well said, and I'm not just kissing your ass cause yous a big mutterfucker.

Your disqualification occurred for a different transgression. (hint: it starts with a W and ends in a RENS).

billy, billy - you one funny fuh

I blame the modern day parent.

When I was a kid your parents record collection was 10-15 years out of date so all I ever heard growing up was Rolling Stones, Tangerine Dream and Steely Dan.

Today the modern parent is far to trendy (or rather likes to think they are), generally listening to crappy modern music that they think is 'hip' because it got in the Top Ten when in fact they are just stupid old duffers in clothes that they really shouldn't be wearing.

As a result, the modern child/teenager gets no musical education whatsoever.

I would agree with this being the most likely reason. My dad's collection had Stones and Johnny Cash, hence my early love of those two artists. From other members of my family, like older cousins, I heard the Beatles.

For me, after I was born, my mom would sing me Beatles songs as lullabies. I feel like it was just ingrained in my psyche from early on. There is a great quote in a semi-current Hugh Grant film where he states that people are just born with Beatles lyrics and music in them. I feel this way about myself. I think people whose parents are of the baby boomer generation, and especially those with parents who were of the impressionable age when the Beatles hit, are far more likely to know about the Beatles than say, a kid 11 years old, or someone whose parents were 20something when they hit.

I'm flabbergasted by many opinions in this thread.

Jesus man, its the fucking Beatles......

I know it kind of like being Catholic and not knowing who the Pope is.

yeah, the beatles still influence music every day
and Nirvana was nowhere near the impact that the Beatles had at that time.

not even in the same ballpark. (and i'm a died in the wool geeked out nirvana fan)

I don't think I listened to them up until about 5 years ago. I mean I'd heard them before but just never got into them. I only own Revolver & Abbey Road.

Liking them or thinking that they made the greatest album of all time? The latter is not true. And I make no apologies for not being a big Beatles fan. I have an appreciation for what they did and all, they just never had an impact on my musical life, unlike the things I was raised on. What's an elevator?

Best album=subjective

Most widely influential group in music=fact

There are definitely people who have no idea what is and isn't a Beatles song. At work there is a guy who, predominantly, listens to R&B/hip hop. He has no clue as to rock and roll history, and for him it doesn't matter. It doesn't bother me in the least because, to me, its great that he digs what he digs. These people exist. To them the Beatles are no more relevent than a Skee Lo album.

Yeah. . . they really have, though. And your opinion on the best album ever is a little devalued when you HAVEN'T LISTENED TO AN ENTIRE BEATLES ALBUM. Not that you have to name a Beatles album as your number one (my number one isn't), but it's kinda like naming the best jazz album without hearing Kind of Blue.

I disagree. Most people from this board have likely been in the same room with enough Beatles songs to gather if they would be a candidate for best album without actually hearing a Beatles album in its entirety. If it ain't your cup o' tea, there's no reason to choke it down so that you can now give credibility to your Listmania.

Kind of Blue also bores me to tears and I can't finish it.

Nah, that's just another opinion. Not saying its a bad one, but its just another opinion.

If the value of my opinion is based upon hearing an entire Beatles album, then you just devalue away, bro.

Yeah but you can't just take a handful of Beatles songs and say "Oh this album sucks" without hearing the entire album. Do you base your top 10 on a few songs from each album?

Sis.

almost = [nico]

I seriously sat down and thought about that before I typed that. I mean, when you look at the worldwide spectrum...artists abound. BUT, what conclusion I came to was no other artists have even come close to the worldwide appeal of the Beatles. You may have an artist in say, India, who is loved by all and is of the mass appeal/influence but barely reach people other than the specialty crowd in the US, Britain, etc. The Beatles though have been exposed all over the place. Therefore their influence would be greater. You're right, the way I proposed that answer was a bit one-sided, but I think there is a great validity to it. Not that you didn't agree on some level with it

sorry, sis.

Yeah. It'd be like judging the Clash based on "Should I Stay Or Should I Go?" and "Rock The Casbah". I love the Beatles, but I don't own their first 5 albums, which is where most of the most well-known songs are from.

Now, you did say group, so perhaps this isn't valid, but what about Beethoven? Bach? The caveman who invented the drum?

Some people just aren't into music. I used to work with a guy who NEVER bought an album in his life, and only listened to sports radio. He actually said that he HATES music. It's an extreme example, I know, but not listening to the Beatles shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

Actually, almost=Jon. I am most certainly a dude, and I don't know who this nico person is.

Really? You're kidding. I could've sworn...

[nico] is a former CMJ employee who posted on that board and then migrated here as well. Don't know where she went now, if you're not her.