It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If you don't like the Beatles yer just not listening.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 01:55 PM
sorry, but it's true.

someone once said to me about the importance of the beatles "if it wasnt them, it would have been someone else".....huh? yes, was them. no one else came close to them.I find alot of people who like really heavy "angry" music dont like the beatles. what they usually don't understand is that the beatles music was pretty out there at the time, it was pretty heavy. to love music is to appreciate the natural progression of music history. to expect there to be a band like "pissing razors" in 1967 would be ridiculous, bands like the beatles and people like bob dylan broke through mountains upon piling mountains of boring old stuck in a rut traditional simple minded garbage to breathe life into a candy coated dying media. and they did so with class and brilliance. to not appreciate them is like smacking your mother, a good mother. i can understand if you have only heard the "she loves you's" and the "hey judes" a million times, and think thats all there is - you might grow a little tired- but trust me my friends, if thats you- then push aside the top 40 and dig a little. you will be rewared. just don't expect them to be wearing eye liner and crying about suicide. and for those of you who still think the beatles are crap,'s kind of like being at a party where a joke is told and your the only one who didnt get it. Beatles fans are not being neive in liking them, if you can trust that you'll eventually come around.

drag a comb across your head.

[edit on 16-11-2006 by tasteslikethunder]

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:42 AM
thats a post i made almost a year ago. no one had anything to say about that... but i feel the same way. hope everyone is well -one year later. and in the end...

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:52 AM
Right look
Right sound
Right manager
Right Frontmen
Right writers
Right time.

I've always liked them, and I always will. My fascination with them ebbs and flows. But I can always return to my Beatles collection and find great music.

Sometimes I turn off one channel..left, or right speaker, it doesn't matter, and listen to Just Paul, or Just John..Or just the chorus of a song.
The Stereo separation was primitive at the time (or did they do it on purpose?)
Anyone else ever do that?

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:23 AM
I honestly believe that The Beatles are the most over-rated band ever.
Yes, they have recorded some excellent tunes but come on.
The Rolling Stones and The Who have a much better catalogue of music, even if The Stones have nowbecome an embarresment. :shk:
The Small Faces and possibly even The Kinks were better at the time.

This is only my opinion, for what little it's worth, and I understand that I am very much in the minority.

Despite not being "the best", I genuinely believe that 3 singers / bands helped change society through a combination of their music and their influence on the "youth" of the day;
Elvis Pressley in the 50's.
The Beatles in the 60's.
The Sex Pistols in the 70's.

No-one since has had the influence and effect that these 3 acts had.

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:49 AM
Love the Beatles!

The 60's was the greatest decade of music.

Dylan, the Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, CSNY, Joplin, Yardbirds, Herman's Hermits
, Temptations, Marvin,etc. etc.


I left out a bunch but I think you understand what I am saying.

On final note I would like to say:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 10:03 AM
The Beatles are over-rated. Thirty million screaming teen girls made them famous. If they had been four overweight dudes with flat-top haircuts they never would have been a success.

They did have one talent: working together to make tight pop songs.

Whereas most albums of the day were full of filler, the Beatles proved that you could record albums were EVERY song was worth hearing.

That was no mean feat in an era when most people expected one or two good songs per album and the rest throwaways.

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
The Stereo separation was primitive at the time (or did they do it on purpose?)

In the early days of stereophonic sound, studio engineers would take tracks recorded in mono and create "fake stereo" by sending the vocals to one channel, with maybe one or two instruments, and the rest of the instruments and vocals to the other channel.

TRUE stereo separation is more subtle and separates the sound more evenly between channels.

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 10:35 AM
The thing about the Beatles was their intricate harmonies. That's what made the Beatles special, especially when they first arrived on the scene. The only band that could match them harmony-wise was the Beach Boys, who have always been grossly underrated in my book.


posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:22 AM
Because the world is round, it turns me on.

My parents were from that era, but The Beatles were a big part of my first music interests growing up. Every song for me paints a vivid picture of what they are saying wether I can decipher the true meaning or not.
And I just have to say, Elvis may have influenced music, but it wasnt his own talents that made it happen. IMO he was a big fraud. A Poster child.

new topics

top topics


log in