Bands you don't like but everyone else does

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by RussL30

I'm 35, so probably much younger than most here on the forum.

I love a lot of older music from the 50s-80s, and I know this is heresy, but I absolutely cannot stand the Beatles.

Any particular reason? "The Beatles" covers a pretty wide spectrum of music. She Loves You, I've Just Seen a Face, Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, Lucy in the Sky etc., Something, Here Comes the Sun, Let It Be, and everything in between. Lots of types of music to dislike.

[The Watchman]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Any particular reason? "The Beatles" covers a pretty wide spectrum of music. She Loves You, I've Just Seen a Face, Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, Lucy in the Sky etc., Something, Here Comes the Sun, Let It Be, and everything in between. Lots of types of music to dislike.

I completely understand the sentiment. Beatles music is 50-60 years old at this point. Compare that to how we felt about songs of the 1920s at that time we were first exposed to the Beatles. We might think the Beatles were cutting edge and their music timeless, but a lot of that sounds pretty primitive in these days of hip hop, Taylor Swift and K-pop.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by The Watchman

I completely understand the sentiment. Beatles music is 50-60 years old at this point. Compare that to how we felt about songs of the 1920s at that time we were first exposed to the Beatles. We might think the Beatles were cutting edge and their music timeless, but a lot of that sounds pretty primitive in these days of hip hop, Taylor Swift and K-pop.

But he said he likes a lot of other music from the same period.

I don’t really think “primitive” when I think of Beatles music.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by The Watchman

I completely understand the sentiment. Beatles music is 50-60 years old at this point. Compare that to how we felt about songs of the 1920s at that time we were first exposed to the Beatles. We might think the Beatles were cutting edge and their music timeless, but a lot of that sounds pretty primitive in these days of hip hop, Taylor Swift and K-pop.

Okay, but I was responding to a post that said

"I love a lot of older music from the 50s-80s, and I know this is heresy, but I absolutely cannot stand the Beatles."

So the issue was specifically related to that band, rather than being a generalized "kids these days" kind of thing.

And actually, that band spanned a wide variety of musical styles, so it's not an "I can't stand [x type of music]" issue either.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Okay, but I was responding to a post that said

"I love a lot of older music from the 50s-80s, and I know this is heresy, but I absolutely cannot stand the Beatles."

So the issue was specifically related to that band, rather than being a generalized "kids these days" kind of thing.

And actually, that band spanned a wide variety of musical styles, so it's not an "I can't stand [x type of music]" issue either.

Seriously. I’m still tryna figure out in what sense Taylor Swift is more advanced than the Beatles.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Okay, but I was responding to a post that said

"I love a lot of older music from the 50s-80s, and I know this is heresy, but I absolutely cannot stand the Beatles."

So the issue was specifically related to that band, rather than being a generalized "kids these days" kind of thing.

And actually, that band spanned a wide variety of musical styles, so it's not an "I can't stand [x type of music]" issue either.

I think, for people who grew up on the Beatles, that may seem true. To me, they have two sounds; bubblegum pop/rock, and darker stuff. I've never liked bubblegum pop. With the darker stuff, I love a lot of the songwriting. I truly do. But, the production is often annoying. Weird hard panning decisions, odd instruments and sounds, etc. At the time I'm sure it was exciting but it sure does make it sound dated and, at times, grating. Take a song like Norwegian Wood. It's fundamentally brilliant. But, they ruin it for me half way through with the sitar and production decisions. I can't enjoy it. But, to hear Colin Hay perform it, wow, what an amazing song. I find a lot of Beatles songs to be that way. Hearing the songs performed with restraint on just vocal and guitar, they're wonderful. I think Blackbird is one of the few that was perfect the way the Beatles recorded it. (edit; never mind. I just listened again and forgot they added the stupid bird sounds, lol. That's what I mean by "restraint" being needed)

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by The Watchman

I completely understand the sentiment. Beatles music is 50-60 years old at this point. Compare that to how we felt about songs of the 1920s at that time we were first exposed to the Beatles. We might think the Beatles were cutting edge and their music timeless, but a lot of that sounds pretty primitive in these days of hip hop, Taylor Swift and K-pop.

Maybe you're referring to production, but the songwriting in pop today is very, very basic. It beyond "primitive". And, a lot of it is driven by marketing formulas. It's the musical equivalent of McDonalds. If anything, the Beatles were far more advanced when it comes to songwriting because of their willingness to experiment on some songs.

As far as production goes, yea, things change. I'm not a fan of their production and a lot of that experimentation has aged poorly.

[Silurian]

Thotch.

I liked the first album but completely lost interest after that, although Pat Quid is an underrated guitarist.

I couldn't get into any of Brian Pern's solo stuff.

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

I cannot stand to listen to Gorden Lightfoot. So sue me. : )

Steve

P.S. I am 75 years old.

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Seriously. I’m still tryna figure out in what sense Taylor Swift is more advanced than the Beatles.

Yeah I don't see it. I gave her a listen at least hoping to hear a riveting voice and there wasn't one. For me it was eye candy and that was about it. Amazing what marketing can do. I do understand she is a very nice and generous person though. But then I was expecting a rich female country voice from Sheryl Crow when I first heard her, and came away disappointed too.

Or maybe I need to listen to more that one song?

[Cecil6243]

Rush. Can't stand the sound of the high pitched vocalist. I can picture him gonged on the old gong show. Or am I missing something?

[GoPappy]

Moody Blues
Springsteen
REM
U2
Dave Matthews
Coldplay

[SFCRetired]

There are a lot of bands I do not like that other people seem to fawn over. Too many to list. But I will give my top contenders.

1. Queen
2 The Beatles
3.Most of the eighties rock and rollers so called hair bands, with some exceptions for a few songs they did.
Like I said there are a lot of bands I didn't and don't like as a whole but most of them at least had some songs I could stomach, to include Queen.


I know the Beatles changed music but was it really the music or the culture they changed? You decide. Most of their songs were catchy teeny bop songs. The later songs were just awful with a couple exceptions for hey Jude, Yesterday etc. Disclaimer, I loved them in my youth but their music did not grow old with me.

For those who don't like REO Speedwagon keep in mind, the band changed when Kevin Cronin seemed to take over the band and it was downhill from there. Same songs different lyrics. But they could rock it out in their early days.

[SFCRetired]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Seriously. I’m still tryna figure out in what sense Taylor Swift is more advanced than the Beatles.

Taylor Swift is a product of the industry. The industry always has an entertainer directed at their buying target audience and Taylor is the the new Brittany Spears who took over from Madonna who took over from etc. It really is that simple. Talented yes, authentic no. Some say she and her father are thieves. But there are a lot of entertainers like her. They are entertainers, not musicians.

[eyesore]

Taylor Swift over The Beatles....REALLY? come on.