other artists from assorted genres and eras. There's nothing wrong with loving grunge (I do). But, personally, I would find it depressing to listen to the same thing for 30 years. To me, that'd be like never going farther than 50 miles from your hometown for 30 years. Not a judgement, as we like what we like, and I understand that there's comfort in familiarity. You only get to experience life once, so it makes sense to me to cast a wide net and absorb as much as you can, while you can.

Does any Beatles loving boomer listen exclusively to them for 30 years? I think you're arguing against a straw boomer. I grew up with the Beatles but I don't think my love of them is primarily powered by nostalgia. OK there is some "comfort of familiarity" but I think it's mosty "recognition of timeless excellence"... and I listen to them sparingly these days, don't want the magic to be destroyed by over-familiarity.

 

[Repentant subjectivist]

haha, what is the real point here? I do not like The Stones, do I need to start a thread about it? if you ask me, this is more about the psychological need to go against the streamline to feel special about your own individuality,

Is it though? Personally, I enjoy a lot of mainstream stuff. My playlists are full of what a snob would describe as "guilty pleasures". I also enjoy a lot of old music. The Beatles however just doesn't appeal to me at all. I don't think there is any contrarianism at play here. If anything, I think peoples opinion of The Beatles' music is excessively colored of their popculture status.

 

[Pearljam5000]

haha, what is the real point here? I do not like The Stones, do I need to start a thread about it? if you ask me, this is more about the psychological need to go against the streamline to feel special about your own individuality,

And what about your need to feel special with your little "psychological diagnosis" of my thread?

 

[AdrianusG]

They were often viewed as a “boy band,” with hordes of screaming teenage girls fueling the Beatlemania phenomenon.

To me a "Boy Band" is a group that (just) sing or dance, but don't play any of the instruments themselves and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they can really sing live (without the dreaded auto tune)
So by that metric the Beatles were definitely not just a Boy Band, and yes i like them, although from the later part of their repertoire when they started to introduce a lot of different styles and instruments into their music, like it or not they are one of the most influential bands ever.