I’ve never liked wine or the Beatles. *shrug*
My opinion as well of 99% of Country music and beer/wine..ALL of it. Yuck.
The beatles are hot garbage, but they where funny when interviewed.
Chances are high; you won't like what I've got to say.
|Once a Marine, |
always a Marine
Considering the title of this thread, I probably never should’ve even stepped in it. But anyone who has even mildly studied the influence of the Beatles on music throughout the decades, could never in good conscience say that they “sucked“.
Hate them, dislike them, say they’re the worst band you’ve ever heard. Cool. But saying the Beatles as a whole, “Sucked” is just a very inaccurate statement.
All it takes...is all you got.
For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know
|His diet consists of black|
coffee, and sarcasm.
Not quite sucked, but overrated. I like a few songs, for example, "A Day in the Life," but others like "Hey Jude" are shit. I'll leave the wine to the oenophiles.
. Well I have good news for you, Wu-tang Clan will be performing at Simpsonville SC on June 7, certainly not bubblegum music and I bet you’re a Big Fan.
Chances are high; you won't like what I've got to say.
The title of your post says it all. Your taste is all in your mouth.
Don't believe everything you think.
NRA Benefactor/Patriot Member
Pharma Bro Music!!! Sadly I do not believe Martin is attending.
|On the DL|
The whole discussion is subjective, so I'm gonna stick with "opinion." Different people, different opinions. Note that I'm not making any statement as to which opinion is correct, even though mine is right and anybody who disagrees with it is a jerk.
A mind is a terrible thing.
Fair enough. I am 45 and I cannot stand them. Or the dipshit peace and love (but not really)or revolutionary (communist loving) nonsense that mind rotted too many doe eyed fans.
Paul McCarty said "If it wasn't for the Buddy Holly and the Crickets there wouldn't be the Beatles." A lot of the stuff they played in Liverpool before coming to the US were Buddy Holly songs.
But I'll admit, they did excel in one area - looking weird in their day. In their time, they were the best at it.
Hardly. Explore some of the groups in that time. You ever watch the Janis Joplin interview? The Beatles were very conventional. It is hard to understand if you were a preschooler or not even born. Their look changed with Sgt Pepper. Maybe you need to watch some films of Woodstock or catch a young Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider. Even Ed Sullivan liked them. Nice boys with mop head haircuts or something to that effect. Ed hated the Stones.
You never did answer what groups you like. The guess someone had was WuTang Clan, but I do not think that is correct.
from the abyss
There are only so many ways to put together C, G, and D chords, and add a few drum beats in. I'm an intermediate (at best) player and I can do it.
To think that none of the amazing music made since the early 60's would have been made without the influence of the Beatles, I think, is an ignorant statement.
They were pop stars. Famous because they were the first of their kind, young, cute, and mediocre musicians. Just a little more popular than the Monkees who were much better IMO. The Taylor Swifts of their day if you will.
There are musical geniuses who have created works of art that will live on for hundreds of years if not more. Yellow Submarine ain't on that list.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." Winston Churchill
^ ^ ^ ^ Gustofer is correct, IMHO.
Mediocre musicians at best. None of them could even read musical notation!
I'm with Ben Shapiro (an excellent amateur violinist) on this. This vid is ~10min. Please watch it and watch it with an open mind:
Link to original video: https://youtu.be/Ej0NBRwht-w
When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth. - George Bernard Shaw
|parati et volentes|
So you're saying that The Beatles ripped off their name from The Crickets? Why, because they're both insects? I guess the Eagles ripped off their name from the Byrds, and the Byrds and the Yardbirds ripped off their names from Charlie Parker.
Blatant rip-off, no. But it speaks to their unoriginality. The very heavy influence of Buddy Holly and the Crickets is without question. Even Paul McCartney acknowledges it. The Beatles cut their teeth playing Holly.
The Beatles are the dry-wine of the music world. Too many people think that if you have any discernment at all and you like any kind of wine, then you must like dry-wine. You must, its a requirement. After all, it's the pinnacle of all wines. So to with the Beatles. If you like pop or rock, then you not only have to like the Beatles, but acknowledge them as the founders of modern rock. I say horseshit on both accounts.
Dry-wine tastes like dog-piss strained through a dirty sock. And the Beatles sound like that process.
Beatles: I don’t much like their performances, but I enjoy some of their tunes transcribed for orchestra. E.g., “Penny Lane”.
Dry wine: I mostly agree with you there. For wine, I usually drink Dow’s 10 yo Tawny Port. I used to buy Taylor Fladgate 10 yo Tawny Port too, but I’ve had a few bottles that were slightly off over the past year.
Look about you.
I was a senior in high school when the Beatles hit the scene. I hated them, but the girls loved them so we listened to them.
My favorite wine is dry very bold red wine.
U.S. Army, Retired
Sinatra called “Something” "the greatest love song of the past 50 years." He was also known to mistakenly introduce it in live performances as his favorite Lennon & McCartney song, even though it was written by George Harrison.”
“Without Carl Perkins, there would be no Beatles.” Paul McCartney
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5|