OK, Beatles haters...I know you lurk here...but seriously

335clone said:
Anyone who does not bow down at the altar of the fab 4 (+1) seems to be labeled a hater.

I can't recall anyone actually posting that. For me, I acknowledge their amazing songwriting talents and of course their roll in music history. But they were a pop band, not THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND OF ALL TIME. And frankly I lost a bit of respect for them when they just became unwilling to play live.
Click to expand...

It's your own fault you didn't see them performing for pimps, prostitutes, and sailors in Hamburg between '60 and '62. They were indeed THE GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND OF ALL TIME.

I was there!
 
i love the Beatles. but i've heard them for my entire life and would like to hear something new. maybe the forthcoming Bobby Previte album...
 
Oscar. Dude, you are my age. If you were there, you were 3.

So it's cool to play live in dive bars when nobody cares who you are, but get famous and you are too good to play for your fans.

Rock and roll is always best live. That's not even debatable, is it?

What other band pulled that crap? None.
 
I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to tour. Especially with what The Beatles had to deal with.

To me, that's a bullshit criticism.
 
I don't think you can compare what they experienced in '64, with what they would have had available to them by say 69 or 70. And if their entire ability to perform live was thwarted by 13 year old girls, that sounds like a boy-band problem:tongue:
 
335clone said:
Oscar. Dude, you are my age. If you were there, you were 3.

So it's cool to play live in dive bars when nobody cares who you are, but get famous and you are too good to play for your fans.

Rock and roll is always best live. That's not even debatable, is it?

What other band pulled that crap? None.
Click to expand...

It's not crap and it's debatable. Live playing at that time was played out because of the primitive technology that was used for the venues they could book. The things they were coming up with in the studio was a lot more ground breaking and more artistically rewarding than banging out 7th chords, poor vocal harmonies, and a bad house mix.

You also have to take in consideration the emotional climate of the band. It was very tense. Had they stayed together just a little longer they would have toured again. It was on the books. But time ran out, and their competitors had to come to grips with the masterpiece that is Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (and attempt to copy it) Which is a lot more enduring than seeing the live footage that exists. Even the Japanese tour in color isn't that good. The sound is awful. Imagine what they heard on stage.
 
335clone said:
I don't think you can compare what they experienced in '64, with what they would have had available to them by say 69 or 70. And if their entire ability to perform live was thwarted by 13 year old girls, that sounds like a boy-band problem:tongue:
Click to expand...

They were not a band anymore by late '69 (thought not official) and the technology used to play stadiums still wasn't that good. They were awesome in Hamburg.
 
Flamencology said:
I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to tour. Especially with what The Beatles had to deal with.

To me, that's a bullshit criticism.
Click to expand...

I agree. Steely Dan didn't tour for nearly two decades and Kate Bush avoided for 35 years. Technically Kate still isn't touring, she's doing a residence at one venue. Some bands or artist don't want to. It can and has been discussed/argued that the Beatles creativity and prolificity was a direct result of not getting stuck in the hamster wheel that touring can be. If you wanted to hear them you had to listen to the records and for your troubles you were taken on a great evolutionary ride.

That said, the lack of performing/touring was part of the tensions that brought an end to the band. McCartney in particular wanted to play live and tour, but John didn't. Actually, it's hard to tell whether Lennon truly didn't want to or whether the was doing it to spite Paul or at least inflict his will upon what he thought to be his band.

I saw the Macca back when he did his first big solo tour in 1989/90. He was amazing. Killer band and Robbie McIntosh was excellent. History has well proven his ability to perform live and consistently kill it. Harrison didn't tour much, but was great when he did and Rigno's been touring and playing great for years and years. Ringo's got the coolest concept with the revolving members, all of whom are like Colin Hay: Wonderfully in awe of this legendary musician who also happens to be a really nice and sincere person. Even Lennon's random shows here and there have been hailed.

To reiterate some of the above, they were more than capable of performing, but I think they were of a mind that the money from record sales was more than sufficient. By not giving in to the pressure to tour, they were able to take full advantage of their time to grow musically. When you listen to their records it never seems like they were trying to rehash any of their previous successes. Each new album had them exploring new musical textures and techniques. The Beatles basically had the unprecedented ability to do whatever they wanted on their terms...and they did (including mismanaging their money and their musical legacy).
 
Dogsinotpalc said:
I posit that Beatle haters are like Dave Matthews Band haters. To clarify, I'm not comparing the bands, just the mentality that feeds the disdain or hatred.

So, folks that hate DMB invariably talk about their audience or the haters' perception of their audience of date-rapy frat boys and the women who make excuses for them. .
Click to expand...

I hate DMB for 2 reasons. I can't stand Dave's voice and if I don't like a bands singer, I am not going to like the band no matter how awesome they are. And second, I opened for Dave a few times in the early 90s and he was a major prick.
 
Chad said:
I hate DMB for 2 reasons. I can't stand Dave's voice and if I don't like a bands singer, I am not going to like the band no matter how awesome they are. And second, I opened for Dave a few times in the early 90s and he was a major prick.
Click to expand...

Totally valid points. The first one is my core music listening philosophy. The second doesn't affect my listening. I know a bunch of the artist I love are shitty people, but I try (with a near perfect record) to separate the artists from the art. I focus on the latter, because that's what I care about. To that end, many (the vast majority) successful creative people come off as douchy to me. Part of it is the endless confidence one needs to instill in oneself to survive to the point of success (or even failure). Another part is often fueled by success, being the more recognition you're getting and the more people telling you how awesome you are the more likely you are to start buying into the bullshit. Obviously, some of these folks are just pricks, and fame doesn't help cure that affliction in the slightest. Lennon was a prick for stretches as well and note everyone has nice things to say about the Macca.

It's actually part of why I never talk to the celebrities/artists I've been near/around for some reason or another, nor do I seek them out. If I like their work, I've invariably supported in some manner (buying albums, seeing shows, etc.). That's my thanks for their work. I don't need to bother them or assume they give a shit. Now, one might miss out on some cool talks with great musicians (as many have posted about), but I'm okay with that.
 
Dogsinotpalc said:
Totally valid points. The first one is my core music listening philosophy. The second doesn't affect my listening. I know a bunch of the artist I love are shitty people, but I try (with a near perfect record) to separate the artists from the art. I focus on the latter, because that's what I care about. To that end, many (the vast majority) successful creative people come off as douchy to me. Part of it is the endless confidence one needs to instill in oneself to survive to the point of success (or even failure). Another part is often fueled by success, being the more recognition you're getting and the more people telling you how awesome you are the more likely you are to start buying into the bullshit. Obviously, some of these folks are just pricks, and fame doesn't help cure that affliction in the slightest. Lennon was a prick for stretches as well and note everyone has nice things to say about the Macca.

It's actually part of why I never talk to the celebrities/artists I've been near/around for some reason or another, nor do I seek them out. If I like their work, I've invariably supported in some manner (buying albums, seeing shows, etc.). That's my thanks for their work. I don't need to bother them or assume they give a shit. Now, one might miss out on some cool talks with great musicians (as many have posted about), but I'm okay with that.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. I did live in Charlottesville a few years ago for a while and Dave has done wonderful things for the city. I actually used to jam with a guy who lived on a farm Dave owned (I think the guy was living with Dave's cousin or something) and by all accounts he is a decent guy now. If I liked Dave's voice, I wouldn't dislike the music because he was a prick, I know there are tons of bands I like that have pricks in the band, but Dave was pretty douchey to my band. On the flip side, I don't think if I had heard Hootie and the Blowfish before we opened them, I might not have liked their music, but since they were unbelievably nice to us and accommodating on the few gigs we did with them, I became fans of their music.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
i love the Beatles. but i've heard them for my entire life and would like to hear something new. maybe the forthcoming Bobby Previte album...
Click to expand...
Same here. But I have a friend whose entire existence revolves around the Beatles and especially John Lennon. Being subjected to a non-stop barrage of trivia, Anthology outatkes and personal observations get tiresome after a while, and I go for months without listening to them.

Oh yeah, who is bobby Previte?
 
surfsteve said:
Same here. But I have a friend whose entire existence revolves around the Beatles and especially John Lennon. Being subjected to a non-stop barrage of trivia, Anthology outatkes and personal observations get tiresome after a while, and I go for months without listening to them.

Oh yeah, who is bobby Previte?
Click to expand...

Bobby Previte is my favorite jazz drummer.
 
Beatles = meh


I acknowledge and appreciate their influence, and I like a few tunes here and there, but nothing from their catalog would make my desert island list.

In fact, if I never heard another Beatles tune, I would be quite content.
 
OGG said:
Beatles = meh


I acknowledge and appreciate their influence, and I like a few tunes here and there, but nothing from their catalog would make my desert island list.

In fact, if I never heard another Beatles tune, I would be quite content.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think we're going to have to re-think this room mate situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OGG
Dogsinotpalc said:
I agree. Steely Dan didn't tour for nearly two decades and Kate Bush avoided for 35 years. Technically Kate still isn't touring, she's doing a residence at one venue. Some bands or artist don't want to. It can and has been discussed/argued that the Beatles creativity and prolificity was a direct result of not getting stuck in the hamster wheel that touring can be. If you wanted to hear them you had to listen to the records and for your troubles you were taken on a great evolutionary ride.

That said, the lack of performing/touring was part of the tensions that brought an end to the band. McCartney in particular wanted to play live and tour, but John didn't. Actually, it's hard to tell whether Lennon truly didn't want to or whether the was doing it to spite Paul or at least inflict his will upon what he thought to be his band.

I saw the Macca back when he did his first big solo tour in 1989/90. He was amazing. Killer band and Robbie McIntosh was excellent. History has well proven his ability to perform live and consistently kill it. Harrison didn't tour much, but was great when he did and Rigno's been touring and playing great for years and years. Ringo's got the coolest concept with the revolving members, all of whom are like Colin Hay: Wonderfully in awe of this legendary musician who also happens to be a really nice and sincere person. Even Lennon's random shows here and there have been hailed.

To reiterate some of the above, they were more than capable of performing, but I think they were of a mind that the money from record sales was more than sufficient. By not giving in to the pressure to tour, they were able to take full advantage of their time to grow musically. When you listen to their records it never seems like they were trying to rehash any of their previous successes. Each new album had them exploring new musical textures and techniques. The Beatles basically had the unprecedented ability to do whatever they wanted on their terms...and they did (including mismanaging their money and their musical legacy).
Click to expand...

They sent their videos on tour. It's the genius of lazy.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top