Songs that you simply never liked? Or can't stand.
- Thread starter JT20
- Start date
Or... the movie Frozen. LOL
Now the POCAHONTAS song was Awesome...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Let it Go?
All of them. LOL
Now that is a completely whacked comparison. I really don't like The Beatles on my HiFi either, but I grew up with them and was a Beatles maniac. Their compositions are studied by musicians musical scholars alike.
OH, in re-reading I see you are Talking the "Beetles" I don't know that band.
During the Disco era, when I was studying keyboard, I got in to Classical. Walter Carlos got me into Baroque:
Corelli, Bach, Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Handel, Haydn.
Then I moved up to the Classical and Romantic period stuff: Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Beethoven, Grieg, Dubussy, Bruckner, Stravinski
and Rossini - who did most of soundtrack for the Looney Tunes Cartoons!
Being 1/2 Slavic I'm big on Tchai; he just speaks to my soul.
What do I hate? Journey. And most of the new stuff.
I will say that even though I'm old like your Parents, that Radiohead and Muse are concerts I would gladly attend.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I studied Music History briefly at the University my father taught at. Yes, we covered the Beatles, Elvis, early rock and the influence they had on that genre and how it evolved, touching on Zeppelin, the Stones...etc. We also studied Gregorian Chant, a plethora of classical composers and their modern counterparts like ALW.
We covered pretty much every genre and one of the topics touched-on was the concept of what constituted early "pop" music, which simply denoted music that was, as the name implied, popular. The Beatles, Elvis...etc they were pop music of their time, no different than NSync, the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Laga Gaga, Avril Lavigne, Fleetwood Mac, Metallica, AC/DC, Guns & Roses...etc. Some music has staying power, some doesn't. Some artists are one-hit wonders, some fade away, others continue to maintain at least some degree of relevance. Popularity transcends most mainstream genres as tastes change and what was hot in 2006 may not be in 2021, but some stuff just sticks. At some point pop became an actual genre, splintering from the genesis of the name and garnering a loose definition based on a specific "style" of music, however, I'm talking of it in terms of its original meaning, not the Britney Spears one.
Yes, some people will be influenced by the Beatles, including musicians, some will be influenced by Nickelback, Metallica, Nightwish, Evanescence, Panterra, Type O Negative..etc. Your era doesn't have a monopoly on influence. Elton John was an incredible influence as was Madonna, both have been well-studied. We did, after I brought them up, a section on Metallica in class, how a heavy metal band bridged the apparent chasm that existed between that genre and what traditionally constituted pop, another example of that would be Motley Crue, though not quite as successful.
Jimmy Hendrix and Randy Rhodes are studied extensively, Cliff Burton was a massive influence in the bass scene and his work inspired me to take-up that instrument along with many others, including his replacement in Metallica, Jason Newsted.
There are no "whacked" comparisons being made here; the obstacle isn't the comparison itself but rather the vantage point from which it is being made, which I expected to get pushback on. Viewed through the eye of what we grew up listening to; the music that was most influential on our early lives, this preconditions us to use that as a reference point, which is primarily why when I see people lauding the Beatles as the epitome of musical excellence I can typically safely assume they are around the age of my parents, perhaps older. You scoffed at the Backstreet Boys comparison, but in reality, they were to the Boy Band as the Beatles and Elvis were to Rock. As what Tupac, Notorious BIG and MC Hammer were to rap, what Metallica, Maiden, Motley Crue and AC/DC were to metal. The early pop superstars of those genres that maintained relevance.
Myself and a few friends, most of them much, MUCH older than myself, had, prior to COVID, a listening group that met sporadically. We would all bring stuff we thought the group might find interesting, so we'd listen to pretty much anything from any time period, most of it on vinyl, but we do the odd digital source too. I don't recall the Beatles ever being played. We'd listen to far more obscure stuff like Dean Peer, but also relatively popular artists like Tool, Gordon Lightfoot, Metallica, Led Zeppelin, Tim McGraw, Garth Brooks, Sarah Brightman, The Moody Blues, Phil Collins/Genesis, Neil Young, A Perfect Circle, Rammstein, Shinedown, Stan Rogers, Type O Negative, Rolling Stones...etc. We all have very broad tastes.
Just like I absolutely can't stand Kanye West, I can't stand the Beatles. Somebody scoffing at that says more about them than it does about me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
What makes The Beatles so significant is that they were pioneers and created an entirely new music genre. Plus they wrote and played all their own material (with the exception of some of their extremely early pre-Fab Four material.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
There have been plenty of pioneers in the music industry, all of these genres and sub-genres had to come from somewhere. Motley Crue wrote and played their own material too. Metallica had a cover period early on, but they've written an obscene amount of original material as well. Who invented Jazz, R&B, soul, Metal, Hip-Hop, rap, reggae, country? If you only know the Beatles that's because that's what appealed to you, but there's more to music than Rock and Roll, a genre itself which has changed tremendously since the days of the Yellow Submarine.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
This actually wasn’t my observations or opinions,but from people who actually lived through it. Heck,my generation grew up on disco,which musical historians and biographers feel is progressively and innovative. For instance the Gibb brothers didn’t intentionally come up with those high pitched vocals,but did so by pure happenstance. But others could say they stole their vocal style from early falsettos as Frankie Valli and the like.
Pink Floyd got their influence from early black blues musicians,hence the origin of their name,which was taken from two of their favorite blues musicians,but at the same time their music was very unique and innovative.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
But you see my point, right? It's a frame of reference. If you lived through a defining era for a given genre, of course that's going to be your go-to. There have, as I already noted, been pioneers for every genre, the Beatles are just one famous example because not only were they pioneers, but they were incredibly popular, hence my earlier remarks about them being pop music of that era, which they were. Elvis is another example. One can recognize that contribution and still absolutely hate their music
Of course it doesn't always go that way. There were numerous pioneers in heavy metal, which spawned several sub genres, but the "pop icons" of metal are arguably not pioneers there. Metallica was a late-comer, but they are probably "it" with respect to the personification of popularity for that genre. You usually know a band has succeeded in achieving that milestone when die-hards start calling them sell-outs and similar, which was the case for them and more recently, Five Finger Death Punch, the first commercially successful heavy metal act in quite some time.
Being "Popular" as a Band or Singer but then having their catalogue and talent withstand the test of time and cultural shifts is where that comparison ends for most.
Madonna was a Giant - she is all but forgotten.
Talking Heads were big in the 80s' they are now toast in the rubbish.
Stipe and R.E.M are most significant
B52's and Human League have surprising legs.
Jeff Lynne's E.L.O is still having a go at it.
Somehow W.A. Mozart is hanging on from the mid 18th century - even though many of his compositions are silly and torturous
Bowie still has some legs.
Young's and Lightfoot's music will be around forever - Merci de ta générosité Canada!
Patsy Cline ... forever
Moody Blues holds up and is evermore appreciated
Of Course, Zeppelin is timeless, Aerosmith's early work is classic pop rock
Neither Sinatra nor Elvis have left the building
Even the The Monkee's - the definition of a put together Boy Band - "made for them" music is transcendent
I could go on ...
But I will leave with this thought:
Some of McCartney's "throw away" compositions are far greater than many an artist's BEST work,
exempli gratia:
Long Haired Lady
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
How about reading the rest of the post you quoted? Staying power and maintaining relevance was touched-on and some of the examples you've given were also mentioned.
I always make the effort to read the entirety of what somebody has presented, even if I only quote a segment of it for a reply because I like to have a complete understanding of what they are saying, not just popping-off on one part that chides me or I simply disagree with.
I read it. Just putting the Back Street Boys next to the Beatle's - like them or not - I saw as ludicrous.
I took offense, then I called you out.
The wrongs of passion?
Maybe I am overly sensitive and protective of the soundtrack of my youth;
just as a Young Gentleman may defend the Honour of his Fiancee'
I defend this.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That's the reason I did it
I wanted to see what the response would be from somebody who was from that era as I expected pushback, and noted as much. Music's relationship with emotion is undeniable. That's why we love it; why we are absolutely passionate about it. It sounds like we both love music, just different types, and given the age gap, that's understandable. The music of my youth was wildly different from yours and I expect we don't align on preferred genres all that much as well, though there is some overlap from the list you provided above, which I expect you noted in mine.
While I can't stand the Beatles, I certainly recognize their achievement in being both pioneers and pop stars of their era and genre. There are many artists that have been one but not the other, so to do both and have staying power is certainly significant. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that people often bring up the pioneering aspect of the Beatles but then we are exclusively talking about the genesis of rock and there is more to music than rock and many other pioneers that have helped shape the very broad spectrum of listening choices we are able to enjoy today, even if I can't stand a lot of what is popular right now either, lol.
On a side-note: I mentioned my parents earlier on. For my mom, the Moody Blues was "it" in terms of music. She absolutely adored them, so when I was a kid, that's what I heard a lot of. Dad had some Simon and Garfunkel, and then I remember listening to Paul Simon's solo stuff on our trips to Newfoundland. My dad was also quite into classical, so I heard a lot of that. He would constantly have CBC Radio on with classical playing. A couple of years ago my aunt took my mom to see the Moody Blues at Rama here, which is about 2 hours away. I had no idea they were still playing live shows.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
The difference between the backdoor boys and Beatles. The backdoor boys weren’t musicians. They just “sing” to the sound of artificial “music” generated on a computer. They were an act born in a corporate boardroom to be a “group” to be corporate moneymakers. The Beatles as teenagers got ahold of some cheap instruments,taught themselves how to play,performed and wrote all of their material,and basically invented their musical genre.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You mean like Nirvana?
Pioneers and pop stars of the Grunge genre.Computer-generated music (likely part of the birth of pop as a genre versus it just being a term for popularity) was original too at one point. Maybe we have to go back to New Kids on The Block? MC Hammer? The "Boy Band" became a "thing" at one point there too, though it's not a genre. Did it start with the Monkees or NKOTB? Not sure. I remember the latter being a pop sensation and the former's TV show, but were the Monkees really a "boy band" in the sense that NKOTB and later NSync, Backstreet Boys, Boyz 2 Men...etc were?
As I said, I recognize the Beatles for being the two things that most artists aren't able to achieve:
- Pioneers
- Pop icons
It's most often one or the other.
On top of that, they've managed to maintain relevance, which most bands never do. There are far more one-hit wonders or flash-in-the-pan drive-by's than those that go the distance. But that said, I'm sure you can list many bands that have managed to do so just like Arco and I have done.
Similar threads
