To think Yes, The Beatles were brilliant, but ffs get over it

[DonaldStott]

Yes. I love The Beatles. They were amazing. There music has stood the test of time.

My mum is from Liverpool. I live near Liverpool. The Beatles are ingrained in my growing up. What did John Hannah say on Sliding Doors - The should be called The Featuls.

Blah blah blah.

This incessant celebrating EVERY anniversary of EVERYTHING they have EVER done needs to stop.

Now it's 50 years since Sgt Pepper album.

We've had the anniversary of the first time they played at the Cavern, the anniversary of john lennons death, the anniversary of the first time ringo farted, the anniversary of the release of white revolver, the anniversary of the day they returned to play in the cavern, the anniversary of the release of hard days night.........It's endless.

Am I being a misbag, or is it ridiculous? I will state again, I am aware of their cultural influence and love their music.

Also Liverpool. I CAN'T FRIGGING STAND THEM.

But they didn't write all their own tracks. So no different to many other boy bands who used a mix of their own and others.

Of course they weren't a boy band. They changed the face of music!

Always found them overrated myself and only really like a couple of their songs. Rolling Stones i also don't get.

The Kinks on the other hand are underrated

OP that picture is hysterical - I am pmsl.

love your humour!

I can't stand them but DH is the opposite. We have the same bloody argument every few months. I love Oasis and he says they just tried to ape The Beatles. And so on for decades...

Surely the definition of a boy band is that it's manufactured by someone else. That's simply not true of the Beatles. And musically, they were so original and inventive, constantly evolving over their short career. I can't see how it's possible to dislike everything they did.

YANBU Stott.

Never been a fan. Quite like "Blackbird" but that's it. Mediocre.

It's McCartney's surprised puffy pursed mouth. It looks like a cat's ringpiece.

They wrote the vast majority of their own tracks, especially the later albums were all Beatles and no covers.

How anyone can say they were mediocre is beyond me. If they were mediocre they wouldn't have lasted in the 60s, and they certainly wouldn't stand the test of time.

Yes, they did covers at the start of their career - as did all bands back then. The Beatles changed music because they were the first 'auteurs' band - after The Beatles, most bands tried to write their own songs.

Having stuck up for them, however, I do 'get' the Beatles 'ennui' and how it can be off putting to those less familiar with their oeuvre. I also PMSL at Macca's new album cover

Not all boybands were manufactured. There's many that started out as mates and were found. and then like the Beatles along came a manager who styled them.

"boyband hype"

Well, demonstrating you know nothing about music there.

They wrote some of the most covered songs in history. Even Ol' blue eyes did a cover of Something.

This is Jimi Hendrix covering 'Seargeant Pepper'. Some of the greatest artists of the era rated them. The idea that they were just some skiffle and or just somebody band is ridiculous.

Paul McCartney tops my shit list

I thought it was just me. He strikes me as an utterly joyless fucker, and while this is only what i've heard via the intertubes, as tight as a gnat's chuff. I know many people didn't have much time for his second wife and said she was just after his money, but for heavens sake, it's not like he didn't have plenty to spare. His Olympics spot was an embarassment (as a PP said) his mouth looked like he had particularly ill fitting falsers in.

In fact the only one that didn't appear to be an utter wanker was George, but no doubt someone will come on whose Aunt Mabel met him in 1966 and can contradict me

How anyone can say they were mediocre is beyond me. If they were mediocre they wouldn't have lasted in the 60s

But popularity in music isn't always based upon who is the best/most talented musically.

No-one can argue that the Beatles weren't popular: musically though I firmly believe they were mediocre

Mediocre. Far more interesting stuff happening than them at that time.

You won't like this either.

What do you call a cunt with wings?
Linda McCartney.

My favourite joke ever.

No but you were arrogant enough to dismiss the Beatles as mediocre, which , even if you don't like their music, you cannot do if you look at their influence on music, their output, even their influence on recording.

Yanbu. I once made the grave mistake of saying to a work colleague that The Beatles were overrated. You'd think I had insulted his mother - he wouldn't let it go.

I can remember when the Albert Dock was getting refurbed and the focus was on the Beatles and the Merseybeat scene. Likewise, our Football teams/Grounds are a focus as well.

It annoyed me because of the lack of focus on our history (we were losing grade 1 and 2 listed buildings etc because of budget cuts), (and I don't like football or the Beatles and see John Lennon as a fuck up) but then the Slave museum and others were built/refurbed.

I lived in Anfield and we wouldn't have had the business around us if it wasn't for football and likewise The Beatles pull in money for the City, in the same way, Royalty does for London and Shakespeare for Stratford-upon-Avon.

Under informed then aren't you.

Cause it clearly shows that you have no idea about what went on during their writing or recording process, or about how well regarded they are by other musicians of the time, or about how they started to shape the music industry and changed the way albums were recorded, allowing other artists to take advantage of this.

All of this is well documented, but you have your opinion.

It is 'arrogant' to have a musical preference now?