The Beatles suck

[Geoff]

Okay, this needs to be moved.

 

and here goes another SR86 debate that no-one will agree with;

 

Geoff, you like Bon Jovi.....Richie Sambora picked up a guitar after seeing The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show....

 

if the beatles didnt exist then its very likely he woulda just found another band, but, maybe he would have listened to more Eric Clapton and just gone straight into blues instead of rock...

 

im not going to list everyone that The Beatles influenced in our genre, all im saying is that if you look at the influences that our favourite bands have they probably go back to The Beatles, or Elvis or some other 60s band (the stones even), and if they dont then i bet their influences' influences do...

 

Dimes father was a session guitarist in the 70s wasnt he? maybe The Beatles are the reason he started playing guitar, in which case Dime wouldnt have even been famous if it werent for Lennon......but, this is only a guess....

 

at the end of the day, theres no way i can prove it....but nearly every great 80s rock musician played music that sounded alot different to what their influences played (Alexi Laiho of Children Of Bodom's biggest influence was Mark Knopfler and the Dire Straits, and now he plays death metal)

 

and heres an excerpt from Wikipedia for you Jez about Luke:

 

"Lukather was born Steven Lee Lukather on October 21, 1957 in San Fernando Valley, California. He started out playing keyboards and drums and then taught himself how to play the guitar starting at age seven when his father bought him a Kay acoustic guitar and a copy of The Beatles album Meet the Beatles. Lukather indicates that the album "changed his life" and that he was greatly influenced by the guitar playing of George Harrison in particular."

 

i had no idea Luke was influenced by The Beatles when i started this post, i just had a look at what made him learn to play out of curiousity and there it was...

 

so its possible that without The Beatles, Luke wouldnt play guitar, he'd be a keyboard player primarily, and because of that Toto may have never gotten anywhere...

 

does anyone agree with me yet? even if you dontlike the bands music, i can guarantee that atleast one of your favourite bands was influenced by them....theyre the foundation for most (not all) of the bands that followed

 

so in summary, the two people that called my statement bullshit, are fans of two different bands who were both influenced by The Beatles quite abit...

 

Kiss is my favorite band and there was no band that were a bigger influence on them then the Beatles, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to like them. Sure I respect them and I even like some of their songs but I actually prefer the bands they influenced such as Kiss, Cheap Trick and Enuff Z' Nuff.

 

But AGAIN I'll say that the point of this thread was to talk about DIMEBAG DARRELL not John Lennon.

I'm not trying to take away what Lennon meant to other people but the mainstream media adores Lennon and Cobain and people that they think are great while the tragic deaths of HH style musicians such as Dimebag, Criss Oliva(Savatage) and Eric Carr(Kiss) get swept under the rug and very rarely talked about.

I remember when Dime was murdered and they talked about it on CNN and the news guy Anderson Cooper even said he didn't know who was and it was a very short story. Again no offense to Lennon fans but he didn't mean a Goddamn thing to me personally while Dime was a huge part of my musical life and his and Pantera's music got me through some very shitty times. So in conclusion please stop talking about John Lennon.

FUCK

 

sorry, really i am...

 

i just wish people would think about the things i say before automatically calling it bullshit, they could atleast have a look for themselves before they belittle me that way, its a little condescending

 

i just wanted to point out that with Lennon, there would be no Dime to pay tribute to right here.

But Wes is right. Even if The Beatles inspired people to pick up a guitar, do you honestly thing they had any hand at all in how the whole 80's metal scene sounded? In brief, the answer is a certain "no". Simple as that.

 

and here goes another SR86 debate that no-one will agree with;

 

Geoff, you like Bon Jovi.....Richie Sambora picked up a guitar after seeing The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show....

 

if the beatles didnt exist then its very likely he woulda just found another band, but, maybe he would have listened to more Eric Clapton and just gone straight into blues instead of rock...

 

im not going to list everyone that The Beatles influenced in our genre, all im saying is that if you look at the influences that our favourite bands have they probably go back to The Beatles, or Elvis or some other 60s band (the stones even), and if they dont then i bet their influences' influences do...

 

Dimes father was a session guitarist in the 70s wasnt he? maybe The Beatles are the reason he started playing guitar, in which case Dime wouldnt have even been famous if it werent for Lennon......but, this is only a guess....

 

at the end of the day, theres no way i can prove it....but nearly every great 80s rock musician played music that sounded alot different to what their influences played (Alexi Laiho of Children Of Bodom's biggest influence was Mark Knopfler and the Dire Straits, and now he plays death metal)

 

and heres an excerpt from Wikipedia for you Jez about Luke:

 

"Lukather was born Steven Lee Lukather on October 21, 1957 in San Fernando Valley, California. He started out playing keyboards and drums and then taught himself how to play the guitar starting at age seven when his father bought him a Kay acoustic guitar and a copy of The Beatles album Meet the Beatles. Lukather indicates that the album "changed his life" and that he was greatly influenced by the guitar playing of George Harrison in particular."

 

i had no idea Luke was influenced by The Beatles when i started this post, i just had a look at what made him learn to play out of curiousity and there it was...

 

so its possible that without The Beatles, Luke wouldnt play guitar, he'd be a keyboard player primarily, and because of that Toto may have never gotten anywhere...

 

does anyone agree with me yet? even if you dontlike the bands music, i can guarantee that atleast one of your favourite bands was influenced by them....theyre the foundation for most (not all) of the bands that followed

 

so in summary, the two people that called my statement bullshit, are fans of two different bands who were both influenced by The Beatles quite abit...

 

Cheap Trick, another of my fave bands were/are heavily influenced by the Beatles aswell. All I am saying is that, yes SOME bands probably were influenced by The Beatles to a degree, along with alot of other artsts aswell though. Luke I know about, but he has many other influences, so they, on the whole, contribute to his playing, along with his own huge talent, not just one band. If the Beatles hadn't been around, I dare say it would have been someone else, as there were many better bands than them from the same era. That's me done - back to Dimebag!!

Agreed. If the Beatles were not around then people would say whoever filled their shoes inspired all these genres of music. People may have done things because of The Beatles' music, but that 1. doesn't mean I need to like them in any way 2. Doesn't mean they're a contributing reason to the music I like.

[heaven&hell]

No disrespect to the Beatles but of those bands from that era(1960's) I'll take The Who and day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[KarpetRydOFunk]

I'll take the Kinks over the Beatles.

[Geoff]

I won't deny any of them their place in history, but I hate when people assume you have to like them out of obligation or something.

[Geoff]

I'd take Nitro over The Beatles.

[heaven&hell]

I won't deny any of them their place in history, but I hate when people assume you have to like them out of obligation or something.

 

 

Most of the time I dig bands that influenced my fav bands but with the Beatles I just never got it.

They were in the right place at the right time with them being the first band to get that kind of attention and it was in the 60's when America was getting to be a little more open minded where in the 50's rock n roll was the devil in Middle America.

[Jez]

No disrespect to the Beatles but of those bands from that era(1960's) I'll take The Who and day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

The Beatles were one of the 'Boybands' of their day playing Pop music for the masses, as has been well documented over the years. The real music that has an influence on many of the artists that feature here come from the likes of The Who, Cream, The Kinks, The Faces, Led Zeppelin etc - all of whom piss from a great height in every way shape or form over the Pop muzak the Beatles were churning out with inane regularity.

[Fat Freddy]

I like the Beatles' later stuff when they grew out their hair, started doing all kinds of crazy drugs, hanging with the Maharishi Yoga, etc.

[phaffas]

Beatles = one of the most overrated bands of all time. Their music makes me cringe!

 

So many better bands from this period.. even if i dont listen to them..

[rob62972]

I even like The Knack more than The Beatles!!

 

One of my favorite Knack tunes:

 

[LV KIX]

Well... I would never say that the Beatles suck. In fact, I wouldn't even say Poison suck.

 

You know I kid you alot about some of the stuff you listen to Geoff... But the one band you and I both admire is SR-71. The funny thing is... Two bands that you have no respect for are the two bands that most inspire Mitch and the music of SR-71. Those being Cheap Trick and the Beatles. I'm sure you know that on the SR-71 debut there is even a song called "Paul McCartney". Personally, I've always prefered McCartney over Lennon, but thats just me.

 

I was lucky enough to see Paul McCartney live a few years ago... what a show he put on. Easily in my top 10 of all time. I didn't really start listening to the Beatles until later on but I have a great appreciation for alot of music they created. Though I do like the Beatles, but they also released quite a bit of suff I don't like that much.

 

I don't think you can really argue that the Beatles weren't one of the more influencial bands in rock history.

 

PS ~ When I saw McCartney in Vegas a few years back... it should be noted the none other then Alice Cooper was sitting front row and center.

[Geoff]

You know I kid you alot about some of the stuff you listen to Geoff... But the one band you and I both admire is SR-71. The funny thing is... Two bands that you have no respect for are the two bands that most inspire Mitch and the music of SR-71. Those being Cheap Trick and the Beatles. I'm sure you know that on the SR-71 debut there is even a song called "Paul McCartney". Personally, I've always prefered McCartney over Lennon, but thats just me.

Yeah, that's a great example of how being inspired by a band doesn't translate into sounding anything like them. As I said in that same thread, Cauterize are inspired by Green Day (who I despise).

 

Oh, and 'Paul McCartney' is a good song too. Better than anything I've ever heard from The Beatles.

[LV KIX]

You know I kid you alot about some of the stuff you listen to Geoff... But the one band you and I both admire is SR-71. The funny thing is... Two bands that you have no respect for are the two bands that most inspire Mitch and the music of SR-71. Those being Cheap Trick and the Beatles. I'm sure you know that on the SR-71 debut there is even a song called "Paul McCartney". Personally, I've always prefered McCartney over Lennon, but thats just me.

Yeah, that's a great example of how being inspired by a band doesn't translate into sounding anything like them. As I said in that same thread, Cauterize are inspired by Green Day (who I despise).

 

Oh, and 'Paul McCartney' is a good song too. Better than anything I've ever heard from The Beatles.

 

 

Just the fact that so many great bands were inspired by the Beatles make them an important part of rock history. I just don't see how people who listen to the music listed here on HH can say the Beatles suck. Thats like saying that most bands listed on the site have a crappy taste in music since many of these bands were directly influenced by the Beatles. I have a feeling some responses are more of a direct poke at Sambora than actual hate toward the Beatles.

 

PS- Mitch has delayed his solo disc again.... He should be writing with and producing for some pretty big acts in the near future.

[phaffas]

You know I kid you alot about some of the stuff you listen to Geoff... But the one band you and I both admire is SR-71. The funny thing is... Two bands that you have no respect for are the two bands that most inspire Mitch and the music of SR-71. Those being Cheap Trick and the Beatles. I'm sure you know that on the SR-71 debut there is even a song called "Paul McCartney". Personally, I've always prefered McCartney over Lennon, but thats just me.

Yeah, that's a great example of how being inspired by a band doesn't translate into sounding anything like them. As I said in that same thread, Cauterize are inspired by Green Day (who I despise).

 

Oh, and 'Paul McCartney' is a good song too. Better than anything I've ever heard from The Beatles.

 

 

Just the fact that so many great bands were inspired by the Beatles make them an important part of rock history. I just don't see how people who listen to the music listed here on HH can say the Beatles suck. Thats like saying that most bands listed on the site have a crappy taste in music since many of these bands were directly influenced by the Beatles. I have a feeling some responses are more of a direct poke at Sambora than actual hate toward the Beatles.

 

PS- Mitch has delayed his solo disc again.... He should be writing with and producing for some pretty big acts in the near future.

 

 

I dont care who posts they like them, they still suck.

[Geoff]

You know I kid you alot about some of the stuff you listen to Geoff... But the one band you and I both admire is SR-71. The funny thing is... Two bands that you have no respect for are the two bands that most inspire Mitch and the music of SR-71. Those being Cheap Trick and the Beatles. I'm sure you know that on the SR-71 debut there is even a song called "Paul McCartney". Personally, I've always prefered McCartney over Lennon, but thats just me.

Yeah, that's a great example of how being inspired by a band doesn't translate into sounding anything like them. As I said in that same thread, Cauterize are inspired by Green Day (who I despise).

 

Oh, and 'Paul McCartney' is a good song too. Better than anything I've ever heard from The Beatles.

 

 

Just the fact that so many great bands were inspired by the Beatles make them an important part of rock history. I just don't see how people who listen to the music listed here on HH can say the Beatles suck. Thats like saying that most bands listed on the site have a crappy taste in music since many of these bands were directly influenced by the Beatles. I have a feeling some responses are more of a direct poke at Sambora than actual hate toward the Beatles.

 

PS- Mitch has delayed his solo disc again.... He should be writing with and producing for some pretty big acts in the near future.

That Mitch Allan CD will never be released.

 

Me saying The Beatles suck was just a quick name to start the thread with... not to be taken too literally. Sure, I have no time for the band and personally really don't think they were that good at all, but hey, to each their own. As long as people like them because they like their songs instead of because they feel it's necessary to listen to them in order to appreciate good music, I'm happy.

[Dave]

A couple of Beatles tracks blend in nicely during Bad Company's Rock And Roll Fantasy on the In Concert, CD and DVD

Other than that .......Don't like em'

[Faron]

I like a lot of songs by The Beatles, some great stuff IMO

[Dead Planet]

The Beatles put out some damn fine music but most of it sounds dated today so I'm not surprised that the younger folks aren't into it.....

[Mullethead]

LOL!!!!!!!!!! I saw this thread start and just started laughing. Why is it I love Beatles songs when someone else does them? Because yes.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Beatles suck ass...period!

[Metal T]

Through all of the crap they've put out in their day they did have a few gems,but their stuff translates better with hard rock/metal though.Cry Wolf's cover of 'I Am The Walrus and' Realm's cover of 'Eleanor Rigby' are pretty d*mn good tunes!

[Fat Freddy]

I won't deny any of them their place in history, but I hate when people assume you have to like them out of obligation or something.

 

I can understand this position., cuz that's how I feel about a lot of bands, Led Zeppelin for one... yeah, OK, maybe they were a huge influence on a lot of the bands I listen to, but LZ honestly never did a damn thing for me.

 

I'd take Nitro over The Beatles.

 

Ouch! I don't think I'd quite go THAT far...

[KarpetRydOFunk]

Personally, I've always prefered McCartney over Lennon, but thats just me.

And me. And I get harassed around here (my town) everytime I mention it.

[aMetalhead1966]

Well I'm the Odd man out here cause I LOVE the Beatles...They piss all over most

of the "So Called" classic 60's band..all those bands put together did not have the

musical or cultural impact that they did...I pretty much have all of their releases..some

of the early stuff is kinda silly, but in all actuallity, they were a rude hard rocking blues

band..from a lower class area...know for fighting hecklers, it was Brian Epstien

who straightened them out, made them cut their hair, quit smoking on stage etc..The funny

thing is the Rolling Stones, who got the Image of Bad Boys, were really not that

way at all but the Beatles were...Lemmy talks about it (in his book) and how great they were in the beginning... but hey if ya don't like em..oh well that's how it goes..for me I HATE the Who ..utter rubbish IMO..The Kinks are really good and Zeppelin are the Kings...

[Axelinger]

The entire Beatles suck/don't suck issue is mostly a matter of generation. It all comes down to what was king when a person was experiencing their formative years. For the most part, what you discover as your musical taste and preference in your years as a teen and young adult determines what you will stand by and rabidly defend as you age. For a lot of people, hearing someone say their favorite band, or genre, or musical taste sucks, is on par with saying, "Your wife's a whore", and we've seen this on an almost daily basis when posters have gone absolutely bugshit when a beloved artist has been disrespected. It's human nature. If it was before my time, how can I possibly appreciate it? How can I even briefly entertain the notion that what my parents listened to might have been cool? It was cool... in 1945, and right up until a new generation of music came along and blew the big band era right out of the water. It was new; it was hip; it was happening; it was groovy, man. American rebels like Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Buddy Holly, and Elvis pioneered this new sound, and they were the emerging kings. Hell, they were gods to that generation. But their influence on that generation spawned imitators and innovators to take it to the next level, and that's where the British Invasion kicked in. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, and many others rose to take the torch from the gods with scores of garage bands cropping up and driving parents to distraction, as the previous generation sought to quell the logical next step of the advance of that "heathen rock and roll." But there was no turning back. There was Beatle Mania, and if you weren't around to experience at least the tail end of it, you really have no idea how insane it was. It lasted for several years and it was madness on par with what had been experienced several years before with Elvis. There is no denying that The Beatles were the last act that generated such hype and hysteria. They owned a generation. There have been acts in the post Beatle era that generated fanfare, but nothing remotely like what they garnered over several years from the masses. By and large, if you were a teen when The Beatles were at the crest of their wave, you went fucking nuts over them. That type of prolonged hysteria simply hasn't occurred for any act following them.

 

And their influence was even greater than that of the pioneers with their disciples taking what they learned from them to reach the next level, which began to shift some of that focus from the British Invasion towards another crop of new artists - this time on a global level of emerging talents. Rock and roll had been gaining momentum throughout the world and it had now arrived in full force. To coincide, the new generation gradually pushed The Beatles back from the limelight as the new gods took over, and rock and roll branched off in assorted directions. These new artists were the new kings of cool, and it became in vogue to dismiss The Beatles as "yesterday's news" - despite the protestations of those artists, who praised The Beatles as the influence they could not exist without. In almost biblical proportions, these artists begat the next artists, who begat the next artists, and so on - each generation weakening in their understanding that the trail blazers were a vital component to the existence of the current incarnation of cool. To suggest that "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" has any bearing on what you hear being produced today will open one to scorn and derision by the current generation, but history shows the current crop of artists will be "yesterday's news" to following generations, and those people will make the same generalized dismissals of what is considered cool today.

 

I just caught the tail end of the hysteria generated by The Beatles, and my formative years were about a decade after their unfortunate demise, so my taste was arrived at during the hard rock as king era, but nothing I've seen since that time period of the mid to late 1960's has even come remotely close to the madness of Beatle Mania. Seeing as my favorite artists were able to forge a new genre that has given me the sounds I listen to today, I have nothing but respect and admiration for all that The Beatles and the rest of the British Invasion, as well as the pioneers of rock, did to make that possible. They may suck to your ears compared to your taste, but somewhere along the line, those sounds you like today, are undeniably influenced by previous gods.

[Stefan]

The entire Beatles suck/don't suck issue is mostly a matter of generation. It all comes down to what was king when a person was experiencing their formative years. For the most part, what you discover as your musical taste and preference in your years as a teen and young adult determines what you will stand by and rabidly defend as you age. For a lot of people, hearing someone say their favorite band, or genre, or musical taste sucks, is on par with saying, "Your wife's a whore", and we've seen this on an almost daily basis when posters have gone absolutely bugshit when a beloved artist has been disrespected. It's human nature. If it was before my time, how can I possibly appreciate it? How can I even briefly entertain the notion that what my parents listened to might have been cool? It was cool... in 1945, and right up until a new generation of music came along and blew the big band era right out of the water. It was new; it was hip; it was happening; it was groovy, man. American rebels like Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Buddy Holly, and Elvis pioneered this new sound, and they were the emerging kings. Hell, they were gods to that generation. But their influence on that generation spawned imitators and innovators to take it to the next level, and that's where the British Invasion kicked in. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, and many others rose to take the torch from the gods with scores of garage bands cropping up and driving parents to distraction, as the previous generation sought to quell the logical next step of the advance of that "heathen rock and roll." But there was no turning back. There was Beatle Mania, and if you weren't around to experience at least the tail end of it, you really have no idea how insane it was. It lasted for several years and it was madness on par with what had been experienced several years before with Elvis. There is no denying that The Beatles were the last act that generated such hype and hysteria. They owned a generation. There have been acts in the post Beatle era that generated fanfare, but nothing remotely like what they garnered over several years from the masses. By and large, if you were a teen when The Beatles were at the crest of their wave, you went fucking nuts over them. That type of prolonged hysteria simply hasn't occurred for any act following them.

 

And their influence was even greater than that of the pioneers with their disciples taking what they learned from them to reach the next level, which began to shift some of that focus from the British Invasion towards another crop of new artists - this time on a global level of emerging talents. Rock and roll had been gaining momentum throughout the world and it had now arrived in full force. To coincide, the new generation gradually pushed The Beatles back from the limelight as the new gods took over, and rock and roll branched off in assorted directions. These new artists were the new kings of cool, and it became in vogue to dismiss The Beatles as "yesterday's news" - despite the protestations of those artists, who praised The Beatles as the influence they could not exist without. In almost biblical proportions, these artists begat the next artists, who begat the next artists, and so on - each generation weakening in their understanding that the trail blazers were a vital component to the existence of the current incarnation of cool. To suggest that "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" has any bearing on what you hear being produced today will open one to scorn and derision by the current generation, but history shows the current crop of artists will be "yesterday's news" to following generations, and those people will make the same generalized dismissals of what is considered cool today.

 

I just caught the tail end of the hysteria generated by The Beatles, and my formative years were about a decade after their unfortunate demise, so my taste was arrived at during the hard rock as king era, but nothing I've seen since that time period of the mid to late 1960's has even come remotely close to the madness of Beatle Mania. Seeing as my favorite artists were able to forge a new genre that has given me the sounds I listen to today, I have nothing but respect and admiration for all that The Beatles and the rest of the British Invasion, as well as the pioneers of rock, did to make that possible. They may suck to your ears compared to your taste, but somewhere along the line, those sounds you like today, are undeniably influenced by previous gods.

 

Exactly what I meant to say

 

Well said!