The Beatles Sucked.

re: this (h/t this), I simply don’t understand why everyone is so obsessed with the Beatles. The Beatles were a boy band. They played droning shit and got by on pure sex appeal, as far as I can tell.

Suppose you had to pick a favorite musician/band from that era.

First, there is Miles. And Trane. A Love Supreme was, after all, released in 1965. As was Ascension. Bitches Brew was released in 1970.

Marginally below, or possibly on a level with, Miles and Trane is Hendrix. Hendrix, for fuck’s sake. Hendrix:Beatles::directly stimulating the pleasure center of the brain:eating a stale cookie. At this level we also have James Brown.

Then we have a gigantic gulf, because nobody comes close to Miles, Trane, Hendrix and the Godfather. But below that gulf and still far above the Beatles we have, e.g., Clapton, Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane before they became Starship and started sucking, The Who, Sly & The Family Stone… you name it.

The Beatles? Not even close.

(I wonder if I’m going to get a thousand enraged comments and lose all my readers for this.)


7 Responses to “The Beatles Sucked.”

  1. ben wolfson Says:

    Since I’m the kind of person who doesn’t think there’s much point in comparing chicago and new york-style pizzas, you can imagine that I completely reject the Miles/Beatles comparison. As for the rest, sure, they’re not to your taste. You’re not, actually, alone in that.

  2. Matt Says:

    I also don’t really the love of the Beatles by people over 14 or so, unless it’s just nostalgia or something. What really drove home their boringness to me was realizing that Sargent Pepper came out the same year as The Velvet Underground and Nico. Whatever you think of the ultimate quality of the two, the pure interestingness of the Velvet Underground record as compared to anything by the Beatles can hardly be measured.

  3. Paul Gowder Says:

    The Miles/Beatles comparison is sort of like comparing Chicago-style pizzas and dumpster diving.

  4. Matt Says:

    Oops. First sentence should say, “I don’t really understand the love…”

  5. Mike Says:

    They don’t do it for me. Once I spent a few hours reading about why (or based on what standards) the Beatles were so good. The arguments are pretty impressive. “Objectively” (if there is such a thing when it comes to music) the Beatles are amazing. The Beach Boys, too.

    For me, I like what I like. Lacking any serious thoughts of my own in the field, however, I’m reluctant to say any group is bad. Especially when my best arguments are, “Well, I don’t like their sound.”

  6. Daniel Goldberg Says:

    I love ‘em because I grew up listening to them. It reminds me of home and warmth and intimacy, and I share that with the Wife, who has similar feelings and experiences with them.

    Also, it’s important to separate the early stuff — which is VERY boy band-esque — from some of their later stuff, which is vastly more mature (think “Long and Winding Road”). Lennon and McCartney are good songwriters, even if their music doesn’t really do it for ya.

  7. Uncommon Priors » Is “Revolution” the worst song ever? I think so. Says:

    [...] supporting my contention that the Beatles were an utterly terrible band is the song [...]

Leave a Comment