UKC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8246313.stm

While I understand the guy's negative comments about The Beatles, and can see where he's coming from, I still like them.

Anyone out there really dislike The Beatles? It can't be that uncommon can it?

In reply to knthrak1982:

I don't care for their music at all really. In fact, the closest I've come to enjoying their music was sitting at the back of the battle bus on the way back from MPA shouting 'we all live on a pompy 42' tp the tune of yellow submarine at those poor muppets from the clyde.

I can see where it's important and why so many people like it, it just aint my cup of tea.

In reply to knthrak1982: on the whole, yes! They were obviously vertiality talented etc & had ccouple of good songs, but they leave me cold, sometimes active dislike!

In reply to thin bob:

Huh?


... and HUH!?!?

In reply to thin bob:

Couple dozen!

In reply to knthrak1982:

Yep. I dislike The Beatles. Never understand all the guff about John Lennon either.

In reply to knthrak1982:

Can't say I've ever actively listened to them, apart from once borrowing a copy of Revolver. I've never owned anything by them. I once had a girlfriend who had a thing about While My Guitar... but the rest of the album didn't make much impression.

We had a bit of a guitar/ singalong session the other night and someone had a Beatles songbook. I was amazed how many of the songs I'd never heard before.

In reply to knthrak1982:

I dont like them, im from that neck of the woods as well.

Think they were all tw*ts and the music is a bit shit as well. Can't stand John Lennon, think he's the main reason I dont like them.

And that "Dont call me Ringo shite"

Fine, I'll call you Thomas the Tank Engine instead!

In reply to knthrak1982:

not uncommon at all, i dislike them and have known over the years of other folk that have taken a dislike to them too..
much prefer the music of the kinks from pretty much the same era, early sixties..and felt that the kinks were far more talented than the flamin beatles..

In reply to knthrak1982:

My wife really hates them. I'm not a big fan, but then I don't like that sort of music in general. Punk and Metal all the way!!!

In reply to knthrak1982: Wayne from Wayne`s World for a start..

In reply to knthrak1982: I dislike McCartney.

In reply to knthrak1982:

How many Beatles songs in the film Quadrophenia?

Nuff said.

Enty

In reply to Enty:

Kind of a strange reply, like "How many Who songs in the film Help!"

To anyone under 40, saying they don't 'get' John Lennon, it's hardly surprising really is it? You weren't around.

In reply to knthrak1982:

I can't stand the Beatles, I find them banal and saccharine in equal measures. The only one of them that I had any respect for was George Harrison, he kept quiet and avoided the twuntishness of McCartney or Dingo. There was so much good music around in 67-70 that I can't see why their profile is so far above the likes of Traffic, Tomorrow, Soft machine, Yes, Floyd and so on.

Their enduring popularity is probably due to the fac that so many of their songs are playschool-friendly nursery rhymes...

In reply to graeme jackson:



What an odd comment.

Do you have to have been "around" in order to "get" someone/something?

In reply to graeme jackson:

My point was that if I'd have been around in 64 I'd have been a Who fan and not the 60's version of Take That.

I wasn't alive in 1941 but I think I get what AH was all about.


Enty

In reply to knthrak1982:

I don't like them. A few good pop songs and they did have some talent for melody, rhythm and lyrics, but their attempts to go arty and experimental were pretty facile and, dare I say it, arrogant (in terms of "hey, we're into this weird wacky stuff but the masses won't listen to it unless a big band like US brings it to them...")

In reply to Blue Straggler:

we've been down this road before. In my opinion (which counts as far as the end of my nose I guess) it's important to put anything that's considered 'historical' into it's proper context.
Taken as stand alone songs, very little of lennon's output makes sense (or even makes pleasurable listening). However, at the time it was written, lennon was railing against all sorts of things that would not be obvious to a (e.g.) 20 year old unless they'd done some research.

p.s. lennon's work is my least favourite of the Beatles solo outings.

In reply to knthrak1982: oh yes i dont like them at all a bit overated in my book but thats just an opinion

In reply to snoop6060:

>Think they were all tw*ts and the music is a bit shit as well.

They would probably think the same about you, someone who has such a limited experience of them.

It does not matter not many groups get most of their stuff re-released 40 years after they last recorded. Most of the stuff, if not all from the last 20 years will disappear unloved in 40 years.

How many films has any group since written the amount of tracks for they did, either together or individually? Large range of stuff, not all good but not all bad either.

In reply to knthrak1982:

They do nothing for me at all.

In reply to Blue Straggler: Jesus Christ, where do you start to answer the negative posts on here? Firstly you had to be there pre Beatles to reaslise just how much they changed everything, secondly how can any younger members of this forum really appreciate how they took pop music by storm and changed it having not been there. There are very few artists that have had such an impact.
Some bands I love, like Zeppelin, Sabbath, U2, Floyd and all the great American bands, nobody has had such an influence on so many other artists and styles of music. Loved the Stones, but they were basically just an R+B band compared to the Beatles global influence (actually I think The Who and Bowie are more significant than the Stones).
To diss The Beatles is just ridiculous, yep I guess you had to be there to really appreciate them and what they did. I mean how could anybody succeed with such a crap name, they had to be good.

In reply to sarah79:


I don't actively dislike all of their stuff; some it it is very pleasant, but that's about as enthusiastic as I'm going to get about it (with one exception; I think Eleanor Rigby is very good). I find the early poptastic stuff dismissable lightweight froth and cannot for the life of me see what the fuss is about.


I'm with you there; Bob Geldof with a bit more talent and a whole lot less compassion. A work colleague, who keeps failing to retire despite his years (in fairness, he is a world expert at what he does), was at school with him and is quite dismissive of both the man and his reputation.

T.

In reply to sutty:

How do you know is 'experience' of them? His opinion is just as valid as yours.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:
I'm with you there; Bob Geldof with a bit more talent and a whole lot less compassion. A work colleague, who keeps failing to retire despite his years (in fairness, he is a world expert at what he does), was at school with him and is quite dismissive of both the man and his reputation.

Ah! but thats the problem with peers, you underate them. My sister was at school with Seb Coe and could never understand what all the fuss was about, she disliked him.
I find the fact that you can even comment on the fact that a work colleague is dissmissive of John Lennon worthy of repetition compared to the thousands (millions?) of people who would dissagree with that more telling about your prejudice against him than your evaluation of him as a major force in the devbelopment of rock music.

In reply to mattrm: Neither genre could possibly have existed without 'helter skelter'. Possibly.

In reply to Silum:
perhaps Sutty knows who Blue Straggler is and realises he wasn't around at the time of the Beatles.

>His opinion is just as valid as yours.
This is true to a certain extent. Everyone can have their own opinion of a piece of music played today. Only people who have done some research or were alive at the time can possibly have anything intelligent to say about the music's relevance at the time and the impact it had.

I was only 1 year old when Love me do came out but I've been told by my parents that I spent my early years transfixed by the radio whenever a Beatles song came on so I think it's safe to say that their music has played an important part of my life and shaped some of my attitudes. I wonder how many of todays teenagers will be able to say the same about todays music in 50 years time. (and I also wonder if any of todays music can be considered grounbreaking)

In reply to Al Evans:


One can admire achievements whilst disliking the person. I'm sure that many footballers whose work on the pitch leaves me breathless and slack-jawed in wonderment are hideous individuals that I'd cross the street to avoid meeting, should the occasion ever arise.


Two points; the number of people who have known John Lennon, whose views dissent from that frequently portrayed and are given a voice is small (and getting smaller) and hence these views are worth repeating for that alone. Second, I don't think John Lennon was a major force in the development of rock music. The Beatles as a collective may have been but to isolate him from the other three seems indefensible when arguing a major point such as that. His solo music was nothing of the sort.

T.

In reply to sarah79:


Me too. I think they are derivative and overrated.....

Give me Keith and Orville anytime! (actually, that isn't true, but almost).
Sxx

In reply to knthrak1982: I cant stand them, most overrated band ever

In reply to graeme jackson:

That's the key difference - you didn't mention this in the post to which I initially replied - you stated that someone had to have actually been around (a view which Al Evans is now espousing quite unequivocally).
So if someone wasn't around at the time of the Beatles' rise, but had done their history, they'd be allowed to comment? Is there an exam?

(I agree with the argument about context, by the way, though I've always found it odd that this argument is only used to defend something, never to attack)

In reply to sutty:

Did the Beatles ever write any tracks specifically for films other than their own films?
Films have used their songs (fairly fleetingly I think, aside from cover versions, due to very tight copyrighting)

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I dont think they are, Van Gogh was a troubled genius but now his peers criticisms are generally discounted compared to his contributions to art, there are many other examples I could cite.

Second, I don't think John Lennon was a major force in the development of rock music.

Well we have to beg to differ there, who would you accept, Buddy Holly? Elvis Presley (not a writer), Phil Spectre (not a writer), Bob Dylan (not a singer) come on , how can you define John Lennon as not being influential on rock music.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think Live and Let Die was specifically wtitten for the film.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
>(a view which Al Evans is now espousing quite unequivocally)

Al has spent too much time in the Peaks though.


everyone's allowed to comment. Their comments have more chance of being considered if they have the background. I will be setting a multiple choice questionaire later

I'm more than happy to discuss any examples you come up with.

In reply to Sarah G:

No I give in you are correct Sarah, and of course Pinky and Perky were far more important than The Beatles

In reply to Al Evans:

Not by The Beatles though.

In reply to Al Evans:

Well if you're going to slate Dylan's singing, I'll point out that whilst somewhat less grating, Lennon's voice was hardly a standout.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Mind you I wasn't around for the original Live and Let Die, nor did I give birth to Ian Fleming, so I guess I can't say anything, right Al?

In reply to Al Evans:

But their importance was not in question, we were asked whether we dislike the Beatles. There are many things I dislike that were important in the development of something else but it doesn't change my enjoyment of them. I simply do not like the beatles, saying that doesn't change their impact on anybody else but me.

I find it odd that it is nearly impossible to say that you don't like the Beatles, Michael Jackson, The Wire etc. without some people taking it as a personal insult. Not talking about you Al but I have been threatened with violence for expressing my views on the Beatles at work today.

In reply to graeme jackson:

That'd be null though as it would be a contrived example e.g. I say I like an Elia Kazan film, you'll guess I'm saying that because I know of his reputation as an alleged McCarthy whistle-blower and you could choose to attack him and mention the context.

In reply to Blue Straggler: Thst really is clutching at straws, it was written by one of the Beatles, what do you want? It was written by one of the Beatles when they had ceased as a band, so why does that negate the point that they could write good screen scores if they bothered.

In reply to Al Evans:

Well done. Right answer!

In reply to Al Evans:

Al. You are just plain wrong on this. "Live and Let Die" was by Paul McCartney & Wings.
It was not written by The Beatles.
I never said that they couldn't write tracks for films. I asked if they ever had, outside of their own films. That "Live and Let Die" was the best you could come up with, shows that YOU'RE clutching at straws, even though I asked a perfectly sensible and civil question.


I could write good screen scores if I bothered. You could too. Does that make us Beatles? :-P

In reply to Clarence:

Now that is a sensible and decent point, it calls into my mind your judgement but its fair enough,anybody is allowed to say what they like and that is what this thread is all about, and its a good point that you can like what it led up to but not like the original actual band, but I really feel that we should hold a candle for the roots, whether we like it or not. There is some seriously influential R+B artists that I struggle with, but their influence cannot be called into question.

In reply to Al Evans:

Pete Seeger and a load of Tin Pan Alley stuff and The Carter Family and Lonnie Donegan then, rather than 4 strumming skiffle lads made good, eh?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm sorry Blue, I don't understand what you are getting at? Errr I made it clear that I was answering your question, and that it was by one of the Beatles after they had split up, what are you on about? It was a civil question with a civil answer. And no, I couldn't write good screen scores even if you could, what are you talking about ?

In reply to Al Evans:

Dear Al,

Never mind


best regards,
Blue Straggler

In reply to knthrak1982:

Add me to the list of those with an active dislike of The Beatles. I don't think their music is ageing well either - compared to The Beach Boys for example.

Some friends took me to a Beatles night once to convert me... they spent the night apologising that somehow the DJ was choosing the 'wrong' songs. It was shite. Ob la dee, ob la don't.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/archive/index.php/t-40248.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob-La-Di,_Ob-La-Da

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Paul McCartney also wrote Vanilla Sky, but that's the only other example I can think of.

I'm also in the "not getting what John Lennon was about" group, and the hippies, drugs and gurus stuff, but then again, too young?

Musically, though, I still like them.

In reply to knthrak1982:

Bit poppy for my taste as I generally prefer Blues, Rock, Folk and Jazz. Can't really dismiss their impact on the Pop world though - much like Jackson - you don't have to like them but at least be honest about the effect their music had, which was considerable. I tend to agree with Elms about the lyrics being a little simple but for Pop music that is the norm mostly. Can't say that Blues or Rock lyrics are that much better however.

In reply to knthrak1982:

George Harrison did a cover of Dylan's "I don't want to do it" on Porky's revenge. and 'Cheer down' on lethal weapon 2. He also had cameo roles in the life of rian and shanghai surprise. On top of that lot, he also had some minor creative input to Withnail and I which should elevate him to God status in the eyes of the UKC massive at least.

McCartney as well as the aforementioned live and let die wrote the screenplay for (and scored)give my regards to broadsteet and wrote the soundtrack for The family way in 1966 *when he was stil a beatle).

Ringo has acted in a bunch of things.

In reply to Al Evans:

I've owned records by Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Bowie and The Beatles - and I keep coming back to all of them except The Beatles, who I haven't listened to for years. I just don't find their actual music (comme ci, comme ça / ob-la-di, ob-la-da) as enduring as their supposed "influence".

In reply to knthrak1982:

"I'd like to be under the sea,
In an octopus's garden in the shade"

"She says she loves you
And you know that can't be BAD.
Yes, she loves you
And you know you should be .... GLAD."

'nuff said.

In reply to xn: Errrr two particularly selective low points, like Bowies Laughing Gnome, sometimes they take the piss. But it's not actually relevant. I can't even begin to select the songs that prove you wrong, there are too many.

In reply to xn:

Not quite;
In August 2009, at the end of its "Beatles Weekend", BBC Radio 2 announced that "She Loves You" was The Beatles' all-time best-selling single in the UK based on information compiled by The Official Charts Company.[2]

Not bad for a dud, and there is NOBODY around now that can reach their sales.

In reply to Al Evans:

Does it matter what a bunch of pretentious middle class climbers think. Most of the negativity stems from contributors who have no recollection of music before Wham anyway !
Ask the bands backstage at Glastonbury what they think of the Beatles. 98% will struggle to articulate their awe and reverence.

Six of the Amazon top ten best selling albums are Beatles records including two £169.00 box sets. What more can you say?

In reply to Jonno:

Nowadays it's easy to forget how innovative some of the Beatle's music was at the time. In 2009 it may have lost its relavance and seem dated, but it kicked off musical development which resulted in much of the music the current Beatle detractor's so admire

Having said that, The Who, Rolling Stones etc have weathered the test of time much better, and I listen to them much more than my Beatles CDs

In reply to Jonno: Merely by the fact that you are all talking about a group from the 1960's says it all. Whether you like it or not they were hugely influential in modern music (many artists cite them as an influence), far more talented than anyone on here and actually wrote some cracking tunes (eg. yesterday is the most covered song of ALL time) and thier lyrics (largely) were brilliant. They were a bit lightweight in the 'cred' stakes after all the Stones wanted to spend the night with you while the Beatles were happy just to hold your hand ! - sorry couldn't resist that !!

In reply to knthrak1982:

Some Beatles' songs - the first ones I heard, as it happens - made me think that The Beatles were a pile of shite. So I can appreciate where James Bond was coming from in the article quoted.

She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah

Oh please, give up. Never darken my door again with that crap.


But other stuff is more interesting, and I particularly like some other bands re-interpretations of Beatles' songs. Probably the first time I heard Helter Skelter was on a Siousxie & The Banshees album. And I didn't realise a) that it was The Beatles, and b) the original was sung by Paul.

Which slightly re-arranged my view of him, when I found that out...


||-)

In reply to Dominion:

I really liked the Flying Lizards' version of Money and it was quite a long time before I realised it had been done before.

And I can remember music before Wham.

In reply to knthrak1982: How can you not like the beatles, they are AMAZING, and dont know how people can think john lennon is overrated either, they are the best thing that had happened to the britian, since sliced bread.

In reply to Ryan: Oh and would just like to say as I was reading this post, I has listening to I AM A WALRUS , what a amazing song, like most of there songs

In reply to Dominion:

>She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah

Oh please, give up. Never darken my door again with that crap

Well it sometimes brightens me up, whereas going to some gigs now I might walk at and call them crap.

Oasis, crap. Spice girls, well they are not even a group, just sing. In fact half the so called 'groups' can't play a gig without other musicians.

Name me a good group that does sing and play and sell millions of records

In reply to knthrak1982: There is not any my fellow Forum writing person

In reply to Ryan:

You're probably one of those people who think that Imagine is some kind of work of genius too. The B side was OK (apart from the massive irony of Lennon thinking he any longer had any idea what working class meant, of course).

In reply to sutty:

I agree - to a certain extent.

Look at LaRoux - she writes her own music, does all the instruments, records, and produces it herself/themselves and does not want a big name producer for the next album, as they did very well by themselves , thank you very much.

And look at Westlife, and Girls Aloud, and crap like that.


It's just that "She loves me" really irritated me. And the tv stuff I saw about beatlemania with screaming girls was just so over the top that it defied belief.

||-)

In reply to knthrak1982:

My take on this is that the two greatest pop music phenomena in history are Elvis and the Beatles. The former for his unique voice, his innate musicality and his performance; the latter for their originality, musicality and, really, their 'new sound' that was somehow perfectly attuned to the 60s, making them perhaps the icons of that extraordinary decade.

In reply to knthrak1982: Just wondering if any of you play guitar?

In reply to Al Evans:

I can appreciate what they did for music but it doesn't mean I have to LIKE them or their stuff. Subtle - but important - difference.

In reply to knthrak1982:

Appart from the very occassional song I find them mediocre at best and have never understood the hype.

In reply to Dominion:

D ... the sixties 'defied belief' at the time. Can you imagine just what a headlong collision everything that was happening then was with the whole ethos and culture of the 50s? It was an amazing, revolutionary time in social and cultural terms. Everything then got reevaluated, even turned on its head. I'm very glad to have been fortunate enough to have lived through that in my teens. I think historians will agree that it was an extraordinary turning point in western history, from multiple angles. Every decade afterwards was just so dull by comparison. The 70s: very sad, troubled, everything in GB in decline; the 80s a complete nightmare of an extreme right-wing resurgence; the 90s, better, but dull, dull, dull, with culture in a kind of spiral dive (really); this decade: lots of improvements, it seems to me, in a very difficult new world.

In reply to sarah79:

I used to loathe them with a vengeance, too.

Some of it is twee, over-rated, put up on a pedestal - and it's the pedestal viewpoint I found was as musch offputting as some of the music.

And the films.

Oh dear.

But there are some interesting bits, you just have to find them.

I have the same problem with Led Zeppelin

Some of it is absolutely dire. Some isn't.

||-)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Well, having just watched the documentary about Les Paul on his 90th birthday - broadcast after his death the other week - I think he found that his "Les Paul and Mary Ford" music died a death with the invention of Rock'n'Roll. And I can see why.



To me, however - born 1963 - the 1980s were brilliant, musically. But you had to get away from the stuff in the charts, and find the weird bands, and music cultures.

||-)

In reply to Dominion:

I'm sorry, the 1980s were a complete, unending, iiving nightmare. Full stop. We've been clawing our way up out of that wreckage ever since. It's now like a very dangerous, recently avalanched scree slope complete with precariously poised boulders. We're only about a quarter of the way back up it, in my judgement.

In reply to Dominion:

PS: I think Al Evans will bear me out, having lived through exactly the same transition.

In reply to knthrak1982:

You can personally not like their music as a matter of taste but that doesn't affect their greatness as musicians adn...imo...the best pop group ever with a surprising amount of excellent melodic tunes.

In reply to Dominion:

I think you've made another mistake here, in thinking that the Beatles phenomenon was 'put on a pedestal'. There was extremely little hype and marketing in those days compared with now. In fact I wonder just how many hundreds of pounds Apple or whoever spent on 'marketing' the Beatles? It all depended then on real sales of singles, all hosted and bolstered by Alan Freeman's Top of the Pops on Sunday afternoon. That was it, really. There was a thing called NME that was read by the afficionados, but really they were in a minute minority compared with the British population. A big difference, then, with just the BBC radio, was that the whole population was hearing the same thing/s. Number 1 pop records then percolated into the whole of everyday life in a way that is almost impossible to conceive now. Everyone, businessmen, commuters, school children etc etc etc, would know then roughly what was in the Top Ten.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I think I mean that now - and for the last 20 years - they have been put on a pedestal. By people who grew up as kids liking The Beatles, and then went on to be major players in radio and tv, and the newspapers.

There has been a reverance amongst media people for The Beatles, partly because Beatles fans ran the media.

Does that make sense?

||-)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Sorry, that just means you didn't listen to the right music, or didn't appreciate some of the most innovative of it, or never got to hear it.

Not that it didn't exist.

||-)

In reply to Dominion:

Yes, I agree with that. Everything and everybody is now hyped up to the nth degree. Am I alone in finding the 'ten best ...' (this that and the other) in most colour supplements, e.g the Independent on Sunday, absolutely nauseating??

Possibly a smidgin of truth in that.

Yeah, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, really.

In reply to knthrak1982:

Personally i find the beatles to be the most over rated pop bands of all time, nothing special.

this is all subjective though and some of the later drug fuelled stuff is ok i guess

In reply to Al Evans:

We listed to the Laughing Gnome every day in our house- it is my 2 year olds favourite song, it is in the top 5 songs on our playlist

In reply to sutty:

What, like Madonna, Frank Sinatra, The Supremes....?

U2, Coldplay, Muse, Radiohead, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Pearl Jam? Probably not "good" enough for you eh?

In reply to Dominion:

I am very, very well aware of the music, because even then it was far more universally broadcast than now. What I was talking about was something much more major, which pushed music into about tenth place, actually: the complete disaster of the times. It was really shocking, circa 1984, and I really can't think that anybody who was following it, or suffering it, was thinking very much about pop music then at all. Just everything then was going wrong, with the whole country being very nearly at civil war for the first time in over 300 years.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I completey agree with Gordon and Sutty here, and its not just an old farts convention, the 60's changed more than just rock culture, it changed the whole perception of not just the youth culture of the 60's but all that followed it, nothing, no nothing, changed the influence that the 60's had on the world, and The Beatles and the rock culture of the era was a massive part of that.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I noticed that, and wondered why you started doing so in a minor tangent about 80s music on a thread that's meant to be about whether people liked The Beatles. In plain text, it looks like a weird self-aggrandising tactic, to back up your opinions on music by ostentatiously pontificating about "grander things".

Still, I'm sure I "have got the wrong end of the stick, really" or am "missing the point. Embarrassingly so".

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes, you have, very much so, I'm afraid. I am simply trying to recall as truthfully as possible how it really was. But I don't think the music scene could ever have done anything to change the tenor of the times. You know that the truth was that what was happening socially, up and down the country, for a huge majority, was absolutely vile. I can only report how I remember it. I don't remember the music scene having anything to do with it whatever. Cn. the still-amazing and mostly very gutsy 'protest' songs of the 60s.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

PS: What are these 'grander things' you are referring to?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sinatra was not a group, unless I missed something. The Supremes were a singing group of their time, and will still outsell any of the groups you mentioned in 20 years time, unless they change their style as much as the Beatles did over the years.

Personally I just do not 'get' any of the modern groups, but then I am not supposed to do, they are of your time and style.

I think us oldies will give you best when they take sounds of the 60s off radio 2 on Saturday mornings and get to the 70s, 80s, 90s. Will it happen, doubt it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I meant "grander themes", sorry.

But really, all Dominion said was "And the tv stuff I saw about beatlemania with screaming girls was just so over the top that it defied belief."; this has set you off on a lecture about how grim the 1980s were - the relevance is tenuous at best. That's all.

Well I have work in the morning and a big weekend ahead so I bid thee goodnight.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The reality, that's all. Probably the strongest music event of the time was Pink Floyd's The Wall, which was being shot and cut in adjacent cutting rooms to ours at Pinewood while we were doing either Krull or The Dresser, I can't remember which. So I got to know that music extremely well.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

OK - I'll have another go at trying to explain how it was at the time. As I said earlier, it 'defied belief' even then. It was an extraordinary phenomenon that seemed to go beyond pop music. It was suddenly as if ordinary, working class people who'd come out of 'nowhere' could sing/ had a voice - and what was so incredible was that that 'voice' appealed then to almost all, not just the young generation.

In reply to knthrak1982:

I don't dislike them personally, but their music doesn't really do anything for me, generally.

As with so many other bands, they did a few songs I really do like, though.

In reply to knthrak1982:

This makes me really feel like crying, it's just so intensely innocent and so much of the period.

Hey Jude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD3ovfZXO5Q&feature=related

In reply to knthrak1982:

I love their psychedelic era stuff. The early stuff is ok but doesn't float my boat. Some of my earliest memories are of listening to the 'Lucy in the Sky' etc in my Dad's car aged about 5. I used to find their music hypnotising. Listening to it now, I still find the weirder stuff awesome.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Muse isn't too bad, the rest are utter shite...but it's never been right to judge a bands "quality" by their sales?
My favourite album, Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, has sold just over 100000 copies, most of it years after it was released, but I still think it's the best album that's ever been recorded, and it has been selected the 4th best album of the 90's by Pitchfork

In reply to knthrak1982: IME the Beatles generate a certain type of follower like the guy I went to college with who had all classical music plus a few beatles albums - the sort of group that people who aren`t really into "pop" music tend to like because of their musicianship. Oh and PMC has a mouth like a cats arse.

In reply to knthrak1982: It has been proven in clinical tests that people who actually dislike the Beatles are making a style statement that has actually nothing to do with musical appreciation.

Anyone who actually dislikes them rather than just being non fussed must really have their other musical appreciation judged with some scepticism.

In reply to Fawksey: Is that so? I know about the stuff on the effect of Mozart's music on brain waves but not about the Beatles. I've been watching some of the programmes on Beeb4 over the past week and its amazing how the Beatles music just hits the spot.

I wonder, what would liking Copacabana by Barry Manilow say about one's musical judgment?

Its surprising how many people know the words......

In reply to Fawksey:

I wonder if paul mcartney or ringo are reading this.

In reply to Tiggs: I only really knew three Beatles albums since a child. My parents only owned Sgt Peppers, Rubber Soul and Revolver. Listening to stuff on Beeb4 this week has been pretty good.

Dissapointed that itunes doesnt list any of it.

In reply to knthrak1982:

Not read thread, but... When I was growing up you either liked the Beatles, or, if you were a bit "different" you liked the Rolling Stones.
P.
Who having seen both live, is still just that little bit "different"