That incredibly short time frame is probably what impressed me the most about The Beatles. All that music in seven years. It's nothing short of awe inspiring.

not anymore - alot of teenagers listen to Nirvana, Guns and Roses et al. Hell, Green Day have been around since the early 90's.

I actually wish bands would pretend that they didn't listen to any older bands, denying the past and acting like they come from a completely new place. Glam did it - "Brother’s back at home/With his beatles and his stones/We never got if off on that revolution stuff/It was such a drag" - Punk did it too. I think it would be healthier for bands to do it these days too.

I respectfully disagree. How many can truly disassociate music from external context or associations?

If the Beatles represent the 70% of people whom one can't stand, it's no surprise that one won't like the Beatles, regardless how many songs they wrote, movies they made, nor the quality thereof.

To the extent the Beatles are idolized, they become fair game for any punk's icnoclasm.

So it becomes a case of "What have you got" rebellion?

I think the main point, especially towards genius on wheels, that he doesn't not like the TYPE of music The Bestles play, he just seems to dislike cos some other folks do like em, and it may seem cool or Punk to not like them.

Dumbest reason to like or dislike anything.

And remember, Bowie pretty well invented that punk sound you love so much, but he stole it from The Beatles and Lou Reed.

The fact that you subscribe to a punk orthodoxy or canon is is dissapointing Billz.

This might be the most ignorant statement I've ever read.

I also don't know where you're finding "fact". I could deliver a litany of reasons I don't like the Beatles, none of which have anything to do with any "orthodoxy".

All I'm saying is I have no problem with dog lashing out at the Beatles because they represent the "70% of people" from whom he/she wishes to distance themself. If it's nothing more than rebelling against "what've you got", that's fine too. Any rebellious attitude needs an object against which to rebel, who cares if it's the Beatles or Izod sweaters?

Go listen to Dr. Robert and Suffragette City, and pull the dick out of your ears.

And rebelling for rebellion's sake is as old as the Bible (Prodigal Son, anyone?) and a bit of questioning of orthodoxy is healthy. But your consistent dismissal of stuff in the same vein, but better, though less "pure" than whatever you are pumping has gotten tired.

I suspect that if I lived to the age of 112 I might, *might*, find a coherent point somewhere in that mess.

Yeah, it's almost like the Scopes monkey trial here.

Oooh, you must be attacking him because he likes the Beatles.

I agree with everything Radcliffe said in this thread and disagree with most of what Billz has said but still I think you're off the mark here. Punk didn't steal its sound from the Beatles and Bowie. A hell of a lot of punks idolized Bowie, but its roots trace back far before Bowie or the Beatles to guys like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddly, Ike Turner, etc etc. And if punk stole their sound, the Stones most definitely did too so get off your f'n high horse. You'll have to educate me on how exactly Dr. Robert fits in your puzzle. Its not exactly the first song I think of when I think of the punk sound or attitude.

np: Axis Bold as Love

My contention is not that the Stones or The Beatles didn't steal their sound. Unlike Zep, both these groups admit it.

My main contention with punks. And Dude liek Billz who subscribe to the sellout theory of popularity, is that punk ain't that original. I love it. I lobe the attitude, and the back to basics whoop it up ethos, but it didn't spring forth out of Zeus' head liek Athena. And it don't sound too much different from what I hear on Dr. Robert, Suffragette City or Lies.

Or "TV Eye," but you're not likely to bring that one up.

I used to just dislike the Beatles. It's things like this that made me hate them.


But okay, I guess I see what some of you are getting at. I guess the bottom line would be:

I dislike the Beatles. I hate Beatles fans.


Does that make more sense?

Isn't that terribly unmelodious, horrible, unlistneble and declasse song produced by Bowie.

I skipped most of the Iggy/Stooges parts of Please Kill Me.

Yes, this makes sense. Feel free to dislike any music you like, for whatever reasons you wish.

Here is where you stop being a discerning music lover and start sounding like a stupid bigot indie kid.

Well jeez, it seems I can't say anything without coming across as uppity and "punk".

I'm sure many people on here would have no problem saying "I hate Limp Bizkit fans" or "I hate Ashlee Simpson fans" so I can't see that the problem lies with the phrasing of the sentence.

It is simply because it's the Beatles? I've never seen anyone else get as much shit as I do for saying they dislike a certain artist's fanbase.

True. But then, I would guess that people who like the Beatles are a much more diverse bunch than Limp Bizkit fans...

So it's because they're more diverse that I'm not allowed to dislike them? Or because there's too much of a generalization then?

I'm sure Limp Bizkit fans aren't as diverse as Beatles fans. But on the flipside, I'm sure Bizkit fans aren't as pushy or forceful about declaring their band as the most important band of all time, or calling anyone who doesn't like them stupid, or insisting things like "if you don't like the Beatles, you don't like any band making music today".

So you can see how I'd get less annoyed by Durst fans than I would by some other people around these parts.

Eh, give the kid a break.

Number one, it really doesn't throw the Earth off its orbit if he doesn't like a group for whatever reason, no matter how trivial, ambiguous or uninformed you think it is.

Number two, I used to really dislike Bob Dylan. Now I find that as I get older, I appreciate Bob Dylan more and The Pixies less.

TV Eye is from Funhouse, Bowie didn't do that one.

You actually skipped reading about them too? Their stories in Please Kill Me are seriously degenerate. I can't believe that Ig lived through all that. Talk about jail. Sick, sick, sick.

There's a fine line between peanut butter and polynesian sauce/catsup/soup on your chest. I think you're just afraid to find out that somebody outmonged you.

Dear Lord, please forgive me for my first and only use of ATL-speak. OMG LOL!!!11!

Incidentally, my parents just installed a surround sound system, and while they're out of the house tomorrow, the first thing I'm going to do is pump out Funhouse and frighten the cats by flailing myself about with idiot glee.

I was thinking of challenging bikers to fights during your show and getting your ass kicked, rolling around in broken glass, the insane drug use. Stuff like that. The peanut butter was just funny.

to get back to an earlier point, I think maybe another reason why at least some younger people don't know much of the Beatles' music is because their albums never seem to be available at a decent price, particularly given how many records they have sold. It's kind of a silly thing, but I have a problem paying full price for an album from a band that's sold millions of records, when I can keep catching up on other older albums for half the price

for this reason the only Beatles I own is Sgt Peppers, even though if I saw the others at at less than retail I would be first in line to grab them

well, that, and the fact that it seems that even if baby boomers were interested in music growing up, all the ones I know have lost interest, so they're not playing those albums for their kids.

Like shooting fish in a barrel. A barrell you assembled to shoot fish from, so people would say "that guy sure can shoot some fish." They seem way too designed to "freak out the squares," and I find it trite and boring.