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

[rank]

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

The answer is in the question. It is an antinomy.
We can take many examples if this dialectic is not clear. (Any resemblance to a situation etc.)
1) I don't like Picasso (all periods), I don't care about his contribution to scribbling on canvas. So
2) If the Beatles hadn't existed, I would have liked Jerry Lee, Elvis, Johnny Cash or Vince Taylor more.
But they existed and the Stones said tons of times that they wanted to do like them, write songs that are slices of life and not become or remain in this specific case a dance band that covers a few blues standards.
If I meet a girl I don't like I'm not going to say that she's pretty but not my style (borderline case because age will also play its role).

 

[rank]

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,

It makes sense, on a site dealing with audio electronics, with most of the contributors having little or no technical background, when everyone wants to express themselves, this is what happens.
I suggested opening topics on what is useful or not in this science, starting with ABX which determine the threshold of the audible and on the poor loudspeakers.
Now I will never want to denigrate any artist, from time to time I post what I listen to here by youtube videos. Everyone's tastes are personal. You have to stay positive. Even the Sex Pistols liked Pink Floyd. Well, only the Syd Barrett period. But that's not bad huh!

 

[Robin L]

But isn't that true about all musicians?

The Beatles are unique in having emerged during a time when mass electronic media was available as never before. When the Beatles started, they insisted on having their own songs featured for their debut, making them different in that regard. But those songs were obviously primitive.

Mozart was well managed by his father in a very crowded field.

Mozart's gifts were noted by the time he turned three. Mozart was a touring artist by the time he turned six. Mozart, as a prodigy, can't really be compared to anyone else. And the "playing field" of the 18th century was nowhere near as crowded as that of the mid-20th century.

Paul doesn't have the keyboard skills of Mozart but is, perhaps, his equal in writing simple, moving songs.

But Paul is not the equal of Mozart in writing complex polyphony. Also, most of Mozart's "moving" songs are not simple.

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".

Not a meaningful comparison - Dickens was certainly gifted, he was also prolific in ways Joyce never was. Dickens sought a wide audience, Joyce did not. Dickens was serialized in the papers, Joyce was not.

 

[IPunchCholla]

The answer is in the question. It is an antinomy.
We can take many examples if this dialectic is not clear. (Any resemblance to a situation etc.)
1) I don't like Picasso (all periods), I don't care about his contribution to scribbling on canvas. So
2) If the Beatles hadn't existed, I would have liked Jerry Lee, Elvis, Johnny Cash or Vince Taylor more.
But they existed and the Stones said tons of times that they wanted to do like them, write songs that are slices of life and not become or remain in this specific case a dance band that covers a few blues standards.
If I meet a girl I don't like I'm not going to say that she's pretty but not my style (borderline case because age will also play its role).

First point. For Picasso, there are a few pieces that blow me out of the water, but I find the majority of his work doesn’t resonate at all. That doesn’t mean I can’t recognize his contributions and place in history. Also he didn’t work in a vacuum and invent cubism on his own. I find Brechts work to be as historically important and more of his works to be personally relevant.

Second. There are many people out there who if I was asked, I would describe as attractive or pretty or beautiful because I know that by average societal standards they are. It is a very small subset of those people, usually following a fairly similar pattern, that I actually feel desire for.

Both of these hold for music. No musician comes up with a style or genre out of thin air. There are always many multiple musicians working at variations of the same thing. Some of those things will click with more people than others. Part of this is totally personal. Much of it is social pressure and exposure. History is largely a navigation of those two elements and historical importance is a measurement of how many people clicked with it or were indoctrinated into liking it.

Influence, to me is more intriguing. Probably the single most relevant influential band for grunge was Green River. Outside of the NW scene, not that many people have heard of them. Very few people like them or enjoy their music, relatively speaking, but without them it isn’t clear that grunge (and by extension much of 90s US music) would have happened. I also don’t choose to listen to their music. It’s fine and well constructed (like the Beatles) and I recognize it is “pretty” by societal standards, but I don’t desire it.

Also, FYI, I am reading that you are arguing in ways that either diminish those you argue with “you don’t actually think what you said you think” or are kinda totalitarian: “if society says something is important, you personally have to like it”.

 

[rank]

You have absolutely not understood anything.
Nevermind.

 

[IPunchCholla]

You have absolutely not understood anything.
Nevermind.

Are you responding to me? If so, I’m sorry I misunderstood. Could you perhaps elaborate?

 

[mhardy6647]

The Beatles are unique in having emerged during a time when mass electronic media was available as never before.

Bing Crosby & Bob Hope (e.g.) might disagree, although, yeah, I see your point.

How Bing Crosby and Silicon Valley Revolutionized Radio and TV | KQED

The surprising history of Ampex, innovators of magnetic tape recording -- and the company behind that huge sign near Hwy. 101 in Redwood City.

www.kqed.org

 

[Robin L]

Bing Crosby & Bob Hope (e.g.) might disagree, although, yeah, I see your point.

How Bing Crosby and Silicon Valley Revolutionized Radio and TV | KQED

The surprising history of Ampex, innovators of magnetic tape recording -- and the company behind that huge sign near Hwy. 101 in Redwood City.

www.kqed.org

View attachment 414908

Bing Crosby started the revolution, no doubt about that. And radio was big business in his time. But what happened with the Beatles was different - just one TV show along with a few singles and -BOOM! - they established themselves as the predominant musical act of their time, staying that way for a long time to come. It wasn't the (admittedly very profitable) live shows where the Beatles made their name. Nobody there could hear them. It was TV and radio where they became such a huge act.

 

[Petrushka]

Bing Crosby started the revolution, no doubt about that. And radio was big business in his time. But what happened with the Beatles was different - just one TV show along with a few singles and -BOOM! - they established themselves as the predominant musical act of their time, staying that way for a long time to come. It wasn't the (admittedly very profitable) live shows where the Beatles made their name. Nobody there could hear them. It was TV and radio where they became such a huge act.

The Beatles predated professionally organized shows in large venues, and their first American appearance had speakers cobbled together from odds and ends. Anyway, the sound system was inadequate.

 

[Robin L]

The Beatles predated professionally organized shows in large venues, and their first American appearance had speakers cobbled together from odds and ends. Anyway, the sound system was inadequate.

True. The Beatles were a big reason why modern sound systems were created, though it was the Grateful Dead who created the first proper large scale sound systems (unless I'm mistaken) with their "Wall of Sound". Still, the screaming from the Beatles' fans was the primary reason why they couldn't be heard in concert.

 

[ryanosaur]

I'm a fanatic music lover
But I just don't get the hype about The Beatles
Am I the only one?

No.

It’s like Mozart. Frankly he and most of his music can fcuk off for all I care. It’s music for the sake of music. It’s bubblegum. It’s a pillow that offers no support to your neck…

Though I do enjoy the Beatles somewhat after they started getting high.

But mostly they kinda blow.

And I can absolutely respect why people like Mozart and I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

They probably also like Taylor Swift!

 

[Deleted member 81112]

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.

I was referring to the OP, who mentioned he grew up in the 90s and more-or-less only listens to 90s music.

 

[EJ3]

No.

And I can absolutely respect why people like Mozart and I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

They probably also like Taylor Swift!

I likes Mozart's (non musical & musical) antics (and can tolerate his music for a bit). I also can tolerate a bit of the Beatles.
Taylor Swift? I thought that her (music?) was mutually exclusive to ANY & ALL others.

 

[Mal]

Dickens was certainly gifted, he was also prolific in ways Joyce never was. Dickens sought a wide audience, Joyce did not. Dickens was serialized in the papers, Joyce was not.

So isn't Paul gifted? Paul was much more prolific in writing simple songs for the pubic - Mozart only wrote 30 lieder, whiich were written for friends and special occasions rather than for general public consumption. In general, Mozart didn't seek a wide audience, he aimed at a sophisticated elite. Of course, some of Mozart's music can be immediately enjoyed by most people today, but the same can be said of Joyce ("Dubliners"...)

 

[Vacceo]

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

Right now, the last Panzerfaust (Canadian one) record.

Next month I'm going to a Carcass concert and a couple weeks ago, I saw Impaled Nazarene. That should give you a general idea of what I usually listen to.

 

[Mal]

No musician comes up with a style or genre out of thin air. There are always many multiple musicians working at variations of the same thing.

But isn't there one performer who emerges and knocks it out of the park, truly defining a new style or genre? Picasso's first cubist painting? Haydn's first string quartet? The Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows" is often recognised as being the first true psychedelic rock song.

 

[rank]

Are you responding to me? If so, I’m sorry I misunderstood. Could you perhaps elaborate?

I do not respond to those who use Godwin's point.

 

[Deleted member 58670]

If walrus could sing, they would be singing ‘I am the Beatles’…..

I’m too young to have experienced the Beatles hype, but have come to love their music during the last 5 years or so. Great stuff.

 

[A Surfer]

I can enjoy some of The Beatles music. Overall, I am at best luke warm to them and would left to my own devices probably never hear their music again. When I was younger though I believe that I enjoyed their music more. Long time ago now.

 

[IPunchCholla]

But isn't there one performer who emerges and knocks it out of the park, truly defining a new style or genre? Picasso's first cubist painting? Haydn's first string quartet? The Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows" is often recognised as being the first true psychedelic rock song.

It’s usually (not always) more complicated. There is one person that people latch on to and history often focuses on just that person. At least 7 people independently invented photography and all were working at the same time. Some in communication with others, some in isolation. To make the story less complex we often boil it down to the person that announced it first (Daguerre) even though there was a generation at least of people before him working on it. The same is true of the arts. I was in the middle of the grunge scene before it was called that. Pearl Jam and Nirvana didn’t invent the sound, they crystallized a lot of experimentation before them, a lot of failed bands and a whole general scene and were latched on to and marketed heavily. Kurt always had issues, but he was a dedicated musician who looked to history and adapted it.

Picasso hung out with a large group of artists who were actively sharing ideas that emerged from another group of artists who were actively sharing ideas. This is how almost all of human endeavor works. It’s encapsulated in the very term research. Look at what has come before, at what is happening now and add to it. Research what people know about materials behavior in a vacuum, find a material that works well enough and is stable enough to market, and people will give you credit for inventing the whole lightbulb.