The Beatles - gay and bad

[Not bad]

And the members look hideous.

 

[guest]

People are sheep. Moreso in the past.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

People are sheep. Moreso in the past.

This forum suggests otherwise.

 

[Rink Lee Fa Ni]

I enjoy Wings more sniff

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

Revolver, St pepper, abbey road and let it will hold up for the rest of time. Everything else is impressive for its time but mediocre at best now.

Anyone who says they're their favorite band is almost as embarrassing as Fat pretending he loves the Foo Fighters, when in reality he only loves himself.

 

[Riccardo Bosi]

I legit hate The Beatles.

 

[Not bad]

"They paved the way for other artists". Because they made their own music, or what? That's a music industry thing that has nothing to do with the music itself. It was still the same type of trivial nonsense as what came before.

 

[ShutYourCakeHorn]

The Kinks → The Beatles

Any day of the week.

 

[guest]

I don't completely hate them musically, but the handful of good songs they had have been done to death. "She's so heavyyyyy" is she? Their whole manufactured rebellious image is gay as shit.

Lennon acting like he's some tortured genius who wants to save the world, while he's just another degenerate sellout junkie crooner with a caterwauling slope for a wife. God bless Mark David Chapman's pinpoint aim.

 

[Not bad]

Oops, got the first car crash! Hey @RIP-Allen-Lanier, kill yourself for liking that whimsical faggot band.

 

[Brenton Torrent]

I'm all in with a bit of (((revisionist))) history but the Beatles are to pop music as Shakespeare is to playwriting.

They changed the way people wrote pop music at such a fundamental level that everything that comes after is indebted to the Beatles to some extent.

People from all across the musical world, including classical composers, appreciate their remarkable gift for melody and genius songwriting.

There was no ulterior motive to manufacture the Beatles and force them upon the public. They were not 'used' by the establishment or aided by the elite class.

In fact, it's remarkable they became famous at all as no-one in the music industry wanted to touch them. It was mostly incredible good fortune that they got a record deal.

They were a legit natural cultural phenomenon that in time, the establishment had to absorb and try to position them as an influence on the social revolution that took place in the 60's.

Most people on this forum will be aware of the role the CIA played in releasing hallucinogenic drugs or the connection between rock stars having family members in the military or the way the (((media))) used pop culture to promote degenerate behaviour.

Yet the Beatle, at least initially, were operating outside of these social changes and were simply the soundtrack to it as it was happening.

Sorry for the autistic response but it's either this or I bake a cake with Patrick Tomlinson's face on it and I'm not that gifted.

 

[MunchausenByProxy]

Beatles hate is gay. The sheer amount of songwriting that was cranked out by 2 guys in a 7 year span is immaculate.
Abbey Road B-side medley is the greatest 16 minutes of music ever created by man in one sitting. I could geek the fawk out right now.

 

[Mitch Weaver]

 

[Dennyislife]

Before the Beatles music was pretty shitty. They were only 12 years removed from the 40s sound when they brought out their early stuff like Love me do which imo is still a catchy pop song. By they time they burnt out at the end of the 60s everything changed. The speed they changed was incredible. I guess giving up touring as it couldn't really be done in big numbers back then helped them with that but bands today would tour two hit albums in the time the Beatles did their whole career and be happy with it

 

[Not bad]

They changed the way people wrote pop music at such a fundamental level that everything that comes after is indebted to the Beatles to some extent.

People from all across the musical world, including classical composers, appreciate their remarkable gift for melody and genius songwriting.

I keep hearing this but I don't see what people are talking about. What was different about their music compared to Elvis Presley's music?

 

[Mitch Weaver]

Before the Beatles music was pretty shitty. They were only 12 years removed from the 40s sound when they brought out their early stuff like Love me do which imo is still a catchy pop song. By they time they burnt out at the end of the 60s everything changed. The speed they changed was incredible. I guess giving up touring as it couldn't really be done in big numbers back then helped them with that but bands today would tour two hit albums in the time the Beatles did their whole career and be happy with it

I’m as big a Beatles fan as any but that statement is trash, brothaman. We had Elvis, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Sinatra. Granted the Beatles did push shit forward in part because they had George Martin to help facilitate on the technical side, but music was pretty fawkin good in the 50’s.

 

[Mitch Weaver]

I keep hearing this but I don't see what people are talking about. What was different about their music compared to Elvis Presley's music?

Elvis’ sun sessions rivals anything the Beatles ever put out, shit still slaps, child.

 

[ThePepsiColaRapist]

Its fashionable for music fags (me) to hate on The Beatles, but the fact remains that they're the most important and influential group of the 20th century. Personally, I can take em or leave em. Abbey Road is good, The White Album has its moments, Revolver and Rubber Soul are pretty flawless, but I despise Sgt. Pepper. Anyway, that's my gayass opinion.

Oh yeah, Taxman is a banger. Post-punk before Punk.





And without the Beatles (Apple Records) we may have never gotten this stone cold masterpiece.

 

[ThePepsiColaRapist]

Before the Beatles music was pretty shitty. They were only 12 years removed from the 40s sound when they brought out their early stuff like Love me do which imo is still a catchy pop song. By they time they burnt out at the end of the 60s everything changed. The speed they changed was incredible. I guess giving up touring as it couldn't really be done in big numbers back then helped them with that but bands today would tour two hit albums in the time the Beatles did their whole career and be happy with it

This country music fan respectfully disagrees.

 

[Dennyislife]

I’m as big a Beatles fan as any but that statement is trash, brothaman. We had Elvis, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Sinatra. Granted the Beatles did push shit forward in part because they had George Martin to help facilitate on the technical side, but music was pretty fawkin good in the 50’s.

Elvis is the only one that has truly lasted. Buddy Holly stinks. Sinatra stinks.