Monday, November 7, 2011

Five Reasons Why The Beatles Suck

Exposing Irrefutable Proof that the “Fab Four” were the Most Overrated Musicians of All-Time

It was the '60s. Nobody knew everything they liked sucked.

Is it possible to discriminate against people and simultaneously enforce a status quo opinion via pop cultural tastes?

It sounds really stupid and unlikely, but I think I’ve uncovered a key example of such homogenized group ideal enforcement in modern music with something I like to call “The Exclusionary Beatles Principle.”

“The Exclusionary Beatles Principle” is this: no matter who you are or where you live, you MUST admit that the Beatles were either among the greatest musicians of all time OR they were the absolute most important ever. You must also admit that they were indelibly influential artists, extremely important social philosophizing poets and without question men of incredible ethics and values.

The social code I’ve observed in the western world is this: if you break away from “The Exclusionary Beatles Principle,” you are WRONG. The Beatles, for whatever reason, are a band that you MUST not only like, but give an incredible amount of reverence to. While it’s OK to crap on Lady Gaga, Michael Jackson (up until 2009, anyway) and Justin Bieber, not only is Beatles criticism frowned upon, it’s seen as a perversion of cultural thinking. If you don’t have a great deal of respect for the group, then you are considered guilty of non-group thought, which in turn, allows those within the same thought-group to fallaciously discredit and disbar you in just about every other domain, as well.

Well, old Jimbo here has never been one to refuse to barbecue a sacred cow, and I’m just going to come out and say it:

The Beatles sucked. I mean, hard.

Blasphemy, you say? Unfounded conjecture, you protest? Not so fast, amigo, because I’ve outline five SCIENTIFICALLY AND HISTORICALLY INDISPUTABLE reasons as to why not only are The Beatles EXTREMELY OVERRATED, but a downright crappy band of musicians AND human beings.

You say you want a revolution, man? Well, here’s a paradigm shift for you:


"..imagine no possessions..."

When people refer to Brian Epstein as the “fifth Beatle,” they’re WAY more accurate than they probably think. Not only did Epstein serve as the band’s original manager, he’s pretty much the Svengali that transformed the four mop-headed racket-makers from Nazi-dive playing scoundrels into the N*Sync of their day.

As part of Epstein’s “marketing strategy” for the band, he advised the group to make a few changes to their act - namely, everything. Not only did he force the kids to change their appearance (that’s where the suits and haircuts came in), he also advised/threatened them to play more “radio-friendly” tunes, which resulted in all of those Lou Pearlman-esque bubblegum songs making their way across the pond.

“Beatlemania,” in reality, was a heavily produced marketing ploy by Epstein and the bigwigs at Vee-Jay Records, who were willing to dump tons of payola to score themselves a Motown like sensation for the label, so that they could use The Beatles as a bargaining chip for a highly lucrative Capitol Records deal in the States.

In short, the term “Fab Four” actually is pretty fitting regarding the group - although if we wanted to steer closer to reality, that “fab” connotes not “fabulous,” but “fabricated.


Quick question: what exactly did The Beatles do differently as musicians?

The short answer? Absolutely nothing.

The Beatles early recordings might as well be admitted plagiarizations of countless American artists, from Carl Perkins to the Supremes to Roy Orbison to especially Buddy Holly. . .in fact, the name of the group is a direct nod to the name of Holly’s band, The Crickets. And that’s not even counting the groups’ countrymen, including the Dave Clark Five, whom the Beatles “borrowed” tons of inspiration from for their post-“Rubber Soul” albums. 

As far as their much revered later work goes, just remember this: The Beatles didn’t exactly pioneer the art, or crunching guitar overlap, Bengali interludes or orchestrated feedback in popular music, either.

Think “Helter Skelter” was the first heavy metal song ever recorded? Too bad Arthur Brown, Budgie and Blue Cheer were already established acts by the time the song was released, and completely ignore the fact that the first Jimi Hendrix album came out a full year before the “The White Album.”

The Beatles were FAR from being the first pop act to interject sitars into their sound, either. (Ravi Shankar, your table is waiting.)

Think “Revolution 9” was the first instance of a musical group getting all “industrial” on our asses? Well, it would be, if not for the fact that tons of bands like Cromagnon, The Monks, The Fugs and The Godz had already begun exploring fuzz and distortion years earlier.

Even The New York Times called the group out on their lifting of other bands’ sounds, which prompted John Lennon to write a nasty reply in 1971 in which he said that the Beatles’ music wasn’t a rip-off, but a love-in.

And in case you were wondering, the Beatles were successfully sued for those love-ins on THREE separate occasions, as Chuck Berry, Joe Garlandand the Chiffons all filed – and won –suits against the band for ripping off their music.


Odds are, you hear Beatles songs a lot. You hear them on the oldies station and you hear them on a perpetual loop at Starbucks. You’ve probably heard their number one singles a million billion times, but answer me this - just how many times have you heard a live recording of The Beatles performing?

Outside of the Ed Sullivan tapings, most people have never HEARD a live Beatles song, and that’s for a good reason: The Beatles were a TERRIBLE live act, that’s why.
...and you thought the Beach Boys were 
the only group famous for 
hanging out with psychopaths?

Earlier, I said that the Beatles didn’t pioneer anything new in music. Well, the closest they got to being innovators for pop music was the fact that they were the first band that necessitated overproduction in their recordings. Listening to “The White Album” or “Sgt. Pepper’s” is basically the equivalent of listening to the work of a hundred people, because there’s so much post work and audio tweaking on the tracks that there’s hardly anything organic about the compositions at all.

Here’s just a few criticisms about The Beatles overproduced albums that I’ve stumbled across on the Web:

“John Lennon and Paul McCartney are not writing together, haven't been for two years, and you can see the whole thing falling apart in Let It Be …there are only two songs which get anywhere and we have heard these so much they have lost their lustre…the rest of the album is hackneyed, originally supposed to signify the Beatles attempt to get back to rock and roll, to where they once performed live. This album is a sad attempt to recreate the days when they played before actual people and not George Martin and millions of dollars of sound equipment. There is a photograph of the group buried in their equipment, performing before cameras. The result was nothing live at all but a group of very famous people, heroes of our time simulating live performance…. Let It Be is a disparate album, going all sorts of different places at once, never unified… it reflects not the many sides of the Beatles in the act of creation, but the dissonance that precedes the fall.

“Flawed, botched, and overproduced by Phil Spector…”
“Let It Be is a grim reminder that there is nothing so depressing as the sound of breaking up. A salvage effort by Spector renders the LP's few worthy tunes unlistenable with lush strings and choirs.”

Heck, even the people that like The Beatles admit that they went overboard with the post-production. Just listen to this fanboy talk about the faults and foibles of “Sgt. Pepper”: 

“There is something wrong with Sgt Pepper, and it is by far the most overrated album in the Beatles catalog, and possibly the most overrated album of all time. Here are the arguments…the stereo effects are way too exaggerated, with vocals or other sounds panned all the way to the left or right, indicating a wild overuse of the Beatles newfound opportunity to mix a record in multitrack stereo. Albums since then, even Beatles albums subsequently produced, do not make use of such gimmicky stereo panning unless the effect is designed to be extreme. In the case of some of the tunes on Sgt Pepper, the extreme panning serves as a distraction instead of an enhancement.”

…and that tells you just about everything you need to know, don’t it?


Pic courtesy of some awesome guy named 
Steven Howard.
Say what you will about John Lennon’s lyrics (which he, by the way, thought were pretty pointless himself), the reality is unavoidable: none of the Beatles were remarkably talented at what they did. Yeah, Lennon and McCartney could play the piano, but if you made a list of the top one hundred pianists of the 20th century, you would have to be an absolute mongoloid to include them on the countdown. If you can name ANY bassists or drummers out there that cite McCartney or Ringo as direct influences on them, please let me know, because I haven’t heard such praise in all of my 25 years on the planet.

George Harrison was probably the most talented of the Beatles, but let’s face the facts: would anybody feel comfortable in naming him one of the greatest guitar players of all time? Was anything he did on par with the work of Hendrix, or Van Halen, or Stevie Ray Vaughn, or even a Scott Ian? In all reality, that dude  from Limp Bizkit was more impressive as a guitarist than he was.

The Beatles may have been adequate singers and writers of mildly above average poetry, but that’s about it as far as their musical dexterity goes.


For whatever reason, people seem to equate John Lennon and the music of the Beatles as symbolic of the peace and human rights movement of the 1960s.

The only problem? John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison were all a bunch of duplicitous, insincere a-holes.

McCartney and Harrison both went on and on about the ills of consumption and commercialization, but what do you know? Both guys spent the rest of their lives living in luxurious mansions, collecting gargantuan royalty checks that they spent on such humanitarian efforts as themselves. Ever one to note the value of the musical art form, McCartney celebrated the medium by doing what any connoisseur of art would - he bought up thelicensing rights to more songs than anybody on the planet, so that he couldmake a profit every time other people’s work was used for commercial purposes.

Julian and Cynthia Lennon, seen 
here paying respects to 
the man that gave peace 
a chance/ ruined their lives.
And then, there’s John Lennon, the “martyr” that just wanted us “to give peace a chance.” Here’s a quote about Mr. Lennon that you’ve probably never heard amidst all of that vaunting and praise he is perennially showered with:

"I have to say that, from my point of view, I felt he was a hypocrite…[he]could talk about peace and love out loud to the world but he could never show it to the people who supposedly meant the most to him…how can you talk about peace and love and have a family in bits and pieces - no communication, adultery, divorce? You can't do it, not if you're being true and honest with yourself."

At first, that sounds like your run of the mill case of the sour grapes, until you realize this: the above words were written by John Lennon’s own son

And that, in a nutshell, summarizes the innate hypocrisy behind those oh-so virtuous Beatles. You claim to promote all of these ideals that wins you a legion of fans, and what do you know? You do the exact opposite as soon as you’re off stage or out of the plain view of a camera.

I mean, what could possibly be more hypocritical than a guy that sang “imagine no possessions” dying with about $150 million in his bank account?

So what have we learned here today? Well, a lot, hopefully, key among them the fact that opinion is opinion and anybody that wants to enforce such as a cultural dictate is a grade-A despotic bung hole.

I’ve brought up the “Great Man” myth several times before, but it deserves another mention here. Throughout history, certain people are showered with praise for their “achievements,” even if they a.) really didn’t do what everyone claims they did or b.) they were absolute pricks in real-life that did horrible, horrible things that, for some reason, gets filtered out of the mainstream pool of cultural knowledge, despite tons of records existing on the matter.

A lot of the accolades thrown towards the Beatles are undeserved, the same way just about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING that has been or ever will be popular has. The important thing here is that you go beyond the fan boy and girl-ism of your cohorts and decide FOR YOURSELF what’s individually great or meaningful. . .

. . .because the moment you give up that inquisitive mindset, and especially if you just buy into the herd mentality without a smidge of skepticism, you’re pretty much setting yourself up for a lifetime of aimless following.


    and it'd sound even better if they had a better sound system.

    1. "This video contains content from Apple Corps Ltd, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."


    2. I watched another Beatles Live in Japan video which wasn't censored and it sounded crap.

  2. Replies
    1. rgref .. ..

  3. There is so much wrong with this I can't even begin

    Let's take one: The Beatles as Musicians

    Lennon and McCartney were both tremendous SINGERS, McCartney possessing one of the most versatile rock 'n roll voices out there, and Lennon not far behind.

    McCartney is frequently acknowledged as one of the great bassists - usually listed behind James Jamerson (Motown) as the most influential bassist.

    Granted, Lennon was average (for a mega performer) on guitar, George wasn't that great of a lead guitarist and Ringo is an above average drummer with a good feel.

    But the whole is more than the sum of its parts, as in any good band.

    1. He just said that they were mildly above average writers and singers.

    2. They were much better writers and composers than that.

    3. Well, I DO think that The Beatles are quite a bit overated, yes. However, by "overated" I don't mean to say that they were actually TERRIBLE or that they "sucked" in the words of the idiot author of this essay. I just mean that they get too much attention, thats all. And there are other famous musical acts whom I find overated too, like Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Jimmy Hendrix, The Doors and Bob Dylan to name a few. So it ain't just The Beatles with me either.

    4. I'd like to see you do better. Feel free to prove that you can then. George was a great guitarist by the way, Brian Epstein held him back the whole time emphasizing the whole Lennon/McCartney "genius". He proved himself in the albums "All Things Must Pass" and "Living in the Material World". So again, feel free to do better than they did, if you can. I know an awful lot of people who would think your opinions aren't worth shit.

    5. Paul is one of the greatest bassists of all time. the fact that you can't come to that conclusion yourself says a lot about your taste, and poor perception of talent. If you've never heard someone say "Paul is an incredible bassist" you're hanging out with people who also don't know shit about music. Get some new friends, stop reading Wikipedia on the Beatles and just listen to their music. I don't give shit who they were, when they spent money on, or what they sounded like live. Amazing writers, composers, and talented musicians who helped-HELPED pave the way for music today.

    6. You have refuted NOTHING. You have merely given us your rather passionate opinions. Which, in fact, does more to prove the point of the article. Your religion has been attacked.

      And if Paul is one of the greatest bassists of all time, I'm Al Jolson.

      The Beatles, or Paul, wrote some lovely tunes. That's about the best that can be said about them. Truly, the most over-rated phenomenon of all-time. Bar none.

    7. And yet the whole blog is one man's opinion as well which is claimed to be "proof" that they sucked. It really doesn't prove anything other than he doesn't like The Beatles

  4. Let's refute the others while I'm at it:
    1) They were media creations.
    Yes, and that is why its so fascinating - you don't hear 'n Sync doing something like Strawberry Fields or Sgt Pepper- its why the Beatles are fascinating in the first place.
    Two songwriters with most #1 hits? 1) McCartney, 2) Lennon.

    Most covered songs: 1) Yesterday

    The fact is the Beatles were great in SPITE of the media creation of their myth.

    Actually, they got America BACK in touch with the rock 'n roll at its roots and rescued music from Bobby Vinton and Fabian. They were no more rip-offs than Led Zeppelin or the Stones.

    Uhhhh, they invented most of the modern recording techniques - and there are so many accounts of who did what and made what decision regarding their recordings, to say it was the work of "hundreds" is ignorant.
    (See George Martin, Geoff Emerick)

    Look up the Google map for Bob Dylan's house, Bruce Springsteen's house, etc and get back to me. They're all fucking hypocrites because they're human. Get over it. If you made a million selling album you'd buy yourself a big house too.

    1. THANKYOU for telling this idiot off! I couldn't agree more with your 5 points.

      Side note: Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, The White Album and Abby Road are arguably the five best albums of all time. Let It BE was a little over produced though.

    2. Modern recording techniques werent invented by the beatles... they were just the first to be able to use it. The modern multitrack system was invented by les paul and a lot of the micing and mastering techniques were innovated by pink floyd. Youre obviously the sheeple hes referring to. Ignorantly going with popular assumptions over fact

    3. 1) Popularity does not equal greatness. If you don't believe me, look at Michael Bay.

      2) Roots of Rock n' Roll? Rock was invented by Blacks. In fact, the term Rock n' Roll is old Black slang for sex. I think this is a case of denial.

      3) Sure they "invented" modern recording techniques, but they used it as a crutch, not to be original/creative. You wouldn't consider modern mainstream hi-hat abused Rap music as 'creative' (Ex: French Montana).

      5) He said they were hypocrites because they directly contradicted their stances of love and anti-establishment. It would be one thing if you were like, say, Common and said that you wouldn't mind being rich.

      ..."I'd be lying if I said I didn't want millions/More than money saved, I wanna save children,"...

      -The 6th Sense

      Then, dying with millions in the bank is understood.

    4. Show us how "rock n roll was invented by blacks." I would suggest that rock developed over the course of a few years, not invented, by many artists of different styles and racial backgrounds. But if you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears.


      A 10 second Google search answered your question. Don't be a lazy ass and look it up for yourself next time.

    6. Rock and roll was not "invented", rayther it had EVOLVED just like any other kind of music does. If it was "invented" by anyone, then it was prehistoric cromagnons and neanderthalls beating or rocks and skulls with sticks and bones. Blacks Americans had simply reintroduced it into contemporary Western popular culture during the mid 20th century. That is because throughout history blacks have always been generally more in touch with their primal side than white people ( who got kind of hung up on gentility refinement and propiety fro a long time ).

    7. As for The Beatles being "rip offs", WHO else in rock and roll music did songs that sounded like Strawberry Feilds, I Am the Walrus, Yellow Submarine, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, A Day in the Ilfe, All You Need Is Love, Magical Mystery Tour and LSD ( Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ) prior to The Beatles? .. . Chuck Berry?

    8. Well I DO think that The Beatles are quite a bit overated, yes. However, by "overated" I don't mean to say that they were actually TERRIBLE or that they "sucked" in the words of the idiot auther of this esssay. I just mean that they get too much attention, that's all. And there are OTHER famous musical acts that I find overated too, like Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Jimmy Hendrix, The Doors and Bob Dylan to name a few. So it ain't just The Beatles with me either.

    9. I really do think, in my opinion, that "Something" was the most covered song. Not "Yesterday". The whole Lennon/McCartney "genius" thing overshadowed Georges true talent every time thanks to Brian Epstein who started that whole thing going never giving George a chance. Lennon and McCartney indeed were great. Huge egos though, I'd have to say yes.

  5. this post is great, great cause it shows the anger it draws from people. as he says, it is a belief that can't even be questioned. to me that is a sign of MIND CONTROL. people that hear something that goes against conditioning just can't handle it. why? why are the beatles put on an altar of untouchable, godly status? the music was good, but I've heard they had helping hands make the music. the solo stuff is so below the quality of the beatles, why is that? I mean way below. if they were the best band ever, wouldn't some of their solo stuff be mentioned? wings? um no, lennon's solo stuff is never seriously talked about. how could quality fall that far? that's a real question to ask yourself.

    1. Wings music is a lot more enjoyable than the Beatles. I grew up listening to Wings because that was what was on the radio when I was 5 and 6 years old. I didn't know Paul McCartney from high water. But my little tyke ears loved "Listen to What The Man Said" and "Band on the Run", etc. Even to this day I enjoy hearing their songs, whereas I don't even listen to the Beatles.

    2. does anyone else understand that people are allowed to have their own opinions and that they are also able to disagree with other people's oppinions.

  6. All of the how-dare-you-mere-mortal-question-the-gods style replies completely confirm the truth of this great post, as Jared808 similarly pointed out. Why such defensiveness and outrage, Beatles fans, towards one little opinion when you have the whole entertainment world's support?? Their endless need for lock-step agreement is amazing, LOL...Stay strong, Jimbo.

    1. Listen loser if you don't like The Beatles thats fine, but you have to respect them. I dont like michael jackson. I dont like his music and I dont like him as a person BUT i respect him as a musician.

    2. wait, what? why do we HAVE to respect the Beatles? this is why beatles fans are so brainwashed...

    3. Micheal Jackson? .. . talk about an overhyped juvenile pop-sensation with a legion of obsessed ignorant over-protective airheaded fans!

    4. It's like a damned cult. It is a cult.

    5. It's like a damned cult. It is a cult.

  7. I disagree with your claim that their solo stuff was bad, but you are right in saying that it wasn't very popular. But then again, after a band breaks up, so does most of it's fanbase. Most people are familiar with the Police, but how many people do you know that can name a popular song from Sting's solo career. I can't remember any songs from Freddie Mercury's solo career, even though I can name oodles of Queen songs off the top of my head. Many solo careers end up being forgettable. There is the occasional hit, like Edge of Seventeen, but most of it falls to the wayside, regardless of quality, because most people don't actually look for quality in their music, they look for popularity. And so good bands, once they break up lose popularity even if they kept their quality. A prime example of this the Traveling Wilburys. You'd think they'd be hugely popular, but despite an exceptional cast of musicians (Bob Dylan, George Harrison, and Tom Petty were all hugely popular in their own groups, and Roy Orbison and Jeff Lynne enjoyed some success as well) and amazing music, they never gained much popularity. My point is, that no matter the level of popularity of the group, one member will never achieve very much on their own.
    Now, perhaps the Beatles did have hundreds of hands in their music, that doesn't detract from the quality of the music produced. You say that George Martin controlled aspects of the band, and perhaps that is true, (I wouldn't know becaus I wasn't there when they were producing songs) but does that make them bad musicians? You make it sound like Martin had a dictatorship over the Beatles which is an unfair analysis. Martin and the Beatles were great friends, and if you listen to raw practice and development recordings from the studio, It is quite clear that the Beatles held the majority of the control. Now I agree, that each member was not the best at what they did. John was an average guitar player, Paul's bass playing skills were not the best of the time, and George and Ringo had nowhere near the the voices of their fellow bandmembers, but the group was good as a sum of the parts. Ringo may not have been anything like Neil Peart, but he could hold a rhythym, and if you listen to the transition of A Day in The Life, it is clear that Ringo was the perfect choice to keep the band on task, and hold the songs together. You say George wasn't a talented guitar player, well I invite you to listen to Octopus's Garden. The guitar-work, while not a heavy riff like Purple Haze, or a blow-you away solo from Stevie Ray Vaughan like that of Lenny(My favorite guitarist and guitar song) is still amazing and works wonderfully. Now for the song writing, a better pair did not exist then Lennon-Mccarteny in my opinion (Both were also great singers, especially Lennon with his unique voice). Just listening to Abbey Road and hearing all the songs fall together in perfect form is a phenomenal experience. Name another band with the shear number of songs that anyone can play in any style and sound good. Why is it that so many Beatles songs are covered? Because they are good, and sound good no matter how they are played. Also, they really shook things up, at least in their later work, and produced some very unique music. All together, each Band member's contributions made the Beatles the great band they are.
    I personally consider them the best band ever for their all around excellence. They lack my favorite parts of other bands like Queen's vocal work, Yes's keyboard solos, Rush's uniqueness, but they had an all around solid cast of musicians. Now don't get on my case calling me brainwashed. I agree with some of the things you posted, just not with your overall conclusion. Someone can hold the same opinion as the majority and not be brainwashed. Or must we give up our own opinions to be original and unbiased? (Seems counter-productive and hypocritical) You don’t have to be a hipster to have original beliefs.

  8. Thank God, someone finally said it. The Beatles have to be the most overrated group out there.

    As for whoever "contradicted" what you said about them being hypocritical, well, they failed to get the point of it. Yes, people who make millions of dollars do end up buying big houses for themselves, but at least they don't sing about how stuff like that is bad and then turn around and do it. Also, I just love how they failed to address what Julian said.

    Oh yeah, and to further be a dick to that person, I've never heard a song called Yesterday. And I've been listening to music, and I mean really listening and exploring it, since I was about fifteen years old. That's going on 22 years now, so if it was the "most covered song", I think I'd have heard it. Try again.

    1. Ahem:
      Beatles take 4 of the top 10 spots, with John Lennon taking one as well. Maybe you should do some research before you make such a rash judgement/insult. Yesterday is second on that list, only beaten by Eleanor Rigby. And yes, they made bad decisions, but does that have anything to do with the band? John Lennon was kind of a scumbag at times, but once again, their human. I agree, we shouldn't upgrade them to god-status, but their personal actions have no effect whatsoever on the quality of their music. Also, what the heck are you talking about, other musicians criticize the social system all the time, and I can't think of any that live in cheap houses and give all their wealth to the masses. Can you?

    2. How the hell have you not heard yesterday and still claim you've been listening to music for 22 years

    3. You been living under a rock!!!
      Kid your music history started with run dmc boy do your research. Then you will find that the beatles influenced everything, from music, film and electronics. They quit touring in 1966, the equipment of the era could not fill the stadiums (they could not hear themselves over the screaming) They only did studio work and created Apple Records (they produced Pink Floyd) Steve Jobs modeled his company after Apple Records. After they broke up all of them did well. John, Paul, and George had at least a decade of music each between them when they broke up in 1970. If John Lennon hadn't flaked out with Yoko all that solo stuff in the 70's would have been Beatle music. ETC and so on. Like them or not they paved the way the music industry is today.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. Everything negative you said about the Beatles could be said about almost every great rock and roll band. The Beatles were the greatest pop band of all time, then in 1965 they made rubber soul and from that point on became the greatest rock'n roll band of all time. Hey Jimbo its not the Beatles fault you cant get laid. I saw your youtube video, you scrawny little dweeb.

    1. Again, this is asinine logic.

      "You must not get any sex because you exposed the Beatles as fakes. WAHHHH!"

      Like Adam Buckley said (adoseofbuckley on Youtube), only virgins and/or immature people think that sex changes your opinions on music/art/politics, etc.

      Like Elvis, the artist that the (mainly white) public hailed as "the greatest" turns out to be nothing more than fakes. You can still like them, but stop giving them credit they don't deserve. It's the harsh reality of truth.

    2. ev's, I think you use the word "white" in damn near every one of your replies here. I wonder, what's up with that, huh?

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. You compare them to N’Sync & the Backstreet Boys & I actually think that’s a valid comparison. The Beatles WERE the boy band of their day. Here’s the difference: That was ALL that the more recent bands turned out to be. For the Beatles, that was only the tip of the iceberg. The Beatles proved there was a lot more to them than just the ability to make 13 year old girls scream. The proof is that we’re still talking about them 50 years later.
    And I think it’s more accurate to say they were a discovery rather than a creation. Backstreet Boys & N’Sync were a creation. The Monkees were a creation (those members had to audition to join). Sure, Epstein polished off the rough edges but the Beatles were already formed before Epstein even knew the Beatles existed.
    I got news for you. ALL music is a rip-off. There are only 12 notes. I guarantee you that 99 % of any & all combinations of those 12 notes has already been tried & used many, many times over. ALL music is a rip-off. You can musically connect the dots from Justin Bieber back to Johann Sebastian Bach. The Beatles “ripped off” Chuck Berry. Chuck Berry ripped off Elmore James. Elmore James ripped off Robert Johnson. Robert Johnson ripped off Negro Spirituals, Negro Spirituals ripped off African call & response, etc. You “prove” your claim by citing that the Beatles were sued three times. One time you couldn’t recall who sued, one lawsuit was actually when George Harrison was sued over MY SWEET LORD (which is not a Beatle song but a George Harrison song,—a small but accurate point), & the other was Chuck Berry. The latter is the only proof because COME TOGETHER was very similar to a Chuck Berry song. The Beatles wrote & recorded hundreds of songs. The fact that you cite one song as proof that the Beatles stole other people’s music is absurd.

    Sure, they weren’t known for being a great live band (That wasn’t their fault. They were playing huge stadiums with equipment that wouldn’t be adequate for a bar band. The technology hadn’t caught up yet. And check them out on the rooftop if you don’t think they weren’t capable of being a great live band). And I like the fact that their albums were “overproduced.”. That’s a matter of taste. There’s something to be said for creating an album with sonic & tonal layers that transport you to another world in a way “HOUND DOG” just doesn’t. Same reason I love DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. And the 2nd movement of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony.

    Fact: You’ve never heard of the greatest guitar player ever. Me either. BECAUSE THE MOST FAMOUS MUSICIANS ARE NOT THE BEST MUSICIANS. Think of the greatest famous guitar player & I guarantee you there are a million guitars players better. Is Ringo the greatest drummer ever? Of course not but he was a competent drummer with skill & talent. Is Paul McCartney the greatest bass player ever? No but he was capable of creating unbelievably melodic bass lines that were unprecedented. I could also give you reasons why McCartney was a great singer (and Lennon) & why George was a great guitar player (his signature slide guitar sound, for eg).
    Here is why they WERE great musicians: Used to be somebody (probably in the Brill Building) wrote the song. Then somebody else (the star) sang the song. And they were backed by a band of studio musicians (how’s all that for a media creation?) The Beatles were the first band to do ALL THREE ALL BY THEMSELVES!!! They weren’t the best at any one of those (except songwriting) but nobody was as talented AT ALL THREE (and because of them, being able to do all three became the standard).

    I can tell why you really hate them is because of your 5th reason (they were all hypocrites). What does that have to do with their music? I DON’T CARE about their politics or how many times they were married or whether Paul McCartney is rich. All I know is I love their music.

    1. Firstly, the members of the Beatles were NOT BOYS but YOUNG MEN in their twenties when the became successfull. Secondly, ALL rock and roll music was YOUTH ORIENTED at that time. Third, the term 'Boy band" was coined during the late 90's in reference to then-contemporary acts like N'Sync, Backstreet Boys and New Kids On the Block. And THOSE groups were nothing like The Beatles at all. THOSE were VOCAL groups. THEY were actually much more similar to groups like The Platters or Four Tops or Temptations than The Beatles ( if you need someone from history to liken them to ).

      As far as The Beatles being "plagiarists", WHO else in rock and roll ( modern music since the mid 50's bassically ) ever did a song like ohhhhh Strawberry Feilds, I Am the Walrus, Yellow Submarine, A Day in the Life, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, All You Need Is Love, Ellenre Rigby, Let It Be, Hey Jude, Penny Lane, Yesterday, Magical Mystery Tuor and LSD ( Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ) prior to the Beatles? .. . Chuck Berry?

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. And don't get me wrong. I don't think you're a nazi for hating the Beatles. I agree Beatle fans can go apeshit when not everybody thinks they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. But that's not the Beatle's fault. That's their fan's fault. One of the things you SHOULD like about Lennon is that nobody was more willing to demythologize (is that a word?) the Beatles than John Lennon. I get that they're not everybody's cup of tea. But to deny their influence & talent is delusional. Thanks for "giving me a chance" to say my "peace".

  17. There are so many things wrong with this article that I don't know where to start. To begin, they were a great live band. There really aren't any great live recordings of any bands from this era. Rock concerts of this magnitude were just beginning (thanks to the Beatles). The background noise was horrible. They could't hear themselves play. To really appreciate how innovative The Beatles were, you really must place them into the time in which the existed. It was a different world. Music expanded in all directions in the 1960's, and The Beatles led the way. Check out the top pop hits of 1961 compared to 1970. You will not see a bigger change in any other decade.

    1. I disagree. I think the changes music went through in the sixties, while significant, pales in comparison to the changes it went through in the 1990s. Because by the beginning of the 90s, rock had already splintered off into dozens of directions. Then by the mid-decade, you had hiphop, industrial and other sub-genres becoming more mainstream. In addition to that, singer-songwriters like Eliot Smith, world and folk music all coming back into the mix, so that by decade's end we had a truly rich musical stew going, which we are still feeling today.

    2. A good live performance was the rooftop concert (their best, in my opinion).

    3. A good live performance was the rooftop concert (their best, in my opinion).

  18. you don’t have to respect anybody. that is a ridiculous assertion. and you are proving the point of the article.

  19. i agree. The one single undeniable fact of this article is that people act is if liking the beatles is some type of requirement.

  20. DUDE! I completely AGREE! For me it's inexplicable how these embarrassingly horrible non-talented beatles (intentional lowercase) made it. It's just like an experiment of some kind, let's see if we can turn s*** into something that can be acclaimed by the mindless masses. Thinking about Dylan, about Jimi and Janis, about all the greats and saying that beatles were any good is simply an insult. It's all retarded nursery rhymes and really bad instrumentals in which all kinds of people pretend to see some meaning. Oh, and when I'm thinking about that horrible embarrassing performance of that McFartney at London Olympics that the papers wrote about, aaarrrrgggghhhh! Overrated is such a weak word for describing those beatles.

    1. McCartney on bass is equivalent to Hendrix on guitar. Listen to "she's so heavy" that's not a "nursery rhyme". I hated the Beatles and thought the same for most of my adolescence because I was into punk and metal. As I got older and learned to play guitar and bass I rediscovered them, almost like when people become a born again religious type. Just blown away. That being said I don't worship the Beatles but you're entitled to your opinion but I find it hard to believe anyone can listen to Paul on bass and go "yeah, he's untalented". You're just as ignorant as the fans you claim are for liking the Beatles.

  21. I hate how they are put on the same level as Led Zeppelin, granted, they were also guilty of plagiarism, but at least they had actual talent.

  22. Your ignorance makes me laugh!
    If the Beatles suck? Then why the fuck you researching about them? LOL you're just jealous that they're still famous 40 years after breaking up.

    1. This is asinine logic.

      "You're ignorant because you dug up evidence that exposed the most celebrated Rock band of all time as a bunch of phonies. The same band that I (and a whole lot of other sheep fans) am a fan of. LOL you're just jealous!"

      That's what happens when you tell the truth. When you live in a culture full of lies and deceit, the truth hurts a lot more than it would originally.

    2. Being completely honest here...I just never liked their music at all. Not saying they 'suck' but their music doesn't appeal to me period. To me, their music is pretty much garbage-all of it.

  23. This is a great post. I did not know about a lot of this stuff. I think everyone who is typing angry comments are just catching feelings for the fact that the author isn't afraid of telling the truth. The information is indisputable. I actually have a blog post about Drake (at and how overrated he is. I make the comparison of him to Elvis Presley, who is another 'great musician' who is vastly overrated.

    I don't know about you, but it seems that a whole lot of (not all) popular white artists turn out to be not as good as what a lot of people make them out to be. And don't even think that I'm only singling out White musicians. I am a HUGE Rap fan, and how you feel about the Beatles is how I feel about Lil' Wayne. I think (not just think, I know) that he is THE most overrated rapper ever. Bad lyrics, terrible live performances, awful freestyling, and he has an incredibly annoying voice. So I really feel where you're coming from. It is the unfortunate reality of American media. We are so quick to call someone great because they appear on tv/radio and/or because a ton of people say so. That is actually a propaganda technique called 'ad nauseum', where you show/say something over and over again until you

    a) hypnotically follow, or

    b) get 'sick' of seeing/hearing it.

    This is where the saying 'a lie told 1000 times over becomes the truth' comes from. You can be great and popular (ex: LeBron James), but popularity doesn't equal greatness. Greatness equals greatness.

  24. You obviously are no musician or have any UNDERSTANDING of the process of how music came from countless forms before your birth. The Starianis' of the world would not be capable of doing a lot of the things that they perform if it were not for others before them that push and tweeked styles and systems to find how far they could go. The Beatles granted were not by any means the only ones to be a part of those procedures(recording songwriting etc.)but for you to be so bitter of the success then you must be also pissed at the business systems that came along and basically robbed this culture and many an artist of thier livelihood in the success area.The Beatles just had more money behind them. Sad to see that you don't see or understand specially being young.As far as plagerism is concerned nothing musically has been done in popular music since the 60's possibly the 50's.It was all laid out before the Beatles,Queen,Satch,Jimi and on and on came along. Music since has been rehashed sped up and synthesized. Beats have only been added on to. All can be traced to their original forms. Hopefully you will come to appreciate the fact that you were even born to know of the great musical journeys of all the individuals of our diverse musical gifts. Don't hate the players hate the game because the players do very well in their space in time.Thank You to all that do give of their musical talents to the world.From classical to death metal long live MUSIC.

  25. The Beatles weren't terrible, but I don't like em much. They were a cultural phenomenon and set the tone for certain styles of music in their day, but how can we today, 40+ years after the fact, continue to hold them in reverence as if they were the greatest thing that ever happened and nothing better has been done since? That is ludicrous. You people who continue to hold the Beatles at such lofty heights have you not listened to any other music since 1970? Oh wait, many of you same people weren't even born until much, much later. I see these 13 year olds sporting Beatles t-shirts and i feel for their poor, misguided souls. I mean, for these kids even Nirvana is before their time.

    There is great music from all generations. There is great music made today. If I made a list of my top 100 favorite bands of all time, the Beatles would not even make the list. In fact, Paul McCartney's post Beatles group Wings would make the list because that is a group I actually grew up listening to and loving several years before I knew that Paul McCartney had been in a group called the Beatles. Here are just a few groups that have a much richer body of work than our Liverpool lads: Led Zeppelin, Steely Dan, REM, Talking Heads, Kraftwerk, the Clash. And that's just a few older groups off the top of my head. That reminds me, quality of musicianship does not necessarily equal whether a band is great. Look at the Clash: not the greatest musicians but surely one of the greatest bands ever

    1. I'm sure that I'm going to get misjudged for posting all of this information,but since I have a lot of great strong information that debunks the totally ignorant things you and some other posters have said about The brilliant Beatles.

      As a poster Reverend Rock who is a Reverend and a rock musician and a big Beatles fan said on a classic rock site a few years ago,that anybody who knows The Beatles history knows it's ludicrious to even suggest that The Beatles were ever a "boy band"!

      And true boy bands don't play their own instruments,(they only sing and dance),they don't write tons of critically acclaimed,popular,classic songs including many great rock songs and The Beatles wrote more than a few great rock songs in their early days,boy bands don't revolutionize popular and rock music,are very innovative,creative & prolific as The Beatles were,and don't have their songs the most covered in music historty by everyone from jazz,classical,Motown,rock,and even heavy metal recording and playing their great timeless music.

      Boy bands also don't have academic musicologists doing serious studies and analyses and praise of their music,like university of Penn graduate AlanW.Pollack who did an 11 year detailed analyses of every Beatles song and his study is online,and shows how The Beatles used unusual,interesting and even complex chords even in their early songs from 1963 and 1964.As Bob Dylan,Roger McGuinn and in December 1963 The London Times musicologist William Mann,all pointed out too.

      They also don't have musicologists like university of Michigan music professor and musician Walter Everett who wrote the 2 volume,THe Beatles As Musicians:Th Quarry Men Though Rubber Soul, and The Beatles As Musicians:REvolver Through Anthology.And British musicologist,classical composer and music professor Willifrid Mellers 1973 book,Twilight Of The Gods;The Music Of The Beatles which was the first serious music study of their music,and he also wrote about Beethoven,Mozart,and Bob Dylan.

      Boy bands also don't have award winning music professors teaching college courses like award winning music professor and classical composer Dr.Glen Gass who has been teaching a course on what brilliant composers they were and a course on rock music since 1982 at Indiana University School of Music.

      They don't write hits for other artists as early as 1963, like THe Beatles did for BillyJ.Krammer and The Dakotas,Celia Black,Peter and Gordon,and a rock n roll song,I Wanna Be You're Man given to The Rolling Stones which became one of The Rolling Stones first hits,and which they wrote right in fron of them and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were impressed and were like,wow how can you write a song just like that and it inspired them to start writing their own songs.

      The Rolling Stones were good friends with The Beatles and Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him.

      Boy Bands also don't have musicians(of course not they don't even play their own instruments!) such as Stanley Clarke,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan,Sting and Wilco's John Stirratt call their bass player,one of the greatest,melodic and influential bass players ever as they said about Paul McCartney. Nor do they have Eric Clapton call a pretty good guitar player as he said about John Lennon and was a member of his live 1969 Plastic Ono Band.


  26. Boy Bands also don't have popular respected rock artists and musicians call them The Greatest Band Ever like Brian May of Queen,Liam Gallager of Oasis,and Ozzy Osbourne(who also has been a huge Beatles fan since he was a teen,he even pucked She Loves You as 1 of his favorite songs in Rolling Stone a few years ago) call The Beatles The Greatest Band Ever,and on a musicians site MusicRadar What The Beatles Mean To Me by Tom Petty,Aerosmith's Joe Perry and Bon Jovi's Richie Sambora saying how they became fans as teen boys and Richie was only 5 after they saw The Beatles in February 1964 on The Ed Sullivian Show,and said they were really great and cool and they inspired them to become rock musicians.And Aerosmith's Brad Witford says a lot of The Beatles influence comes from Mark Hudson and Steven Tyler (who he says are both Beatles freaks)and that he guesses that the goal is to try and emulate probably the best music in the last 50 years which has to be The Beatles.

    Boy bands don't have The Byrds Roger McGuinn say he thinks they invented folk rock using unusual chords and arrangements for pop rock music in 1963 and 1964,and that they invented folk rock without even realizing it which is what Roger says about The early Beatles. Boy Bands don't have Roger McGuinn say he bought a 12 string guitar soon after he saw George Harrison playing one in the Beatles great movie A Hard Day's Night,and he played Beatles music in clubs in the mid 1960's.He says he loved their music from the start,and Ron Wood says in The Beatles book, Ticket To Ride by Denny Somach,Kathleen Somach and Kevin Gunn, whrn he was asked if he can name any favorite Beatles songs, he says he's got so many he said apart from the obvious like Strawbwerry Fields ,I Want To Hold Your Hand is one he used to like a lot,and he said the one with the harmonium,We Can Work It Out he said ahh,I loved that one.

    Ron Wood also says he never missed an episode of a radio show The Beatles used to play live on and spoke on every Friday and he said infact whoever has the rights to those radio shows should dig them up,their incredible.In this book Bill Wyman also talks about their friendship with The Beatles after meeting them in 1963 and how The Beatles gave them one of their first hit songs,I Wanna Be You're Man.

    (In this book so many music artists are interviewed including Roger McGuinn who said after he was asked what his first impression of The Beatles music he just loved I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You after he saw them on TV playing live with all of the screaming girls going after them and everything,he said he just loved that stuff and went out and bought their album took it back to his apartment and learned all the songs and started playing them at coffee houses.

    Brian Wilson says in this book that he has always loved The Beatles! Boy bands don't have Brian Wilson,Elton John and classical composer Leonard Bernstein and so many others call 2 of their singer song writers,the greatest song writers of the 20th century as they called,John Lennon and Paul McCartney.etc etc


  27. Also there is an online interview with Roger Daltry,Roger's Journey With The Who in The Sun and he was asked if The Who had screaming girls at a certain point,and he said after Can't Explain they did. He said it was the screaming teenage era and every band had them on their way up.He said it was fun at first but the trouble for a performer when you are that young and inexperienced is that you start to judge your performances on the amount they scream,he said it's nonsense which is why Lennon gave up. He also said that The Who's manager turned their image overnight from scruffy rockers to Mods.

    If you still insist the false ludicrous claim that The early Beatles were ever a "boy band" then you are just further proving your ignorance.When The Beatles played live in 1963,64,65 & 66 they only had 100 watt amplifiers,no feedback monitors so they couldn't hear themselves sing and play,plus the screaming crowds and that's why they gave up touring.

    George Harrison says in The Beatles Anthology video series,that for their August 1965 Shea Stadium concerts, special 100 watt amplifiers were made and that they went up from only 30 watts before. Given how limited and primitive the sound systems were then,it's amazing they sounded as good as they did live.

    Former Kiss guitarist Bob Kulick who produced the heavy metal album Butchering The Beatles, said he saw The Beatles in concert in 1966 and he said he could hear parts of Baby's In Black & Paperback Writer and they sounded amazing.

    A guy Steve from Canada said on Artist Facts,that he saw The Beatles live in 1966 and The Stones in 1996(and the sound systems by then were a zillion times better!) and he said don't get me wrong,The Stones were great but they were no match for The Beatles and he called The Beatles The Greatest Band Of All Time.

    And a guy said on a message board in September, said that he too once wrongly believed that the early Beatles were a boy band like The Back Street Boys,until he got out of 7th grade.The Beatles started out playing 8 hours a night in the sleazy strip clubs of Hamburg Germany,taking speed pills to stay awake,wearing tight black leather jackets and pants,smoking and cursing on stage,and had sex with so many young women groupies including the strippers in those clubs,they were successful there. They also played successfully in the Liverpool Cavern Club for years.

    Even many fans of The Rolling Stones who are also Beatles fans, said on several Rolling Stones message boards,and Beatles fans said this on Beatles fan boards,that THe Beatles cleaned up image was a total fake one created by their manager,and that they know that The Beatles were just as wild as The Stones with sex and drugs in their personal lives and were friends who hung out together.

    There used to be an online interview with Charlie Watts from a 1973 Magazine called,Zig Zag called,The Drinking Man's Rolling Stone. He says that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were good friends,and that they were a lot alike as people. He also said what made The Beatles so great is that they made one great album and one great single after the next.

    And I don't want to be on bad terms with anyone on here, and I'm not trying to bother anybody ,but I really am just trying to debunk this totally inaccurate ridiculous unfortunately common myth that The Beatles were ever a boy band,they were a great *ROCK n ROLL* band from the start!

    John and George especially hated Beatle Mania,and George says in The Anthology series,that it took a toll on their nervous systems,they had no life either trapped in hotel rooms most of the time. They wanted to be popular & successful as every band does,but they didn't want or ask for the hysteria.John says in his 1975 Tomorrow Show interview that the screaming wasn't doing the music any good,and that things would break down and nobody would know.

  28. The Beatles sound great on their live roof top January 1969 concert in The Let It Be Film, and the sound systems had improved by then,(although still very limited compared to today's) and there were no more screaming crowds.

    Paul was playing guitar and writing songs at 14 and he started soon after his beloved nurse and midwife mother Mary died of breast cancer,and he wrote the beautiful song Let It Be after he had a real seeming dream where he saw her alive again and she told him to just accept things as they are.He says in his authorized biography,that when he woke up he thought how great it was to see her alive again.

    John was writing deep heavy poetry when he was a kid,and he started writing his own songs at age 17 not long after he met Paul and was impressed that was writing his own songs. Paul wrote the very pretty song,I'll Follow The Sun at age 16. They didn't know at this age they would make it big and they weren't making a penny from it then.


  29. As The All Music Guide says in their excellent Beatles biography "That it's difficult to summarize their career without restating cliches that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans, to start with the obvious,they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century."

    "Moreover they were among the few artists of *any* discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did *and* the most popular at what they did." THey also say as singers John Lennon and Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive in rock.

    Also on an excellent site,The Evolution of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style by Dennnis Alstrand,Stanley Clarke,Sting,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan,George Martin and John Lennon are quoted saying what a great,melodic and influential bass player Paul has always been'

    And Wilco's John Stirratt was asked in Bass Player which bass players have had the most impact on his playing and the first thing he said was, Paul McCartney is one of the greatest bass players of all time,if you listen to what he was tracking live in the studio it's unbelievable." "With his tone and musicality he was a huge influence,he covered all of his harmonic responsibilities really well but his baselines were absolutely melodic and inventive."

    And in an online 1977 Eric Clapton interview,Eric Clapton In His Own Words he says that there was always this guitar game between John and George,and he said partly because John was a pretty good guitar player himself.He played live with John as a member of John's 1969 Plastic Ono Band.

    And there is a great online article by musician and song writer Peter Cross,The Beatles Are The Most Creative Band Of All Time and he says that many musicians besides him recognize Paul as one of the best bass guitar players ever.He too says that John and Paul are the greatest song composers and that to say that John and Paul are among 2 of the greatest singers in rock and roll is to state the obvious,and that John,Paul and George were all excellent guitarists and that George is underrated by people not educated about music but that ERic Clapton knew better,he also says that both John and Paul played great leads as well as innovative rhythm tracks.

    John Lennon co-wrote,sang and played guitar on one of David Bowie's first hits Fame in 1975 and David invited John to play guitar on his version of John's beautiful Beatles song Across The Universe.Brain May,Ozzy Osbourne,and Liam Gallagher and many more call The Beatles The Greatest Band Ever.

    Also on MusicRadar Tom Petty,Joe Perry and Richie Sambora in What The Beatles Mean To Me all say how cool and great they thought The Beatles were when they first saw them on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964 when they were just teen boys,Richie was only 5.Tom Petty said he thought they were really really great.

    Robin Zander of Cheap Trick said he's probably one of the biggest Beatles fans on the planet.Brad Whitford of Aerosmith said that a lot of that Beatles influence comes from Steven Tyler's collaborartion with Mark Hudson both whom are absolute Beatles freaks and he said I guess the goal is to try and emulate probably some of the best music of the last 50 years which has to be The Beatles.

  30. Also in an excellent Beatles book Ticket To Ride by Denny Somach where so many other well known popular respected rock musicians and artists are interviewed about The Beatles praising them including Jimmy Page,Brian Wilson who says he's always loved The Beatles. And Brian Wilson called John & Paul the greatest song writers of the 20th century on a 1995 Nightline Beatles tribute show,(which had on music artists from every type of music,a young black jazz musician,a middle aged black opera singer,Steve Winwood,Meatloaf,and classical violnist Isak Perleman,who said he plays his children Bach,Beethoven Mozart and The Beatles)and he played With A Little Help From My Friends on the piano and he said he just loves this song. He also said that Sgt.Pepper is the greatest album he ever heard and The All Music Guide says in their Beach Boys biography,that Brian had a nerveous breakdown after he heard it. Brian also said that when he first heard The Beatles brilliant 1965 folk rock album Rubber Soul he was blown away by it.He said all of the songs flowed together and it was pop music but folk rock at the same time and he couldn't believe they did this so great,this inspired him to make Pet Sounds.

    John Lodge and Justin of The Moody Blues are interviewed in this book and Bill Wyman and Ron Wood says how The Rolling Stones became good friends with The Beatles in 1963 after John and Paul wrote 1 of their first hits,the Rock n Roll song,I Wanna Be You're Man.

    Ron Wood was asked what his favorite Beatles songs and he said there are so many apart from the obvious like Strawberry Fields I Want To Hold Your Hand is one he said he used to like a lot ,and he said he really loved We Can Work It Out.He also says that The Beatles used to have a radio show every Friday where they played live and spoke and he would never miss an episode. He said infact whoever has the rights to those shows should dig them up,because they are incredible.

    Justin Hayward says that the album he always really loved ,and he said it was when they started experimenting with chord structures ,was A Hard Day's Night.He says they began to move away from the standard 3 chord thing and just went into more interesting structures .He said A Hard Day's Night was the album for him and their song If I Fell was the song.He said it started in a different key to how it ended up,and it's a beautifully worked out song and that there are some songs on that album that were very emotional and evocative. He said that for everybody just starting to write songs as he was,it was a real turn on and eye opener.


  31. On Last FM. The Rolling Stones only had 80 members of their fan group in 2007, The Beatles had over 4,000 which is now over 12,000 and the average age of fans is 22 more guys than girls and they are from all over the world!

    In 2006,2007 and 2008 The Beatles were the # 1 most listened music artists on Last.FM and they are very popular on YouTube and Rate Your Music where many male and female fans in their teens and 20's call them The Greatest Rock Band Ever.

    The Beatles are still rightfully regarded by most people,most rock critics,and many other music and rock artists as The most creative,innovative,and prolific rock band ever! In 1995 25 years after they broke up their Anthology CD's went straight to # 1 around the world and I heard a rock DJ say that 40% of the people buying them were teenagers,the same exact thing when their 1CD came out in 2000 30 years after they broke,up and in 2009,39 years after they broke up,they were the second biggest selling artists in the last decade,and their 1CD was the biggest selling album! And soon after their music went on iTunes it went to the top!

    The Beatles wrote *plenty* of great rock songs including hard rock on The White Album and Abbey Road and as many have rightfully pointed out Paul invented heavy metal with his 1968 song Helter Skelter and people have also said John's I Want You She's So Heavy on Abbey road was also one of the first heavy metal songs.

    Even in their early days they wrote some great rockers that were very rocky for the times, as The All Music Guide said,in their very good review of Past Masters Volume 1 that they proved they could rock really really hard,with John's I Feel Fine from late 1964 which featured the very recorded feedback guitar on a rock song,and Paul's great blues rocker,She's A Woman also from late 1964,and what they called the peerless I'm Down which is Paul's screaming rocker from mid 1965 which they performed even harder rocking, and screaming in August 1965 at Shea Stadium.

    Also John's You Can't Do That from early 1964,is a great rock song, so is Day Dripper,Paperback Writer, And You're Bird Can Sing,Oh Darling,Hey Bulldog, She Said She Said,Taxman, Revolution,Get Back,Come Together etc!


  32. Also, classical composer Leonard Bernstein called John and Paul the greatest composers of the 20th century so did Elton John on a 1991 CBS Morning news show,he was asked who he musically admires and he said you can talk about your Rogers and Hammerstein but for the quanity of quality songs that Lennon and McCartney wrote in that short period of time,he said he thinks they were the greatest song writers of the 20th century.Brian Wilson said this too on a 1995 Nightline Beatles tribute show. The Beatles are in the Vocal Hall of Fame and John and Paul have been in the song writing Hall of Fame since 1987,Keith Richards and Mick Jagger have been in it since 1993,but as of now no members of The Who,or Led Zeppelin(who I totally can't stand even a half of a second of) are in The Song Writing Hall Of Fame or The Vocal Hall Of Fame,The Rolling Stones aren't in The Vocal Hall of Fame either and The Beatles were awarded about 20 prestigious Ivor Nevello awards as great singers and song writers in just a remarkable 8 year recording career,John and Paul won the first one in early 1964!

    They also won an Oscar for their film score of their 1970 film Let It Be.


  33. Around 2003 I found an online interview with George Martin and he said that even though he has produced many other music artists,he has never known or worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles. He was also interviews in the 1990's on a Breakfast With The Beatles show on a local rock station,and he said that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were incredibly talented people and he said it like he still couldn't believe it.And he also said they both were extraordinarily talented song writers and great singers.

    And in the excellent thorough book by Mark Lewisohn,The Beatles Recording Sessions,George Martin,and so many of The Beatles tape operators and recording engineers are interviewed,(and in the beginning there is a great 1987 interview with Paul McCartney) and they describe in detail how truly innovative,brilliant and creative especially John and Paul were in their amazing 8 year recording career.

    And my cousin who was born in 1968 who used to be a lawyer,and his brother born in 62 who is still a lawyer,and their sister born in 64,their oldest brother born in 60,and their parents have always been Beatles fans.My cousin born in 68,went to England around 1991 and he told me that he was at a British Museum where the works of Shakespear,Dickens,Wodsworth and Keats,Lennon and MccArtney's lyrics are right in the same case. And he said the majority of visitors always said,forget the Shakespear etc,lets go over to the Lennon and McCartney lyrics.
    When I once asked him,if he still liked The Beatles he said,best band there ever was.My step cousin born in 1958,said they probably were the greatest band ever.He saw Paul McCartney and Wings in May 1976 in concert when he was 18 and he said it was a great show.


  34. I have to say that Brian Epstein was very lucky as was George Martin to have the brilliant singer song composers John Lennon and Paul McCartney as their employees and clients! It would be any group manager's and producer's dream.

    I'm sure that John and Paul and probably George too would have been discovered by someone else sooner or later.George Martin before becoming The Beatles producer,had some success producing comedy and some classical records,but he never had the big success before or after producing The Beatles and he produced quite a few music artists after them.

    As I said he himself has said that he has never known or worked with *any* other music artists as brilliant as The Beatles.And Brian Epstein would have stayed a manager of a record store in England that hardly anybody ever heard of.


  35. NME.COM
    NME News
    Bob Dylan talks of Beatles friendship
    Legend admits: 'I'm in awe of McCartney'

    May 16, 2007

    Bob Dylan has spoken in depth about his longstanding friendship with The Beatles and his particular bond with George Harrison.

    Talking to Rolling Stone magazine, Dylan talked freely about Harrison’s struggle to find his voice within the songwriting collective of John Lennon and Paul McCartney.

    "George got stuck with being the Beatle that had to fight to get songs on records because of Lennon and McCartney. Well, who wouldn’t get stuck?" he asked.

    Dylan highlighted the writing talents of Harrison, saying: "If George had had his own group and was writing his own songs back then, he’d have been probably just as big as anybody."

    Speaking against popular belief, the singer also denounced any rumours of competitiveness towards Lennon and McCartney, asserting, "They were fantastic singers. Lennon, to this day, it’s hard to find a better singer than Lennon was, or than McCartney was and still is."

    Nodding his cap to McCartney in particular, Dylan concluded: "I’m in awe of McCartney. He’s about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he’s never let up... He’s just so damn effortless.


  36. And the only reason that I posted all of this information is because I'm so sick of this kind of ridiculous inaccurate ignorant garbage being said about The Beatles all over the place for years now.

    I have been a huge highly impressed Beatles fan(specifically a big John and Paul fan) since I was 11 when I got my first Beatles book for my 11th birthday,I started collecting their albums at age 9,and I had every great album by age 13, I was born after 1964 too.

    My father had a lot of different music in the house and was a big Bob Dylan fan and had many of his albums,he also had a Peter Paul and Mary album,a Leonard Cohen album and Herb Alpert and The Tijuana Brass albums which I liked even at age 4.I also had my own radio at age 9 and I listened to a lot of music.

    My sister 4 years older had an even bigger diverse music collection, and she always loved The Beatles too.She bought Paul McCartney and Wings great 1975 rock album,Venus and Mars when it came out in 1975 and she said years later it's one of the best rock albums she ever heard and that it's unique and she knows no album like it and it is a great album.
    When I was 9 I had a teacher in library class play The Beatles great rock album Abbey Road on a little record player and she said they were genuises.When I was 11 my music teacher asked us to guess who he was talking about when he said they were genuises and they wrote about 200 mostly popular acclaimed songs and many great albums in just an 8 year recording career,and I already being a big fan guessed it exactly right and said,John Lennon and Paul McCartney,The Beatles and he smiled and said yes thats right!

    I'm really very happy to say that most people I have known throughout my life recognized they The Beatles specifically John and Paul were brilliant singer song writers and very good musicians.The only Beatles haters I ever knew were 14 and 15 year old boys in school and one of them became a huge Beatles fan on his own.

    A guy I was friends with for many years who lived down the street and was 2 years older was a big fan too and he also liked Frank Zappa and his brother who was 10 years older than me had a big music collection and he loved The Beatles too,so did his mother and sister.I once spoke with their stepfather about how John and Paul are rightfully widely rearded by most people,most rock and music critics,and many other well known respected rock musicians and artists as 2 of the greatest song writers of the 20th century and he said I think so too.

  37. Below is part of a Beatles review by a Epionions reviewer.

    Home Epinions Music Please Please Me by The Beatles
    Please Please Me by The Beatles
    Overall Rating:
    20 consumer reviews
    Lowest Price: $5.90
    at Amazon Marketplace

    Back to All Reviews About the Author
    The Beatles Debut - Please Please Me
    Written: Apr 28 '06 (Updated Sep 28 '09)
    Product Rating:
    Pros: Good Debut

    Cons: Only eight original songs

    The Bottom Line: The Birth of The Beatles, well in the UK anyway.

    scapp70's Full Review: Please Please Me by The Beatles
    and now a word from Scapp70 straight from his Beatles Soap Box

    Are you a Beatles fan? Are you a Beatles nut? Are you insane for The Beatles? No? Yes? Well, I am - I'm not sure if you noticed. One of the duties of being a Beatles fan, which should really be a non-existent duty, is defending The Beatles. The Beatles were and are the greatest band in history, yet oddly not everybody knows that. The people that do not know that The Beatles are the greatest will more likely than not, argue that they aren't. It is the same thing as debating politics with a person who is not informed of the arguments, yet they passionately will tell you how you're wrong. Does that mean that any person who argues that The Beatles are not musical god-men, that they do not have all the albums and therefore do not know the position and the reasons why The Beatles are the greatest? Yes, I say to you - YES!

    If you as a Beatle fan have to argue that an album like say The White Album or Abbey Road are not five star albums, just sit and be quiet and let them talk. They will soon give hints of their Beatle un-savviness. For example, they may say that Sgt Pepper is a concept album, does any real thinking Beatles fan think that? They may say something as silly as Paul McCartney's bass playing ability is any less than stellar, or even worse...mediocre. Do we have ears? What are we comparing The Beatles to? Phish? U2? '90s College Music? What or who is out there who is better? The Beatles are not kings of the musical hill, they are an island unto themselves.

    So far no one has been able to come close to what The Beatles have accomplished. The Beatles were not just pioneers with each new release, The Beatles were amazing songwriters, fine musicians, forward thinkers and they are pretty funny too. Any other musician or musical group who would wish to accomplish the magnitude of what The Beatles had done in just six years would need a magical pocket watch that stops time. Six short years includes thirteen albums, four movies, and three world tours, enough singles to fill up two CDs and not to mention they changed the face of pop rock with each new release.
    When the Beatles broke up, each member had varied success, some more than another. No matter how successful The Beatles were individually in the 70s and 80s, and no matter how great the songs were during these times, it was apparent that the four guys still needed one another in order to change the world every six months as they did in the sixties. So even if the uniformed debater tries to come across as musically intellectual by praising dopey bands from the 90s that no one has ever heard of, just remember theyre still just uninformed. They try to mask their unsavvy musical taste by pointing to pointless music that you had never heard of.
    and now… the music that changed pop culture

    Sorry about that above, I have just been reading a lot of negative things about The Beatles in print and online lately. It’s just so wild, but I guess when you are as big as The Beatles, there is bound to be some negativity out there.


  38. Bob Dylan ,Roger McGuinn of The Byrds and music critic William Mann of The London Times as early as 1963 and 1964 pointed out that even in early Beatles songs like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand had unusual and interesting chords and they arranged them.

    And as early as late 1963 a music critic Richard Buckle in The London Times called John and Paul the two of the most briliant composers since Beethoven after John and Paul composed the music for a ballet Mods and Rockers.
    And John and Paul wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits, I Wanna Be Your Man in late 1963 right in front of them. And Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were impressed and said wow,how can you write a song just like that and it inspired them to start writing their own songs.

    John Lennon and Paul McCartney were such amazingly talented singer song writers that they were already writing hit songs for other artists as early as 1963 when their own song writing success was getting off the ground,besides The Rolling Stones,they also wrote hit songs in 1963 for Billy J.Krammer and The Dakatos,Celia Black,and Peter and Gordon etc.


  39. The Rolling Stones also wrote quite a few soft sentimental pop kind of songs,Lady Jane,As Tears Go By,Rubey Tuesday,Angie, We Love You (which John said was their song She Loves You backwards but both John and Paul sang backing vocals on it)Wild Horses,Waiting On A Friend and the 2 dreadful disco imitations,Miss You and Emotional Rescue. At least when Paul McCartney did a disco like song,Good Night tonight it was good interesting sounding music!


  40. The Beatles revolutionized popular and rock music and were very innovative,prolific and creative,more than any other group. And their great timeless songs are the most covered in music history by everyone from jazz musicians,classical,Motown,rock,pop and even heavy metal recording and playing their great timeless music.

    Many academic musicologists and music scholars have done serious studies,analyses and praise of their great timeless music,like university of Penn gradutate musicologist Alan W.Pollack who did an extensive 11 year detailed analysis of every Beatles song.He says he hadn't even listened to The Beatles in 20 years until they came out on CD for the first time in 1987.He said The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn was one of the things that motivated him to do his Beatles study.He demonstrates that even though a lot of their lyrics were simple in most of their really early songs,most of their music wasn't and that a lot of their early songs have as many as 9 chords and interesting and unsual arangements.Paul's great rocker,You Never Give Me You're Money on their excellent amazingly modern sounding rock album,Abbey Road has 21 chords.

    And university of Michigan music professor and musician Walter Everett who wrote the 2 volume,The Beatles As Musicians:The Quarry Men Through Rubber Soul and The Beatles As Musicians:Revolver Through Anthology.And British musicologist and classical composer and music professor (who is dead now)Willifred Mellers 1973 book,Twilight Of The Gods:The Music Of The Beatles,and he also wrote about Beethoven,Mozart and Bob Dylan.

    And award winning music professor Dr.Glen Gass who has been teaching a course on what brilliant composers The Beatles were and a rock music course at Indiana University School Of Music since 1982.Dr.Gary Kendal's Beatles course is the most requested at North Western university ,university of California also has one and Oxford university had a recent Beatles course.

    How many serious music scholars and award winning music professors are teaching and writing serious academic works studying and prasing what "brilliant" composers The Rolling Stones,Led Zeppelin or any other rock bands were?

  41. I just realized I made a few typing mistakes.

  42. Not only did The Beatles give The Rolling Stones one of their first hits with their rock n roll song I Wanna Be Your Man as you know,and they wrote it right in front of them and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were impressed and like wow how can you write a song just like that and it motivated them to start writing their own songs.

    And as I already said The Rolling Stones were good friends with and fans of The Beatles.

    Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him.Also Mick Jagger was such a big Beatles fan that in May 1967 when The Beatles were redording their song Baby You're A Rich Man he came there and stood on the sidelines to watch and listen to them recording it. His name is also on the tape box and he likely sang at the end verses.In Mark Lewishon's great detailed music diary book, The Beatles Recording Sessions there is a big black and white picture of Mick Jagger sitting in between John and Paul in the recording console room during The Beatles Revolver recording sessions too.

    The Beatles remastered albums sold much more 40 years after their break up than The Rolling Stones remastered albums and they are still together! The Beatles have the best selling album of the last decade with their CD 1.And soon after thir music went on iTunes,it went to the top.

    And Brian Jones played the saxaphone on the strange Beatles song, You Know My Name Look Up The Number and he and Mick Jagger's girlfriend at the time Marriane Faithful contributed sound effects on the song Yellow Submarine.

    As this guy Sal66 who is also a musician and has also posted on sites debunking ignorant cr*p about The Beatles has rightfully pointed out, The Beatles wrote,played and recorded I Feel Fine (which The All Music Guide says has brilliant,active ,difficult guitar leads and riffs) in the Fall of 1964 which was the first use of feedback guitar on a pop rock record and it also had a prominent guitar riff throughout this very good song almost a year *before* The Rolling Stones's Satisfaction came out.

    And on John's great Norwegian Wood recorded in the Fall of 1965,George Harrison was the first to play a sitar on a pop rock song and it was released on their great album Rubber Soul in December and then in May 1966 The Rolling Stones song Paint It Black came out with Brian Jones playing a sitar!

    And in Paul McCartney's authorized biography Many Years From Now, Mick Jagger's former girlfriend singer Marianne Faithful says that she and Mick used to go over to Paul's house a lot and hang out in his music room. She said he never went to see them at their house they always went to visit him because he was Paul McCartney.She also said that Mick was intimidated by Paul but that Paul was totally oblivious to this.

    Paul also says in this book that he turned Mick on to pot in his music room and he said which is funny because a lot of people would assume it was the other way around. Mick Jagger was also with The Beatles in Bangor when they got the call that Brian Epstein was found dead because he went on the train with them with his then girl friend singer Marianne Faithful to see the Maharishi to study meditation that weekend.


  43. Also Mick Jagger is quoted on a Rolling Stones fan site, saying that Keith Richards liked The Beatles because he was quite interested in their chord sequences and he says he also liked their harmonies which he said were always a slight problem for The Rolling Stones.He said Keith always tried to get the harmonies off the ground but they always seemed messy.Mick then says,that what they never really got together were Keith and Brian singing backup vocals
    and he said it didn't work because Keith was a better singer and to keep going,oooh,ooh,ooh(he laughs) and he said Brian liked all of those oohs which Keith had to put up with.He also said Keith was capable of much stronger vocals than ooh,ooh,ooh.

    On this same fan site Keith Richards is quoted from 1971 saying that The Beatles were perfect for opening doors,when they went to America they left it wide open for them and he said that The Rolling Stones could never have gone to America without them.He also said that The Beatles are so f**king good at what they did.

  44. John Lennon changed for the much better because of Yoko.

    Feminist changes *are* for the better,and many pro-feminist men have recognized this too! They say it has freed them and allowed them to develop and express more of all of the shared common *human* traits,emotions,behaviors,abilities and reduce and prevent male violence against women and children etc. Definitions of "masculine" and "feminine" differ across time periods,and in different societies.

    John Lennon is a great example of how feminism changing limited artificial gender definitions and roles,changed him for the much better. John as a child and teenager had a lot of traumas that permanently psychologically damaged him,but because of his and Yoko's beautiful loving relationship,and as he said she was a feminist before he met her,(and he said that because she was a feminist before he met her,they were going to have to have a 50/50 equal relationship which he never had before) he went in to primal scream therapy and Yoko went with him and he dealt with all of his pain and anger for the very first time at age 29.

    When John was a young guy,he was often drunk getting into fist fights with men,hitting women,and womanizing including cheating on his girlfriends and then his first wife Cynthia.Of course Paul,George and Ringo did the same with all of the groupies all 4 of them had while touring from 1963-1966. I hadn't watched these Mike Douglas shows in years until last year when it was the 30th anniversary of John's tragic murder.

    Out of the 5 Mike Douglas shows that John and Yoko co-hosted for a week that was taped in January 1972 ( Ihadn't watched these tapes in years until last December with the 30 year annivesary of John's tragic murder) and aired in February,a young criminal lawyer Rena Uviller(she went on to become a Supreme Court Judge) who worked with juveniles, and she,Mike Douglas,John and Yoko were discussing the then very recent women's liberation movement. George Carlin was on too.

    Rena said,she agrees with Yoko,that the idea of Women's lib is to liberate all of us,and she said ,I mean we could talk hours on the way men really suffer under the sex role definitions.Yoko agreed with what she said too. Rena said that men don't really realize they have only to gain from Women's Lib,and that she thinks that maybe with a little more propaganda we can convince them.

    John then said,yeah there is a lot to gain from it,just the fact that you can relax and not have to play that male role,he said we can do that,and he said that I can be weak,( but notice how then in a male dominated gender divided,gender stereotyped,sexist society,and even unfortunately still now in a lot of ways,the "female" role was defined as the weak one,and the male role as the strong one) I don't have to protect her all the time and play you know that super hero,I don't have to play that,she allows me to be weak sometimes and for me to cry,and for her to be the strong one,and for me to be the weak one. John then said,and it really is a great relief,after 28 years of trying to be tough,you know trying to show them,I don't give a da*n and I'm this and I'm that,to be able to relax.and just be able to say,OK I'm no tough guy forget it.

    Rena then said,I think in some funny way,I think girls even as children,have a greater lattitude because a little girl can be sort of frilly and feminine or she can be a tomboy and it's acceptable,but a little boy if he's not tossing that football,there's a lot of pressure on him.John said,there's a lot of pressure,not to show emotion,and he said that there was a lot of pressure on me not to be an artist,to be a chemist and he said he discussed this on another Mike Douglas episode.

  45. Rena said that unfortunately some of the leaders in the Women's Liberation movement fall victim to being spokesmen,for Women's Lib, and yet at least in public personality they seem to really have a certain amount of contempt for the hair curled housewife and there is a kind of sneering contempt,and she said I think it's a measure of their own lack of liberation.And Yoko said it's snobbery,and Rena said yeah,they really don't like other women,but I'm sympathetic,and Mike Douglas then said a sexist woman-hating statement,saying,well women don't like other women period.Rena said,no see that's very unliberated and Yoko said, in response to what Mike Douglas said,that's not true,that's not true.And John said,you see they are brought up to compete with men.

    Yoko said that even though in Japan they say they don't have much of a woman problem and women already had some liberation,there is still a long way to go that she really agrees with Rena that so many female liberation movement people basically hate women,and we have to first start to understand women and love them whether they are housewives or not,and she said that snobbery is very bad and we have to somehow find out a way to co-existing with men,and she asked Rena don't you think so and she said most definitely. George Carlin said,that actually many successful women are acting out male roles just like a lot of blacks think they escaped are acting out white roles.John also said that he thinks that women have to try twice as hard as to make it as men,and he said you know they have to be on their toes much more than a man.

    On another Mike Douglas episode from the same week,former actress and acclaimed film maker Barbara Loden was on and Yoko had requested her as a guest.John asked her ,Did you have any problems working with the men,you know like giving them instructions and things like that and Barbara said,I did, but I think it was because I was afraid that they would not accept what I said,and I wasn't quite that authoritative in my own self.John said it's certainly a brave thing to do,and Yoko said it is.
    Mike Douglas asked Yoko if John's attitude had changed much towards her since The Female Liberation Movement,and at first Yoko says John's attitude from the beginning was the same,and that they met on that level.John then says,twice, I was a male chauvinist and Yoko says,yes he was a male chauvinist but,and then John says,Can I say how you taught me,and Yoko says yes.John says,How I did it in my head was,would I ask Paul or George,or would I treat them the way I would treat a woman? John then said,it's a very simple thing maybe it's fetch that or do that ,and I started thinking if I said that to them,they'd say come on get it yourself,and if you put your wife or your girl friend in the position of your best friend,and say now would I say that to him,then you know when you're treading on some delicate feelings.


  46. Mike Douglas said years later that after this week of John and Yoko co-hosting his show,many young people who had never watched his show before,(and his main audience was middle America and people older than their 20's and even mostly their 30's) told him they loved the show,and that it was great and his ratings went up high for those shows.Even if John didn't always live up to his feminist ideals and beliefs in his personal life,(although he did with Yoko because of her and this why and how he emotionally evolved into a caring,nurturing,house husband and father to Yoko and Sean),just the fact that he spoke out as a man in support of the feminist movement on a popular TV show back in early 1972 when most of the sexist male dominated woman-hating society looked down at it and considered it crazy which in some ways it's still unfortunately wrongly misunderstood(and it's really the male dominated,sexist,woman-hating society that has always been so wrong and crazy!),and the fact that John was (and still is) greatly admired and influential to many young people male and female,he did *a lot* to legitimize it and show it was rational,reasonable,needed and right!

    A few months later he was performing Woman Is The Ni**er Of The World on The Dick Cavett Show and then months after that live in Madison Square Garden.In his very last radio interview done by Dave Sholin etc from RKO Radio just hours before he was tragically shot and killed, John said I'm more feminist now than I was when I sang Woman Is The N**ger,I was intelectually feminist then but now I feel as though at least I've put not my own money,but my body where my mouth is and I'm living up to my own preachings as it were. He also said what is this BS men are this way, women are that way,we're all human.

    He also said that with Julian he was like a lot of father's at that young age more involved in their careers and not that involved with their children,and he said he regretted it and that he and Julian will have a rel;ationship in the future,but sadly because of a crazy one time big Beatles fan,and John was his faviorite,shot and killed him for no rational reasons,that never was allowed to happen.John also said that he regretted the way he treated women as a young guy,and I know that is one of the big reasons he felt so strongly about feminism.


  47. The Boston Globe has an online article from March 2009,called I Confess I Don’t Like… written by all of their music critics and Luke O’Neil wrote that when people talk of classic bands they don’t like they’re really speaking in coded language.He said for example “I don’t like The Beatles.” is the same as saying,”I’m a liar” he said but when I say I don’t like Led Zeppelin there’s no subtext.
    He then says a lot of it has to do with Robert Plant’s fiendish helium-powered caterwauling. He says he tends to prefer bands with vocalists not police sirens in tight pants.He also said the lyrics which run the gamut unimaginative doggerel to too-imaginative fantasy goofs don’t help.

    He then says sure they inspired a lot of great bands,but should we not then hold them accountable for the thousands of downright awful imitators they’ve inspired? Rememner that whole hair metal thing in the 80’s? He says who do you think put the bustle in those dudes hedgerow? And grunge? He says that was basically goateed Led Zeppelin on Smack.

    Rock music critic John Mendelson never liked Led Zeppelin either.

  48. In 2010 read an online article that had an interview with Ernie Isley of The Isley Brothers about a recent tribute to Jimi Hendrix,in which he says that Jimi played for The Isley Brothers & lived with them & that they & he were fans of The Fab Four from the moment they all watched them on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. I always thought that Jimi was only a later period Beatles fan,I knew he played Sgt.Pepper live the weekend it came out,& he played Day Tripper live also,& several people on different message boards said that when he was asked where the direction of music was going,he said ask The Beatles.


  49. In the 2012 Newsweek Beatles special celebrating 50 years since their music came out,Steve Jobs was quoted from Walter Isaacson's biography as talking about how the band's approach to recording "refining and refining" influenced his own creative process. He said they were such perfectionists they kept it going and going he said. Steve Jobs said that this made a big impression on him when he was in his thirties.Newsweek rightfully says,that it's hard to imagine another rock band that influenced the way computers are made just as it is to think of one whose name became an adjective. And Newsweek said and that's why The Beatles still stand apart.
    THey quote Steve Jobs saying,"Somebody else could have replicated the Stones,(Newsweek then says,nailing the difference between artists shaped by their times and those who shape them),no one could have been Dylan or The Beatles."


  50. Entertainment

    Syd Birrell discovers Beatles in 2009


    For most of Syd Birrell's music life it has been about "learning about Bach and how to direct an orchestra," he says.

    Sure he knew and heard about the Beatles but it wasn't until a year ago that the director of The Peterborough Singers "discovered" the Fab Four.

    Now he's a convert to the extent that the Peterborough Singers will present a concert of Beatles music on Saturday, Feb. 27 at Calvary Church, Lansdowne St. W.

    The Singers will be presenting 25 songs in two hours in various combinations including the 100-

    MUSIC:Performed by Cosima Grunsky

    voice choirs, various smaller ensembles, duets, and solos, Birrell, said in anExaminerinterview.

    The choir will also be joined by a full band of musicians: Andrew Affleck -bass guitar, Barry Haggarty -guitar, Curtis Cronkwright -drums, Paul Grecco -keyboard, Rob Bulger - guitar, Doug Sutherland -trumpet, Marlowe Bork -trumpet and Steve McCracken sax/clarinet.

    "They're all Beatles nuts," said Birrell. In fact Haggarty recorded an album at Abbey Road, the same studio the Beatles used.

    Master of ceremonies will be Mike Melnik, of Kruz-FM, who is also a Beatles nut, said Birrell, who will share Beatles stories with the audience. There will be some special guests who will also share Beatles stories.

    Birrell explained a friend in New York City was trying out a new piano in his home overlooking Central Park.

    "He put music in front of me...Strawberry Fields,"said Birrell. The view included The Dakota where John Lennon had lived and the original strawberry fields of Central Park.

    "I got really interested. I find their music incredible. These guys are the Shuberts of the 20th century," said Birrell. "They have really great melodies. They are the greatest composers of the 20th century."

    Birrell said he searched the internet for Beatles information listened to their albums like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and the White Album for three months.

    "I found their music incredible," he said

    The Singers are known for performing classical music and Birrell said in years to come the music of the Beatles will be considered the classical music of the century.

    Birrell said the Singers are not trying to replicate the Beatles but we're "celebrating what the songs mean to us."

    He said some of the music had to be changed because the audience wouldn't be able to sing along in the keys the songs were originally written in....including Hey Jude.

    There will be displays of memorabilia and even trivia opportunities

    (Why is Feb. 7, 1964 important?).

    - - -

    Concert facts

    What: Come Together! The Music of the Beatles

    Who: The Peterborough Singers

    When: Saturday, Feb. 27 at 2 p.m.

    Where: Calvary Church, Lansdowne St. W., with guest MC Mike Melnik, of KRUZ-FM.

  51. Syd Birrell discovers Beatles in 2009

    Tickets: $28 (adult and senior) and $10 (students). Tickets available at Titles Bookstore, Emmaus Family Books, Graingers Cleaners, Pammett's Flower Shop in Peterborough, Happenstance Books & Yarns (Lakefield) or call 705-745- 1820 or email

    Beatles in 1964

    January 20: Meet The Beatles LP. (Capitol Records) is released in the U.S. It hits the #1 spot on Billboard chart and stays for eleven weeks.)

    January 27: MGM Records releases My Bonnie/The Saints single.

    January 30: Vee Jay Records re-releases Please Please Me/From Me to You in the US.

    February 1: I Want To Hold Your Hand makes #1 on the U.S. charts selling 2,000,000 records. She Loves You sells 1,000,000 copies in the U.S.

    February 3: MGM Records releases The Beatles with Tony Sheridan LP (recorded for Bert Kaempfert in Germany and originally marketed as Die Beat Brothers und Tony Sheridan)

    February 5: The Beatles return from Paris.

    February 7: The Beatles arrive at Kennedy Airport in New York, aboard Pan Am's Yankee Clipper, flight 101, greeted by some 3,000 screaming fans. New York pop radio stations play Beatles records practically around the clock for days.

    February 9: The Beatles make their first appearance on CBS television's Ed Sullivan Show in New York. The network claims some 50,000 applied for 728 available studio seats. They open with All my Loving, followed by Till there was You and She Loves You and close with I Saw her Standing There and I Want to Hold your Hand.

    February 11: The Beatles make their first live concert appearance in the U.S. at the Coliseum in Washington, D.C., drawing an audience of 20,000 fans.

    February 12: The band gives two concert performances at Carnegie Hall in New York City.

    February 16: The Beatles make their second appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show at the Deauville Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida, performing She Loves You, All My Loving, This Boy, I Saw her Standing There, From Me to You and I Want to Hold your Hand.


    Article ID# 2465776

    facebook MySpace Twitter google


  52. 'The Beatles At Barnum' Returns To Samohi This Friday, October 5
    Tuesday, 2 Oct 2012, 2:22:00 AM
    Mitch James

    Photo by D'Lynn Waldron
    'The Beatles at Barnum' returns to Santa Monica High School this Friday, Oct. 5.A celebration of the music of The Beatles featuring the award-winning Samohi Symphony Orchestra returns to Santa Monica this Friday, Oct. 5.

    Beatles historian and bon vivant Martin Lewis will again host the show called The Beatles at Barnum,which includes full orchestral arrangements of Beatles favorites, audience sing-a-longs, the rock band FKB, and a multimedia presentation.

    The event starts at 7:30 p.m. in Barnum Hall, on the campus of Santa Monica High School.

    This is a rare opportunity to see the music of the Beatles performed by a live orchestra, fronted by a rock band, said Steve Nemzer, of the Samohi OPA. "Last year's show was an absolute knockout this is an event not to be missed by anyone who loves the Beatles.

    General admission tickets are $20, and $10 for students, and can be purchased at the door or online at

    Audience members are encouraged to dress up as their favorite Beatle, a Mod or a Rocker.

    All proceeds will be used to underwrite orchestral music programs at Santa Monica High.

    A protege of Beatles publicist Derek Taylor, host Martin Lewis will share personal anecdotes about the Beatles and their music.

    We're thrilled to have Martin Lewis again as emcee for The Beatles at Barnum, said Scott Ferguson, event producer. He's a world-renowned Beatles expert, a humanitarian, and brings a personal Beatles connection to the performance.

    Among his many credits, Martin Lewis wrote and hosted the documentary Re-Meet The Beatles!, and produced The Fab 40!, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Beatles' first US visit.

    The Beatles at Barnum features guest vocalists and instrumental performers, such as guitarist Jake Noveck, who in 2011 brought down the house with his solos on While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

    Barnum Hall has a long history as a stellar venue for pops collaborations between student performers and local artists, such as David Crosby, Jackson Browne, and the band America.said Ferguson.

    The Beatles at Barnum continues in this tradition. And besides being a fantastic show, the event helps raise funds for the Samohi Orchestra program.

    Visit Samohi Orchestras online at Facebook at!/pages/Samohi-Orchestras/102452568068, and on the web at

    Copyright © 2011 by Santa Monica Mirror. All rights reserved.









    Some how the above got in capital letters by mistake and I don't feel like typing it all over again.


  54. As The Rolling Stone Album Guide said,not liking The Beatles is as perverse as not liking the sun. And Ozzy Osbourne said not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen. And a guy who runs Keno's Classic Rock n Roll Site and who runs a Rolling Stones and John Lennon fan site says in his review of The Beatles 1967-1970 Red Album damn The Beatles were one great group and he said in his great review of The Beatles 1962-1966 Red album, that if you don't love or at least like The Beatles and their music then you are not a true rock fan and more than likely will never ever get it.

    He also says that John Lennon showed on Paul's rocker Get Back why he should have played lead guitar more often because he did such a good job of it. He also said he played a pretty good slide guitar on George's For Your Blue and he said John also played one of the first and best acid guitar parts on his great rocker Revolution.

  55. I recently watched the whole Rockshow concert on Youtube and there is well over a 1,000 views and a ,majority of over 1,000 likes.Many people are saying there,and on blog reviews that this Wings concert shows what a music genius Paul is,his musical brilliance and how musicaly diverse he is going from playing and singing love songs, ''pop'' songs,to hard rockers that he wrote,and playing piano,bass,and electric piano great,with in minutes.

    I have always had a very sensitive good ear for music and I wrote poetry and stories and did good drawings since I was a child.And even though I'm a very word oriented person,when I listen to *music* that's what I'm listening for,not a poetry reading.I don't care about song lyrics,if the music is great the lyrics could be about pop corn and I would still love it.I like instrumental jazz music with no lyrics at all.

    And something that so many people even many Paul fans don't get is that Paul McCartney has always been a true natural *music* genius more than a lyric genius.He can write very good lyrics and there are many examples even from his Wings/solo music where he did,but in a lot of his solo music he often didn't have deep heavy lyrics.But even when he did have very good lyrics,he didn't have to and that's not what is so great about his songs when he did,it was his brilliant *music*,musicianship,(he's rightfully widely regarded by many well known respected successful rock musicians as being one of the greatest bass players ever,and he could always play anything great,acoustic guitar,lead guitar and piano)and singing that is what makes his songs so great.

    Back in 2007 I found a guy's blog who is a play write,I don't remember his name now,and I'd really like to find it again.He had an 8 part series on Paul Mccartney and said he has been a big John Lennon and Beatles fan since he was 12 when The Beatles Red and Blue albums came out in 1973. But he said he used to (irrationaly) hate Paul McCartney,he now gave good reviews to some of his Wings/solo music and said that he now loves Paul and said he's a music genius.I posted on his blog in 2007 that many people including some Paul fans,don't understand that he's always been more of the Beethoven of rock more than a lyric genius.No other music artist can take a song about a Bluerbird and make it sound so good, but again it's his *music* brilliance that makes it so,his 1976 Wings live version is great,even better than the really good version on the Band On The Run album.

    Well,3 years later I found out that he had answered me on his blog,and said I agree with you,but Paul is more of the Mozart of rock. I don't know what the difference is,because I don't like classical music,I just have heard all of my life that Bach,Beethoven and Mozart are widely considered music genius classical composers.None of them wrote any lyrics did they?

    And I like Paul's first solo album McCartney where he played every instrument,and so many all by himself so great,Red Rose Speedway is a really good album,and the critically acclaimed Band On The Run is very good,and I love his 1975 Wings Venus and Mars album,it's a great rock album of Beatles quality,every song is very good or great,and Paul produced these albums by himself. I think his greatest post Beatles music was from 1970-1975. He's written some good interesting sounding instrumentals too.

    But also in Hunter Davies only authorized Beatles biography from 1968 George Martin says he felt Paul had the most all around musical talent,although elsewhere he said that John could write great music and Paul could write great lyrics.

  56. And Hunter Davies who knew them all well since 1967 said that John was the most original and he said as he thinks most people would agree, a strange one off personality,but that he always felt that Paul was the most naturally musically gifted and music flowed out of him all of the time. And he said Paul is also gifted with the aptitueds to make the most of his talents.He also said that Geore was a combination both orginal and talented but different yet in ways different from John and Paul.

    Also, ironically it was Paul who started writing songs *before* John did,a year before he met John when Paul was only 14(John was writing heavy poetry as a teen,but he hadn't put to music until he met Paul when John was almost 17,and he was impressed that Paul was already writing his own songs and it inspired him to start writing his own songs,and then as we know they both never stopped!) right after his beloved nurse and mid wife 47 year old beloved mother Mary died of breast cancer(so sad,unreal and painful for Paul that his beloved wife Linda also died of breast cancer at age 56,and left Paul and their children behind too!) and Paul's brother Mike was only 12.His brother said that Paul became obssessed with playing his guitar and that he even played it in the bath tub,and on the toilet!Mike says in Hunter Davies great book,The Beatles,you lose a mother and gain a guitar? And he said it was an escape,but an escape from what? Obviously he should have figured out that Paul was trying to escape the pain from his mother's sudden death.

    Paul movingly says in his authorized biography,Many Years From Now that he wrote his beautiful song Let It Be after he had a vivid realistic dream where he saw his mother Mary ,(who had been dead for 12 years already)alive and telling him to just accept things as they are.He said when he woke up he thought how beautiful it was to see and ''be'' with her again.

    So that is what his lines,When I find myself in Times of Trouble mother Mary comes to me,speaking words of wisdom Let It Be.And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me etc

    Even his 1976 Wings hit,Let Em In which is good once again because of his music,it's the marching band sounding drumming,the flutes,a piano and his vocal,has more deeper meaning in it that only big Paul fans would know.The brother Michael that he sings to let em in,is of course his younger brother Mike and the auntie Jin was one of his father's sister's who came over their house and took care of Paul and his brother soon after their mother died while their father worked.


  57. Paul inherited his father Jim McCartney's natural musical talent,he was a self taught jazz pianist and the leader of his own jazz band,Jim Mac's Band and they were popular playing in Liverpool clubs.Jim wrote his own instrumental called,Walking In The Park With Eloise which Paul and Wings recorded in 1974 using the name The Country Hams and included it on their 1976 Wings At The Speed Of Sound album.Paul's paternal grandfather also played several instruments in a band and he sang and had a good singing voice.

    Paul won the genetic lotter,his younger brother didn't,he looks nothing like Paul,he has always been average looking,Paul was gorgeous when he was young,his brother always had average grades in school,Paul was always at the top of his grades and his father and teachers said he was smart enough to go to college,and even though Paul helped his brother with some of his music albums,his brother never had that much music success and he gave it up many years ago and had more success as a photographer.

    Please see these very good reviews for Wings 1976 concert film Rockshow.On Blog Glen Boyd who was at Paul's Seattle June 10th 1976 concert said that the former Kingdome arena was the sort of acoustical nightmare that was never meant to play host to rock shows,even of stadium-sized variety.And he says over time,the NFL eventually figured out the Kingdome wasn't that great for football either and in March 2000 it finally fell victim to the wrecking ball.He says that even so-and despite the fact that loud amplified music really has nowhere else to go inside a gigantic cement cavern,but to bounce off the walls-many superstar rock acts braved the challenges of the venue,and made the attempt anyway.He says some other things about Led Zeppelin playing there and Jeff Beck was so pissed off at the horrendous sound,at one point he even made a crack welcoming the crowd to "the Kingdome echo chamber"

    He then says,but in 1976 Paul McCartney and Wings were the first to break the Kingdome in for rock shows.He says most of us old school veterans of Seattle's rock scene agree to this day,that from the Stones and the Eagles to U2 and The Who,Macca still remains the only guy who was able to really pull it off.He then says at the time Wings Kingdome performance also set an indoor concert attendance record for North America-drawing in an astounding 67,000 fans.

    And on Pop


  58. Pete Townsend along with John Bonham, John Paul Jones and David Gilmore played on 2 songs on the last Wings album Back To The Egg that came out in 1979 . They also all played with Paul and Wings in the last Wings concerts in December 1979.

    Pete also along with Phil Collins who is also a big Beatles fan since he was 13 in the concert scene in the Beatles film A Hard Day's Night, played on Paul's 1986 album Press To Play.

    And I have found more than a 100 former Beatles haters on different message boards who are now big Beatles fans,many call them The Greatest Rock Band Ever and most say they now think they were brilliant song writers. I didn't communicate with these people, but they said in their posts that they hadn't even heard most of their songs and albums,and had inaccurate misperceptions of them like the ridiculous one that they ever were a "boy band." Which besides knowing even most of their music and knowing their history knows is totally false.

    A few years ago a musician posted on some message board about the new John Lennon biography, and he said watch The Beatles Anthology video series and learn how truly immensely talented this band was.

    Most people don't hate The Beatles in the first place and people don't usually go from hating a band to loving them, so it just goes to show how great and timeless their music really is/was!

    I once found a post a few years ago of a 35 year old musician in Jamaica who said on his blog that when he was younger and a big Who fan he used to think The Beatles were overrated, but that he did a 300 degree turn around and he said he now truly believes that The Beatles were the greatest rock band ever.

    1. I agree that the 'Boy Band" label is idotic. Firstly, The members of the Beatles were not "boys" but YOUNG MEN in their twenties. Secondly, ALL rock and roll music was YOUTH ORIENTED at that time. Third, the term "Boy band' was coined during the late 90's in reference to then-current acts like N'Sync, Backstreet Boys and New Kids On the Block, and THOSE acts were nothing like The Beatles at all. THOSE were VOCAL groupes. They were actually much more similar to groups like The Platters or Four Tops or Temptations than The Beatles ( if you need someone from history to compare them to ).


  59. Many people have said about The Rolling Stones ,that their albums have a few good or great songs but the rest is filler.

    But a radio host who was a former DJ once said that The Beatles are one of the only if not only bands that almost all of their songs were great including the album tracks that weren't released as singles.

    On a message board discussion some years ago about what bands and artists people consider overrated,quite a few said The Rolling Stones and some said The Beatles or both,and a guy said if you ask almost anybody in the music business they will tell you that The Beatles were the Greatest Band Ever.

    I once spoke to a rock DJ about The Beatles and even though he said they aren't his favorite,he said nobody can say that The Beatles weren't great,he said especially John Lennon and Paul McCartney as song writers.

    And I once spoke to another rock DJ who is a huge Beatles fan & who has hosted a 2 hour Breakfast With The Beatles radio show for over 20 years & I said that The Beatles work in the recording studio described in details in The Beatles
    Reording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn,is so impressive & brilliant & he said oh it's the work of genuises. I said how can anyone not recognize what extraordinary singer song composers John Lennon & Paul McCartney were? And he said oh you can ask anyone in the music business & they will tell you that.

  60. And I hate true boy bands,as everyone should,they aren't talented and aren't cool,and not only is it totally inaccurate to ever call The Beatles a ''boy band'',it's insulting to them as the true great rock band they always were,and insult to any fans over the age of 12!

    1. Firstly, The Beatles were not "boys", they were YOUNG MEN in their twenties at the time they became successfull. Secondly, ALL rock and roll music was YOUTH ORIENTED music at that time. Third, the term "Boy Band" was coined during the late 90's in reference to then current acts like N'Sync, New Kids On the Block and Backstreet Boys. And THOSE groups were NOTHING like The Beatles at all. THOSE groupes were VOCAL groups not musicians. THEY were actually much more simmilar to groupes like The Platters or Four Tops or Temptations if you need someone from history to compare them to.

  61. And Ringo Star was already aa successful drummer in the most popular successful band in Liverpool,Rorry Storm and The Hurricanes when John,Paul and George asked him to join The Beatles.And George Martin didn't think that Pete Best was that good,and he and John,Paul and George thought that Ringo was much better.

    Also Phil Collins and Max Weinberg are both Ringo fans. And Phil Colins says he can't even duplicate Ringo's great drumming in A Day In The Life. George Martin says that Ringo always had a great feel and ear for a song and that it was his idea to play the tom toms on A Day In The Life giving it a unique percussion sound.

    Mark Lewisohn says in his great book,The Beatles REcording Sessions,that on a handful of occasions during all of the several hundred session tapes and thousand of recording hours can Ringo be heard to have made a mistake or wavered in his beat. He then says that his work was remarkably consistent-and excellent-from 1962 right through to 1970.

  62. The labeling of them as a "Boy band" is particularly idotic. Firstly, the members of the group were NOT BOYS but YOUNG MEN in their twenties ( same age other rock musicians tended to be ). Secondly, ALL rock and roll music was pretty much YOUTH ORIENTED music at that time. Third, the term 'Boy band" was coined during the late 90's in reference to then-current acts like N'Sync, Backstreet Boys and New Kids On the Block, .. . and THOSE groups were NOTHING like The Beatles at all. THOSE were VOCAL groups. THEY actually were much more similar to old groups like The Platters or Four Tops or Temptations than The Beatles ( if you need someone else from history to compare them to ).

    As for them being "rip offs", WHO the hell else in rock and roll did songs that sounded like sayyyyyyy Strawberry Feilds, I Am the Walrus, Yellow Submarine, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, A Day In the Life, Magical Mystery Tuor and LSD; Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ( these songs were considered pretty weird quirky and highly original in their day ) prior to The Beatles? .. . Chuck Berry?

  63. .. .

  64. Well I DO think that The Beatles were quite a bit overated, yes. However, by "overated" I don't mean to say that they were actually terrible or that they "sucked" in the words of this idiot author of this essay. I simply mean that they get too much atention. And there are other musical acts that I find overated too, like Elvis Prsley, Micheal Jackson, Jimmy Hendrix, The Doors, Bob Dylan to name a few. So it ain't just The Beatles with me either.

  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

  66. I do agree that the beatles are overrated but they dont really suck. I mean yes they didnt create the first concept album, the first 'real album', the first psychedelic album, the first heavy metal song or the first experimental song. They weren't the first ones to use sitars or strings in their music. John and Paul weren't incredible songwriters. Dylan and Cohen can easily put any beatles song to shame. They weren't innovative or original as other bands of that time such as The Velvet Underground or Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band. None of the members were really that talented. Ringo was an average drummer and Harrison was an average guitarist. Paul was an average bassist and songwriter although he did write some catchy tunes. Ok, Lennon was a bit talented. He wasn't an incredible songwriter and at some times it feels he was trying to imitate Dylan in songs such as Lucy In The Sky Diamonds, Across the Universe and I Am The Walrus, but he did have some nice ideas when it came to production, and frankly without George Martin their music would be much worse.Just look at their solo stuff. They didn't have the most consistent discography. Rubber soul is filled with poppy songs with bad songwriting with the exception of few songs. The White Album is completely full of lackluster songs again with some bad songwriting e.g. "today is your birthday happy birthday to ya" , "ob la di ob la da life goes on brah!!", "i look at the world and i notice its turning" ,"everywhere there is alot of piggies living piggie lives". You get my point. Abbey road is a great pop record but it doesn't do anything ground breaking or original to give it more praise than some more deserving albums than, lets say, The Velvet Underground & Nico. They don't have the most consistent albums just look at Revolver's track list. I want to tell you, doctor robert, yellow submarine, and your bird can sing, here there and everywhere, love you too. Now none of these songs are terrible but non of them are great either which begs the question why are they present on the supposedly greatest album of all time. To sum this up, beatles are a great band but they are far from the greatest.

    1. To sum up - you don't like the Beatles but you like Velvet Underground.That is fine.(btw i like both groups) But many people wont agree with you. That is why your attempt to be a music critic is laughable.It is entirely subjective.Why? Because there is no way to measure which band is better or who is more talented ? Maybe by selling records. In that case, you will be wrong and the Beatles will be the best and the most talented music act. And why Bob Dylan and Velvet Underground should be original and the Beatles not ? Because you say so ? In terms of music theory, Beatles do have original and innovative songs. But please, enlighten us, you musical guru you .

  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

  68. Beatles is a great band for the rest. Not for me, i think they suck, not a single piece of music the made that i can hang on to! what a shit band

  69. I just think this guy had way too much time on his hands to come up with reasons why the Beatles are bad, rather than just having an opinion. I can guarantee he's probably never listened to their music properly. And I forgot, about reason number 4, the Beatles couldn't play instruments I don't know if anyone else knew? *insert massive kappa face here*

  70. 1: Even if they were media creations ( arguable) that does not mean that they are not a great band. 2:They are not rip-offs Plagiarism means that you copy a musical idea / melody meaning using the same notes melodies etc. Playing in the same genre or being influenced by someone or even sounding similar is not.All of the plagiarism allegation here are pathetic.And they were innovative in so many ways whether you like it or not 3: overproducing is not relevant to the topic if the music is good. Nicki Minaj is overproduced but that is not the problem, the problem is that her songs are shit. 4: Great musician is a subjective term.For example, a technical musician does not mean a great musician.They are better than any fool that can shred pointlessly the guitar within 200 bpm. 5.Their personalities do not affect their musical legacy. ( and also they are humans and ,thus, not perfect). This article lacks any objective argument, therefore it sucks.

  71. The only notable thing about the Beatles is when John Lennon died. That way, we didn't have to suffer from the band reuniting.

  72. All 100% true. Pink Floyd were the real avant garde musical artists of the 60's.

  73. Are you people seriously arguing about a pop music group? For god sake! There is no such thing as a good pop music group. Pop music is twaddle for uneducated low-brow ninnies and hormonally driven 10 year old girls and their mental and emotional annalogs. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Frankie and Annette, Madonna, the Chipmonks, Elvis, any blues musician, take your pick. It is all hideous noise, unless you want to dance with that cute boy in your finger painting class.

  74. Mortal combat was a very good game, but I think donkey kong was the best game ever. Who gives a shit? Whatever floats your boat. Music is a blessing. Who gives a fuck who is influential or not. Did the song affect you? Do you like the fucking band? That's all you need to know bitches! Don't let some windbag piss on your parade.

  75. Thank you for this. I thought me and the lady who takes the orders for wall to wall carpeting at Home Depot were the only ones who felt this way.

  76. From the beginning of this what we know as a rock and roll every fucking musicions ware in this business becouse of little girls/pussy,fame and money.From Robert Johnson who sold his soul to devil to be famous.
    Led Zeppelin are not in situation to say nothing about the Beatles becouse of meny court case with Willie Dixon becouse they plagysam of Whola Totta Love,Boogie with Stu,Baby I am gonnna leave you,When the leavie breaks,,come on Jimbo X,be sereous.
    In every book about Mick Jagger his brother said"His only in this becouse he allways want to be rich.Ask Stevie Wonder;Michael Jackson,Neil Young,CSNY,Kurt Cobain,Supremes,Ronettts,Pfil Spector;Byrds,Bruce Spreengsten,Bob Dylan,Ozy Osborne and 90% of Americans what they think about Beatles music.
    Lets make The Beatles greatest hits outside of red and blue albums,Lets call this albun,,,THE WORST OF THE BEATLES
    1,Happines is a warm gun
    3.Tomorrow never knows
    4.Oh Darling
    5.Dear Prudence
    7.She said,she said
    9.Helter Skelter
    11.Rooftop Concert is impresiv
    12.I am so tired you want some more ?????????
    So in 5 points I can tell you....who is not rip offs in this business?Beatles ware the less rip offs theh Led Zeppelin.
    You say that Beatles ware not good instrumentalist....have you read last interwiev about Led Zeppelin and what his thinking about John Bonhan drumming and Robert Plant singing,What his thinking about Black Sabbath aand Metalica.Come on Jimbo,,Paul McCartney plaid drums on Back in USSR when Ringo left the group.I have never sow Keith Richards to play drumms and piano.Afterall the playing of bass guitar onsong"And your Bird Can Sing" is in level Jack Bruce
    Jimbo x take a pills and go to slip

  77. This comment has been removed by the author.

  78. All these negative facts about the Beatles and they still turned into the most popular group ever, that's inspiring!!

  79. The Beatles don't need you or me or anyone to defend them, and they'll certainly survive whatever drivel this prick has to say about them. If Kev thinks the Beatles suck, fine. Who cares? He pissed you off. That's all he wanted to do anyway.

  80. The Beatles always made me wanna puke. Their music is downright horrible and irritating. Thank God John Lennon's dead.

  81. What a horrible thing to say aspie mom. Thanking God an artist was murdered says so much more about you than it does John Lennon, doesn't it?

  82. Bravo. It takes courage to attack "gods." There are few taboos in society as that of the speaking ill of the Beatles, or rock and roll in general. Just the slightest "peep" and you are consigned to the dung heap of "snobdom."

    Thank you for this considered piece.

  83. I wouldn't say they suck. I would say the Boomers tend to elevate rock musicians to a higher level than is deserved. They weren't really pillars of society. They were just a band.

  84. I never liked the Beatles, I never understand all the hype about them.I also don't understand why they must be immune to criticism. It's okay not to like them just as it's okay not to like Michael Jackson or any other musical artists. You're brave for attacking them lol people see them as Gods

  85. understood
    that's what I meant to say

  86. The great thing about the Beatles is they took advantage of their early popularity (early 60s) and were somehow able to instill that idea of "great band" mentality among their fans. No matter what they wrote after hard day's night, it was considered great, simply because they were "the beatles." People were running around the 60s concluding each new beatle song they hear as great because "they were the beatles." Fact is, the songs were terrible, childish, corny and well, up to par with nursery rhymes for toddlers. How do you hear someone say, "Hey I feel like rocking tonight! Im gonna put on When Im Sixty Four by the Beatles! Yeah man!" Never! The Beatles were able to fool people into thinking their songs were great because of their personalities -- Ill hand them that. The media and everyone else were fascinated by their private lives and character. Also, they were able to get away with their terrible songs because, well, George Martin was saving their asses with his genius productions -- yes it was martin who was the real innovator here. Give him an average or teeible song like yesterday, and hell turn it into a masterpiece. The song itself sucks, but the sound, the overall engineering is a phenomenon.

    All the BEatles literature out there from the past and today is an important propganda machine that helps fooling people into thinking these 4 frauds are great or were still great.

    To all you dumb Beatles fans out there who claim that there simply exists no other song better than the Beatles after the Beatles, well, you idiots are blinded. I could name a ton of 80s songs that are more complex and just way better sounding with way better lyrics than anything the beatles ever made. That's just the 80s. Beatles and Beatles fans= idiots.

  87. This comment has been removed by the author.

  88. This comment has been removed by the author.

  89. This comment has been removed by the author.

  90. Beatles and Beatles fans= idiots.

    Yup...And today, they are Hitlery Rotten's fans...make you vomit!
    The Charlie Manson Helter Skelter generation.

    May their dear mussies disembowel them all and stick their
    dick in their mouth(a common practice with muslims)

  91. You bring up good points, but you lost me at they're over produced and they can't play live. They couldn't play their overproduced songs live because they didn't want to... That was the point. They revolutionized musical production, they stopped touring. In all your research you didn't come across one of the biggest Beatles facts. Also, the reason you don't hear their live performances on the radio is because you simply can't... They only toured during beatlemania, and during beatlemania, all you can hear while they're performing is girls screeching