Brits singing re-packaged "race music" for Americans. Americans did try (see Pat Boone etc) but while the Beatles/Stones/Hermans Hermits dominated it was the rise of Motown that is most intriguing. Black Americans moving north for industrial jobs and having good wages finally put their music on the map. That it was playable on the radio for everybody (unlike the blues) was a masterstroke.
If you listen to the Beatles back catalog today it's pretty bad. Motown still sounds fresh.
Rubber Soul onwards are all masterpieces (except maybe Let it Be) and feature among the greatest music written by anyone, ever. You are seriously underrating them just by virtue of the fact that you don't personally enjoy listening to them, which seems silly to me.
People who don't listen to the Beatles usually don't even realise it when they're listening to the Beatles anyway, the younger you are the truer it is.
Each to their own but there are plenty of Beatles songs that stand the test of time IMO.
Yes, there's plenty of dross, particularly on the early albums, but, say, "Strawberry Fields Forever", or "We Can Work It Out", or "Yesterday"? Superb.
I don't like the Beatles either. There's just something about their sound that really grates on my nerves, IDK what it is. They were obviously historically significant, but I very much dislike listening to them.
100%. Weirdly derivative without any real insight into what they cribbed. Paul McCartney and his twee later stage gobshite, Maxwells silver hammer etc just no
I mean it's fine to not like the Beatles but they weren't derivative (literally the opposite), and not liking the song that is considered by many to be their worst or most controversial isn't saying much (and actually it's a perfectly serviceable song really, it's just the mythology that has built up around it that has really caused it to take flak).
I've always liked it. I think the only reason you would think it was their 'worst' is if you got all your opinions from a sort of musical 'hive mind' - someone that compulsively reads Rolling Stone or whatever. People need to do their OWN thinking.
I have actually been listening to the Beatles back catalog, and its incredible. The musical invention and diversity is unlike any individual group I've ever heard. I love Motown, but honestly, if you've heard one 4 Tops song, you've heard them all, they even parody themselve with "The Same old song". But then you listen to the Beatles at the start of their hits with I want to hold your hand and then compare it to the end with the Symphonic Medley on Abbey Road, and you cant believe they're the same group, and all in a period of 6 years.The only other artist I can compare them to for so much evolution in such a short period of time is David Bowie.
The beatles back catalog feels so generic. Especially when you start hearing contemporary to that period music (the animals etc). All short sweet songs, using generic pop music chord structures and lyrical themes for the most part. Not to do them any discredit, they did come up with those lyrics but they did not come up with the chord structures or lyrical themes. They picked them because they knew they would be popular. They went up and did literally what elvis did to get his fame: rehash known good pop music with a pretty boy (or four) marketed to young girls ensuring capture of the youth market for a generation. And boy were the beatles marketed moreso than a lot of artist at the time and a long time afterward.
If you listen to the Beatles back catalog today it's pretty bad. Motown still sounds fresh.