From love me do to the long and winding road in 7 years. Nobody had such a deep and diverse catalog. The right 4 musicians, singers, and writers came together for a once in a century sound track of our lives. It just happened and turned out that way. How lucky for us.
Love or loathe them, there’s no mistaking the fact that the Beatles songs have showed themselves to be absolutely timeless and some songs always relevant, to a new and different generation. If that’s not greatness, then what is?🙏
The beatles will the the greatest group in the 20th century - the evolution of their music in the nine years they were together is astounding. The numbers say it all regarding record sales and the cultural impact they had. How many of these critics wrote their own music? I saw the Beatles when I was 12 at the Indiana State Fair and I have veen to a concert that rivaled that evening even though I could not hear most of the performance. The number of fanous rockers that acknowledge the greatness of the Beatles outnumber this group 10 to 1.
Well I was born right after the Beatles, so really REM should have been my generation, but I never could stand them. I did and still love the Beatles though
The Beatles from a fan point of view is a great band that’s my opinion. But you have to keep an open mind on others opinions. But some of the sayings from other bands was harsh and rough .
Great quote and so correct. I think REM produced some incredible music and lyrics, but could never be compared to the Beatles. Music goes in and out of style, but never the Beatles.
If I was a musician in the 60's, I would have hated them as well. Everything that you hoped for yourself and/or your band, these guys already had it and with such ease. They literally made everyone else look average. I remember seeing photos of other bands sitting around having their first listen to a new Beatles album. It would have just been depressing. Musician's can instantly recognise genius when they hear it and some of them clearly couldn't deal with it.
Never liked them as a listener. Skinny jeans jacked up high. Kind of too fem for me. Then I studied music. What the Beatles did was everywhere. Lot's of great songs have been influenced by the Beatles but who's going to admit it.
Relating to the Beatles with a tie in to movies, there is a movie from 2019 called "Yesterday" that I saw not too long ago. A struggling musician realizes he's the only person on Earth who can remember The Beatles after waking up in an alternate reality where they never existed. Interesting plot and I laughed pretty hard. I would definitely recommend as a light hearted movie mostly revolving around the Beatles music
I saw that and I liked it! There's another called "Across the Universe" after the song with character names from Beatles songs like "Sadie", "Prudence", "Jude", etc...all the songs are Beatles songs... It's been a while but, I think it's a musical or partly a musical. I liked that one as well! One of my favorite movies is Almcost Famous and one of the characters is Penny Lane played by Kate Hudson! Wow! Every music lover should see Almost Famous!
@@keithbrown7685 I'm a guitar player and, it'd be the remembering part that would wind me up with just a few hit songs I think but, that's the fun thing about the movie I think right? I asked myself the same thing while watching so , if we did _everyone_ who played (or sang .. they could learn 🤣) Norwegian Wood, Blackbird, Rocky Raccoon, and the Beatles version of songs like Twist and Shout (just a few chords and singing until you hurt yourself right) and, "I'm a superstar, well right you are" (Instant Karma pun.. couldn't "Help" it) and off to the bank singin' "Baby you're a rich man too"! 🤣✌️❤️🎸🎶🙏
To me some of this sounds like sour grapes 🍇. And others it's just preferring one genre of music over another. In my mind The Beatles slammed open the door for the music that made the sixties and seventies so memorable.
The Beatles were a boy band. They had an army of writers, producers and musicians making them sound good. They were basically the Monkees… but refused to admit their music was created by old men. The bitterness was from artists who knew that. The Beatles myth is that they were geniuses. They were pop singers who could barely play their instruments.
Lennon and McCartney are indeed musical geniuses, as well as Harrison. Ringo is a fantastic drummer. I do think that their contemporary musical bands were jealous. Was every song the Beatles wrote perfect - NO! I have been a fan since February 1964 and I don't like EVERY song on EVERY album!! But overall, their body of work is incomparable and will be revered forever!! ♾️ ❤❤❤❤ is
Hi - I really enjoy watching you alone and also you with either one or both of your brothers. You're thoughtful and funny and your own messages are positive and heartwarming. I'm a big fan of the Beatles and a lot of their post Beatles work. I know you have listened to many of their songs. I have a suggestion for you and any others who might be willing. Many find it hard to get into or appreciate their earlier songs. Try listening to their albums in chronological order. Some of the songs are covers of others records and some may seem simple or sappy. But they also show some different musical techniques and ways to sing with harmonies and other types of background vocals. You will discover some real gems and just some catchy ones that will stay with you. Don't know if I've explained this well but I hope you'll give it a try at least for your own journey.
Some people think that it gibes them an air of coolness to hate things that are popular, even if they know what they proclaim to hate is actually great, and you can’t get any more popular than The Beatles. I personally know people who claim to hate them. But when i mention some of their songs, those people would say “I actually like that one”. I could find 30 songs that they would like and still they would say they hate them. But then they’d claim to love another artist after knowing only one of that artist’s songs. And then there are the people that say “all of their songs sound the same”. I ask them are you telling me that “She Loves You” sounds exactly like “Help” which sounds exactly like “A Day In The Life”, which sounds exactly like “Revolution”, etc etc etc. Of course, they have no good answer.
👍😎 Have to say something else. They last recorded in 1970, 30 years later the #1 album in the country was Beatles 1. And the song with the most cover versions is Yesterday. (Drop 🎤 here).
That's not even true. The song with the most cover versions (which by the way doesn't make you popular, because they could've copied it from someone else; hence "cover") is "You Raise Me Up" the 126th version was done by Josh Groban, and is also the most popular.
@@radicalreactions1633 LOL According to Guinness World Records, "Yesterday" has the most cover versions of any song ever written. The song remains popular today with more than 1,600 recorded cover versions. LOL 126 to 1600, ouh thats a lot, I mean a fckn lot LOL and for the single recording artist, its Bob Dylan with 331 LOL 126 to 331, its still a lot gap LOL
@@michaelsunhaki9163 Thanks for the facts, I haven’t looked that up in a long time. And @Radical Reactions that kinda does make you popular. People who weren’t around during Beatlemania don’t have a clue what popular is, it was insane. All that old footage was not set up for the cameras like it would be now, it was real. There’s no one sense that’s been that popular/famous. Not even close.
@@radicalreactions1633 According to Guinness World Records, “Yesterday” has the most cover versions of any song ever written. The song remains popular today with more than 1,600 recorded cover versions.
What's so sad is that with EVERY ONE of these acts I had at least respect or even enjoyed their music BEFORE I heard this criticism. You're right Jamaal, it's distinct jealousy they're feeling, and now I have muted feeling about their music after hearing such absurdity!
I actually just watched an old video on the youtube of Harry Connick Jr. singing the The Beatles song "And I Love Her" in a jazzy tune on American Idol.
I think it’s part jealousy and part different taste in music. Totally ok to not like a particular style of music but when they call someone’s music crap or personally dis someone it’s jealousy. There is room for all kinds of music.
@@punkinhoot to me it was a video of musicians who didn’t like Beatles music and some took it further to not like the Beatles personally. Hey, to each their own. As I said previously, there is plenty of room for all kinds of music. And, not everyone is going to get along.
People are going to like or dislike the Beatles: that's nothing new. All bands have their fans and detractors. Regardless if it's their contemporaries or just regular music lovers, all bands have this. Like Rick Nelson said in the song Garden Party: "Say you can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself."
There is an amazing article I found once online that just consisted of critics and commentators ripping them apart when Beatlemania started in 1964. Young music fans today get upset when people on Twitter are hating on their favorite singer or band but all of that was said about The Beatles too.
First off, I love the Beatles. Secondly the wisest decision they made was to stop touring and become a studio band. At best, live they were a good Pub and Club outfit. And before you ask, yes I did see them live a couple of times in London, Kilburn and Wembely to be exact.
Comments like these can be said about every band. I grew up the youngest of 5 boys and all of those British Invasion bands were on my brothers turntables. The Beatles were always innovative and influential. I enjoyed listening to the Beatles, but I gravitated towards the Who for their outstanding lyrics and musicianship and just raw power and energy. The Beatles were huge influencers on a lot of bands. So, I would definitely give them their props.
Ginger Baker hated EVERYBODY lol. He was a genius, but a complete pain in the ass to work with because he was such a jackass. His own son Kofi said this when asked if becoming a drummer was difficult because of who his dad was: "It’s never really bothered me because my dad is such an asshole anyway that it’s not like I was stressed about making him proud or anything. So, no, it wasn’t really stressful."
I said in my reply that I never could nail down good stories of Baker or of Clapton, really. Just comments on their skill. Like Momma always said, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all!
The Beatles were anti Vietnam war not America , John lived and died in New York , Paul married an American and was in love till she passed. George & Ringo both lived/live in Los Angeles . Everyone to their own but the Beatles are still one of the best bands ever......
With every song and album the Beatles released they were constantly ahead of the game and other musicians were definitely jealous because they kept changing constantly. Ringo is one of the best drummers ever. There’s no two ways about it.
I enjoyed your reaction and you make some good points. There's definitely jealousy in some of the comments, especially in the really harsh ones. You know it's not just a dislike of the music when people criticize with that much emotion. I think some were sincere and just find that the Beatles music didn't appeal to them. There's no doubt that Elvis saw the Beatles as a threat to his popularity, but I also think he was sincere (though misguided in my opinion) in some of his objections. The Who and the Beatles had a longstanding history of competition with each other. Paul McCartney wrote Helter Skelter after Pete Townsend said "I Can See For Miles" was the loudest, rawest,, dirtiest song the Who ever recorded, with the intention of recording something louder, rawer and dirtier! Quincy Jones, as a great jazz musician and arranger felt a knowledge of music theory was very important, but lots of great music has been written by people with little or no knowledge of music theory and without the ability to read musical scores. I think the biggest advantage of that knowledge is that it provides a common language to communicate musical ideas to a wide variety of musicians, which is probably far more important to someone arranging and leading a band of diverse musicians than to an individual or small band who may have developed their own methods of of communicating their ideas amongst themselves.
Elvis felt intimidated by The Beatles and feared they would dethrone him. He was right. They did. Many of those other critics wouldn't have had a career without The Beatles. There is no shortage of inflated egos green with envy.
No he wasn't right, neither are you. lol. And you're also delusional if you think anything you say is true. There's no shortage of stupid people in large groups, like you, that don't understand the music industry works.
Even John Lennon himself said they werent the best musician in the world and that there were folks waay better than them. But to me its the songwriting that sets them above most other bands. From Love me Do to Abbey Road in 8 years is phenonmenal. Paul might not be the best musician there is but he taught himself , by ear.... I think of the scene in the "Get Back" documentary where theyre fighting with a song (ive got a feeling, i think)and its all just rudimentary; then Billy Preston comes in and sits down and joins in with them and Paul and John light up ,cuz he brings in that true musician they were struggling to get. And yes George Martin was pivitol in helping their music stand out. But it WAS their music, their songs are the foundation , which was incredibly strong.
Great point. You don't have to master an instrument in order to create good music. Like with new drummers. Stop listening to Neil Pert and look at what Ringo is doing.
Quincy Jones later spoke about his comments saying that his kids and Paul McCartney gave him grief about it and he apologized. Paul is a phenomenal musical bass player. Many a professional bassist has acknowledged his innovations on the instrument. The same is true for Ringo. If all drummers were slick technically brilliant players the world of music would be infinitely more dull. Ringo managed a wonderful magic trick on the drums. He was an egoless supportive player but also managed to be incredibly creative at the same time. To be both creative and simple is a tricky thing. Like a Matisse painting. You make it seem effortless but it takes a kind of work and skill. Listen to the drums and bass on Come Together, a great example of McCartney and Starr as a creative and supportive team putting their stamp on a classic Beatles track. But I suppose Haters gonna hate.
WHY would ANY group NOT like The Beatles. They were forerunners for a lot of rock 'n' roll performers! The music, especially their early music was amazing. And their later songs (many that I didn't care for that much actually), were still ahead of their time and started many trends and influenced many artists. They weren't hugely popular for nothing!!
Let the haters hate. It says more about them than it does about their target of hate. When it comes to "The Beatles" it's either jealousy or ignorance because it doesn't get any better than "The Beatles"!!
When you consider all of the musical acts out there over 50 years, this is a very, very short list of people who, for different reasons and to varying intensities, did not appreciate the Beatles. I'd like to see the list of musicians who did appreciate them and cite them as an influence. That would be a very long, notable and prestigious list. But musical tastes vary tremendously and i wouldnt rule out jealousy in some cases.
The Beatles brought long hair on the scene. The Beatles also brought strength to the foundation of Rock and Roll. No fans equals no growth in the genre. The Beatles had lots of fans, especially in the United States. They took the risk of coming here first. Their manager was a genius though and that did help them become the icons they became.
They had a LOT of fans all over THE WORLD. Japan especially loved them and most of them didn't know English at that time, and the Beatles were STILL huge, there.
Preface- I grew up with this music. I can tell you when every song came out because I remember where I was. AM radio was always on in my home, the tv, not so much. WOWO out of Ft Wayne Indiana. I'm about the personality of the musicians because I am lyric driven and knowing the back stories to the soundtrack of my life came naturally to me. We are trivia nuts, too. If you want to discount my opinions, that's fine but where I don't understand the chords and notes I do understand the personalities of the players. One of the most provocative things about the Beatles was that mysterious magical dynamic. Think about all the craziness of their popularity then flip that over. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Who were the Beatles? Four lads from Liverpool who seemingly came out of nowhere and upset the music industry. Other than Elvis when had this happened before? Television was to the Beatles as Social Media is to Influencers. I can understand Quincy Jones' frustrations. I'm not going to comment on Presley, his dislike wasn't on their abilities as it was a prevailing attitude of many many conservative Americans. Reading interviews and watching documentaries over the years the band members of Cream have been unsatisfactory in giving good answers about interpersonal dynamics and there are almost no 'fun' stories coming from Clapton at all. I always got the impression that Ginger Baker had skeletons so maybe he was just arrogant? McCartney's father was a band leader of some success and he's not the only writer who was kind of superstitious about his ability to write into the future (Billy Joel) Besides, why did he need to learn musical notation if he was successful without it? Some musicians who have become the greatest did so by practicing for years and developing techniques. McCartney's effortless song writing intimidated John Lennon. Sour grapes? Maybe a bit. self-destructive Pete Townsend - I just watched the documentary on the making of Tommy, his rock opera, from the same era that this interview was given. In it they explain that he was frustrated with his writing efforts and that their airplay was so hit and miss that they couldn't sustain popularity. Tommy not only made them rock gods but he changed opera forever. Also, he's describing the 4 track (or early 8 track) recording system. No, the Beatles were not great vocalists in the beginning, it was their raw energy. They'd come up from the basement venues of Liverpool and Hamburg. Later McCartney developed his vocals and became the first white guy that I know of to scream a song (Twist and Shout). something Rock didn't catch up to until more modern times. The Beatles were technical pioneers and important for many things, but they gave up performing because their fans made so much noise the band couldn't hear themselves perform let along the crowd themselves. Their attitude was that it was a waste of their time. My personal favorite rant opinion in R&R is that it's not perfection, it's the reaction. Barbra Streisand vs Carole King for example. Also, when a musical piece vibes with millions of people it's the sum of the effort, not it's individual pieces. Now and then I watch Alex & Andy's reaction channel because they are both musicians, but it never sits well with me when they criticize a vocal effort. If Tom Petty wrote the gd song, then Tom Petty gets to sing that gd song! Pink Floyd employed vocalists because they lacked the ability (Money) or they needed a vocal to fill in for an intstrument (Great Gig in the Sky). As for Revolution I'd like to go on record saying that this is where the Beatles lost their credibility with the most progressive elements of the sixties. The lyrics read as a caution to revolution, not a call to action. The flower children were a real element of the sixties but I don't think anyone has honestly separated out that movement, which included the communes and marijuana activists, from the politicization of the socialist ideologies that pushed the campus riots and the bombings of federal buildings. I don't know what Rundgren's politics are but I can guess and Revolution was not something he would have respected. More than that and I'd say this was a personal opinion of his. My opinion of Stipe is that he didn't want to give the Beatles credit for pioneering the type of music he plays himself. Jangling guitars and raw emotional lyrics? Where had we heard that before? Connick is talking about what he doesn't know. Meaning that he was just being elitist, imo. At the time this interview was given the music industry had changed quite a bit and it was cool to hate on the Beatles. Even now people will say they stole music or profited from other peoples' efforts but there is no case to be made there. I'm also pretty sure that this was the beginning of the Starbuck's era and their coffee house music discs. That was an entirely new generation of Crooner fans. Deauvilles.. wow, I'd forgotten about them. He was a pop singer left behind by the times. See above for my take on poor vocals. Yes, Jones is a legend but again, a classically trained musician vs non. Trent Reznor - an example of someone regretting having every word recorded? He's also given ownership of Hurt to Johnny Cash. I give him credit for owning new ideas and opinions. Men are naturally competitive with each other, and I applaud that. This comes out in opinions like Reznor's not so much from negative feelings as it is a way of ranking himself in the world. A very positive behavior because he's realistic, I think. Kinks - It shouldn't be counted against Ray Davies that he didn't understand Revolver. The reason Rolling Stone has stopped being a rock n roll rag is because they couldn't get a revue right if their lives depended on it. And that was their job! Plus look at the expressionism of the Kinks's music. It was more Rockabilly and Skiffle; proto punk and takes itself seriously. They were writing music to get drunk to, have a fight to. Sgt Pepper's was goofy and psychedelic. If you like rock documentaries then you could search on Prime or Tubee. Some of the listings are from the late seventies or early eighties. I believe there's a Bowie doc that ends before his Thin White Duke era. That's where the Tommy documentary is. Who was the drummer on Dear Prudence? th-cam.com/video/ptAmOYIFIx8/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUmd2hvIHJlYWxseSBwbGF5ZWQgdGhlIGRydW1zIGluIGJlYXRsZXM%3D Does Ringo suck? th-cam.com/video/LvIBr4-mDZU/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUmd2hvIHJlYWxseSBwbGF5ZWQgdGhlIGRydW1zIGluIGJlYXRsZXM%3D
I agree, the jealousy felt strong. I’ve always believed there was a strong rivalry between many groups & singers. Some criticisms in this video may be warranted, but most of it can be chocked up to jealousy and being from different eras and/or having different tastes.
In the 1990's, I hung out with a co-worker at the phone company. He often played guitar during lunch breaks. As he always played 1950s era music during those sessions, I asked him one day why, as his age indicated he was a teen during the 1960's. After saying, "Why not some Beatles?", he told me an enlightening tale. He said, "Gerry, in the early 1960's, the Beatles were viewed in the same vein as the Backstreet Boys, they were a girl band, and no self-respecting male music aficionado would give them the time of day. We were more greasers, leather-wearing tough guys, who would not be caught dead singing I want to Hold Your Hand." He then said, "As time went on, and the Beatles matured musically, a lot of guys, myself included, had to admit these guys had matured musically, becoming musically pioneering geniuses who now deserved the accolades."
There’s always people that don’t like the Beatles. Check out the thousands of musicians that love and were inspired by the Beatles. U2, Nirvana, Black Sabbath, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, Heart, Mamas, and the Papas, Kiss, Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell, foo Fighters, Crosby,Stills,Nash, Young, Tom Petty, Prince, Jeff Lynn, Joe Walsh, Annie Lennox, John Fogarty, the list goes on and on.
"I just thought the other stuff couldn't even come up to our ankles. They were just pretentious" Been 3 hours that I'm looking at this sentence, and I'm still baffled. This makes negative sense.
I knew that Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground weren't fans for whatever reason. Apparently my favorite song of theirs, "Who Loves the Sun?" was mocking "Here Comes the Sun". Still a really great song though and actually one I would recommend you react to
I never could get into them. I think it's the negativity or whatever you want to call it. Same with punk and grunge. Sad music (grunge) I can do, angry and sarcastic? Not so much.
@@josieangels7771 I would recommend then that you avoid their first two albums and check out 'The Velvet Underground' (with the black cover, not to be confused with the banana album) and 'Loaded'. There are some surprisingly pretty songs there (there's some weird stuff too, to be fair). 'Pale Blue Eyes' is a beautiful song. 'Who Loves the Sun', as mentioned earlier. Velvet Underground are worth exploring.
Elvis was not jealous of the Beatles in fact he liked a lot of their music even sung some of their songs but he did not like what they promoted. One of the Beatles even told Elvis he needed to get rid of his back up girls. The Beatles didn't like Elvis after he came out of the service. Even though they were so enamored they wouldn't talk. Elvis told them ok I'm going to bed if know one is going to speak. Elvis humor broke the ice.
A lot of these people didn't grow up with the Beatles, and didn't really know their music. I also see some jealousy in some of these bands, as they never made it as big. Others, it just wasn't their type of music. "Different strokes for different folks"!
If they would have said as much, instead of taking shots, I could have appreciated them at least for their honesty. Instead, what do they do, they act out.
@@radicalreactions1633 check on ytube it's on there Quincy played the orchestra and then went up and collected let it be award and the apologies were in some magazine articles do the research
Micheal Stipe was so honest, I like that attitude, also who said "they were ahead etc..." were right, honest but from the others what came out were just no good words, that's why I feel like there was both jealousy or envy or something like that, but Roger Waters, David Gilmore, Bob Dylan, (Fun Fact: even David Bowie who accepted to form a band with McCartney and Lennon in the 70's, unfortunately all the idea disappeared during a night...),Curt Cobain and obviously many more huge names agree that they were so good, even George Martin was always so surprised by their ability and genius minds!!
Beatles were the best in the 60s and no one has supplanted them since. The ultimate combination of best songs, innovative sounds and instrumentation, compelling vocals, and interesting lyrics as they evolved in their career. Lots of imitators, followers, wannabes, but no one really comes close. I grew up with their music in the 60s, so I experienced them in real time. In reality, they set an impossible bar for others to reach or surpass. The 60s and 70s were amazing times in pop music as far as variety and excellence and to me it seems as if succeeding decades have not approached anything close to those times. And a lot of it has to do with melody which was a dominant factor in the success of that music. The majority of music past the 70s doesn’t rely on melody.
Completely agree with you. I was a 60's teen. I liked most other bands, but the Beatles were always doing something new. And it was about the melody, and some very surprising lyrics and arrangements. Yes, they had George Martin, but these guys were self-taught musicians, writers, and wordsmiths. Raw talent with a man who knew how to guide that talent. All the best to you, Art Prince.
To be fair Ginger Baker hated everyone. Lou Reed calling people pretentious, that's hilarious. Quincy Jones comes off to me as a grumpy old man needing to pump up his own rep. Sad thing is he doesn't need to do so, he's a music legend in his own right. The other thing that I always keep in mind is most of these comments are taken 35 years after The Beatles were an active band. Like I always say though, they have the right to be wrong just like I do.
1) Pete Townshend made a revealing comment during an interview in the 1980s. He said that he and Ray Davies would always have to get used to the fact that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones would always be bigger than The Who and The Kinks. Those four bands are almost universally considered the four best British bands of the 60s, but I imagine it's hard to be #3 or #4 when you think you're really #1. 2) Quincy Jones and Harry Connick are both jazz players, and jazzers generally hate rock music, mainly because they consider it to be too simplistic. Personally, I don't like jazz, so of course I consider their comments to be typical of the jazz musician mindset - and needless to say I don't like their music. But I would never say they don't have talent, as Jones especially seemed to imply about The Beatles. Or maybe his own record sales started slumping once Beatlemania hit, and he was just jealous. 3) Ginger Baker was an incredibly bitter man in his later years, and he hit out at everybody in rock music, especially fellow drummers like Keith Moon and John Bonham. However, I've seen an earlier interview in which he openly declared his admiration for Ringo, which was interesting - he even sat in with the All-Starr Band when fellow Cream member Jack Bruce was touring with them. Also, he was one of many musicians to play on George Harrison's All Things Must Pass album. So he must have liked them at some point in his life. 4) Lou Reed hated everything and everybody. I think it would almost be an insult to NOT be hated by Lou Reed - sort of like not being insulted by Don Rickles......
I think you'll find more musicians that admire The Beatles than dislike the group. If sales of records is any gauge of their worth, then the facts speak for themselves.
Yes, I knew all of this. Ginger Baker, famous curmudgeon. Lou Reed, famous sh*t-stirrer. Townshend, critiquing arrangements and recording techniques not songwriting. Rundgren, dissing Lennon after the breakup of the Beatles (so does that actually count as "couldn't stand the Beatles"?) and making a political critique without acknowledging that he himself is not politically active at all. Stipe, hyper-obsessed with his own depth as an artist (not unlike Lennon, right??) and freely admitting that his indifference to the Beatles is a matter of personal taste as well as generational influence. Connick, rooted in pre-'60s pop and disliking everything else categorically; ignoring the fact that his idol, Sinatra, was a Beatles admirer; not very interested in mining song lyrics for deeper meaning; also, as a professional, it's quite unlilkely that he honestly doesn't acknowledge the abilities of Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison as songwriters . Len Barry, not acknowledged by anyone as any kind of authority on rock'n'roll and an admitted political conservative who enjoyed Beatles recordings but correctly critiqued their live performances once they'd made it big; that "bad work ethic" stuff is pure nonsense. Quincy Jones, professional standards of musicianship that have little resemblance to the Beatles' technique of fooling around in the studio until they got something right and then having George Martin and others use post-production to craft the works to perfection. Reznor, changed his mind over time (he was young and arrogant when he made the original statements). Ray Davies, another famous curmudgeon and also a "southern" snob (i.e., a Londoner vs. those barbaric Liverpudlians).
The Beatles were a phenomenon. Some information suggests that they were a put together band and all the early music was written for them. That said, the very fast popularity of the Beatles was no accident. It was highly promoted. The Beatles were incredibly frustrated trying to play music in the us. They had never seen that large of crowds and the audience would not stop screaming and they couldn’t hear the monitors. How could they play well? They quit that bs very soon. I don’t know really what is true in all the stories. But I believe the other musicians had a right to be upset. It was all about money for the industry. The Beatles were the industry pets of the day imo. And I have loved the music as long as I can remember. Same with wings. And jl’s solo stuff all of them. GH made some of my favorite to this day. I have them all on my playlist. Photograph, Band on the Run, Watching the Wheels, Give Me Love. All great songs. I think they earned their place And I think the lasting love of the fans is what the others are most jealous of imho. And I mostly love their music too (except NIN. And I’ll forgive Trent bcZ of his last statement. ) And yes people like ginger baker and John Lennon can never be friends. That’s a given. Elvis was a conservative. He was a good dude. He couldn’t deal with the changes in the planet Again my opinion. He was a sensitive. And old fashioned. They essentially packed his bags for Las Vegas He was the best entertainer on the planet at the time (not discounting Frankie) and these people hadn’t payed their dues. They played a few years in German clubs. Then they were instant superstars. Can you blame him? I don’t! The industry effs over their best artists and they become slaves. Happened to the Beatles as well. Money and fame isn’t everything. Freedom is. ❤️🔥🫶🏼
Most of these comments are from early, early Beatles and more than likely out of context clips and completely ignorant. Saying the stereo track had all the vocals on one side and instruments on the other is a prime example of stupidity. The Beatles recorded in Mono and only as an afterthought did some engineer throw together a jumbled mess of a stereo mix to make someone happy. There were hundreds of British Invasion bands in the 60s. Most of which no one will ever know about. The Beatles stood out of the pack because they consistently put out quality music and kept evolving with every record. Saying Paul was a bad bassist or Ringo was a bad drummer is just stupidity defined. Most people who have negative opinions of The Beatles have never sit down and listened to all their material. Dismissing an entire genre defining band just shows how uniformed you are about the realities of 60 years of music. Most of the great music in the 70s is a direct result of kids hearing the Beatles and then starting their own bands. The cycle continues every decade. The only thing I agree with is John Lennon's solo output. It was uneven at best. The fact that children in 2023 love and sing along with The Beatles is all the proof you need of their staying power. How many Turtles and Herman's Hermits songs are they singing?
The Beatles knew they weren't the Best Players and as George Harrison said he and Ringo didn't practise their Instruments. Their live playing suffered under a barrage of Fans screaming and gave up touring. Something the other Artists didn't have to endure. What they did do was open up RnR to mass audience which had just been suppressed by Apartheid America. They made it acceptable for all ages to enjoy and made sure Americans knew that America had many African-American artists to be proud of and who influenced the Beatles...Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddly, Screamin Jay Hawkins to name a few. Many artists have mentioned how the Beatles showed that your friends could get together play in a Band and write your own material giving you greater control over your music. They also didn't Stagnate and grew to include many Genres of Music as they were sponges and were influenced by many other artists. So they didn't squander the opportunity given to them. I can see where Quincy Jones came from as he is one of the few people who probably covered as many Genres as the Beatles. But there was no mention of their songwriting. Todd Rundgren did a few very Beatle like songs maybe to show he was better. He even did a Beatles tribute tour with Christopher Cross. The Beatles and other bands opened up popular music to where it could be anything you wanted it to be. They sent messages of love, peace, equality and diversity. And not many other Artists on that list released Albums as Diverse in Genre as Sgt peppers and The White Album.
A bunch of jealous haters!! In the year 2000 the Beatles put out an album of their #1 hits. It was the best selling album of the decade, thirty years after they broke up!!! End of discussion!!!
Grunge's title to the video is misleading. Many of the criticisms in the video are limited ones, not ones that completely rejected the Beatles. Rundgren wasn't even talking about the Beatles, he was talking about Lennon's solo career. Townshend said that the instrumental track without the voices sounds lousy, but if you leave out the voices, you aren't really listening to the Beatles. To be fair to any artist, you have to listen to their music the way the artist created it, not to what it sounds like if you subtract something. Townshend also said that he loved "Strawberry Fields Forever", but the video didn't mention that. Elvis' criticisms weren't about their music, but about their being anti-American and encouraging drug use. I don't think they were anti-American at all. John was critical of the Vietnam war, which isn't being anti-American. America was where John wanted to live. The Beatles only said they took drugs when an interviewer asked about it. Ironically, Elvis died from drug use, but none of the Beatles did. Ray Davies' negative comments were about 3 songs on Revolver, not the band in general. Two of the artists that criticized The Beatles walked back their comments later.
Perfectly fine not to like something, tastes are personal and thats what creates variety. Lou Reeds reasoning though just seemed to be from a place where even arrogance seems humble.
1. Elvis Presley covered the Beatles' "Get Back" and "Something" in his live shows. He first met the Beatles in the '60s and George Harrison a second time in the '70s. He might have been envious but he didn't hate the Beatles THAT much. 2. Todd Rundgren loved the Beatles and covered "Strawberry Fields Forever." He was just mad at Lennon at that moment for his lyrics. Rundgren's entire production of the XTC album "Skylarking" was an emulation of George Martin's production of the Beatles c. '67-'68. 3. I don't think that George Martin ever subbed out a jazz drummer for Ringo. Quincy Jones says a lot of wack things hating on others. He even dissed Michael Jackson -- and Jones produced "Thriller"! So he can be discounted. 4. As for Ray Davies of the Kinks, I read a more recent article about him. He had just seen the movie "A Hard Day's Night" for the first time. He LOVED it. He loved THEM. Videos like this take comments out of context. If this idiot wants to say that Elvis put down the Beatles (according to some third-hand source), he must add that Presley sang Beatles songs in his live act. If you're going to mention that Cream's drummer put down the Beatles, why not say that Cream's lead guitarist played guitar on the Beatles' "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and wrote the song "Badge" with George Harrison? Harrison and Clapton were good friends! This is clickbait. The guy made the video to get people angry. But then again, maybe you made THIS video to make people angry!
I grew up with a guy who hated the Beatles. This was in the 70s when their popularity was still huge. He loved everything we liked which was pop, rock, you name it but hated the Beatles and couldn't explain why.
I kinda know where your mate was coming from. I wouldn't say that I hate the Beatles but i've never been a fan of theirs. I can't explain why, they just don't do it for me.
I've never been a big fan. They are important to the history of rock music without a doubt, but...they never excited me the way that The Rolling Stones and The Who did. And I knew why Yoko Ono always wore huge dark sunglasses.
Hmmm, I never thought of that, I always had the impression that she wasn't the type to put up with it. She threw him out when she caught him messing around and he crawled back on hands and knees to her.
You're not a fan of the Beatles because you're a conservative? And you have any evidence for this??? "And I knew why Yoko Ono always wore huge dark sunglasses."
I was in music when the Beatles hit USA . I too thought there music was elementary . It was very easy to play a d sing . Other bands music was more complex. I think a lot of the people who hated them was from both sides their population and their lack of reading or writing music. It really doesn't matter because they have already made music history .
Up to the late 60's, the only "complex" music was classical music. The Beatles music did grow a bit more complex by the time they disbanded, although other groups were beginning to write more complex songs.
More than any other group you have to take The Beatles in context. They really did lead the mainstream; Bowie & The Who, Kinks, Rolling Stones, Cream ... all excellent bands, but to change the entire course of 'pop' music, i.e. genuinely popular music that appealed to the vast majority, & what is more take them to places undreamed of by any other group, or the listeners themselves, there's nobody to touch The Beatles. With each album they led us on a bit further, a bit deeper. By the time they got to tracks like Eleanor Rigby they were in genuinely profound territory. They were a phenomenon, a product of a unique confluence of people, time, events ... everything. I doubt it'll happen in quite that way ever again.
As a musician who just entered my teens as the Beatles dissolved and liked them prior to that but, I quickly moved beyond them when hearing Jimmi Hendrix, Deep Purple, The Doors, Rolling Stones, the Who, Led Zeppelin etc. While I give them immense respect for their prolific song writing abilities I feel they lacked "soul" as displayed by their stiff and motionless live performances. It is also the reason they stopped touring live. I agree that much of their success is attributed to the creativity of the production engineers. Personally when the 70's hit I relegated them to "Pop" mostly. But hey, good on them for their success regardless.
The Who, Oh please, same with Rungren sorry Jealousy abounds with the Philly boy.😂 And all of these acts. Quincys opinion is fine by me, he's entitled to it.
At least Michael Stipe didn't criticize them per se, but simply said that their musc did not move him. But I think you're right, that there is an element of jealousy involved. Any time someone is as hugely popular as the Beatles, they become an easy target for sour grapes. I'm of an age where I grew up with the Beatles sort of. My earliest recollection years were the Beatles' last years together. Yet their popularity continued unabated for the next couple of decades. In my college and young adult years, I was into stuff like Led Zeppelin and other hard rock bands and got tired of the Beatles being shoved down my throat. Rock radio stations frequently set aside long stretches of a particular time slot with nothing but the Beatles. I eventually got into the emerging "Alternative" rock scene as well as local indie rock here in Boston and then for years, I didn't hear the Beatles because they didn't get played on Alternative rock stations. Then I decided to start playing the bass (which I have been playing both acoustic and electric, for some 27 years since!). I went to a musical instrument store to buy my first bass and the store was playing the Beatles album "Abbey Road" over the sound system. If you've never done so, I highly recommend listening to Abbey Road with headphones and pay particular attention to the bass. By that time in the Beatles' existence, McCartney had become a helluva good bass player. Also, as that was the last album the Beatles recorded, the bass was much more audible in the mix, due to rapidly improving recording technology. Furthermore, even though McCartney was famous for playing a Hofner "violin" bass and still did for live performances, in later albums, he used a Rickenbacker bass in the studio which had a much fatter sound and more presence. I learned to appreciate his bass playing prowess... then I listened to the music anew and regained an appreciation for the Beatles, having been away from their music for a number of years.
AS to George Martin -- there's a pretty good argument that without his production and guidance, the Beatles would not have been quite as successful or innovative. Lou Reed, he's just being contrary. Townshend is a superb writer and arranger, and he might be standing up for himself and The Who who probably should have had more success earlier on. But I think Pete's disdain didn't really last. I can't say a lot about most of the others. And everything above is "My Opinion(TM)".
it's interesting most of these comments are about their musicianship. I think Elvis actually appreciated some of their songs, he sang a couple of them, but you have to remember the Beatles did do some controversial things. In 1966 Lennon said "the Beatles are bigger than Jesus" and that offended a lot of people. To this day the Beatles , while professing to be fans, have critiicized Elvis and his choices far more than he did them.
Elvis hated the Beatles. They knocked him out of first place. There was jealousy for sure, but it's true (and even pretty obvious) that Martin did all the orchestration for them, and that he had much more musical knowledge than they did (they wouldn't have known a french horn from a piccolo trumpet), but they kept control over what went on the record. All of the people and bands who didn't like the Beatles had moved beyond pop music. They wrote deeper lyrics and were better musicians. But the Beatles had appeal over a much broader audience. And they were all very smart.
I know what you’re saying about George Martin, but McCartney was studying music seriously by ‘65…he knew his instruments. John is one of the most inventive musicians of all time, and stretched Martin as much as Martin stretched him. And Martin had no background in eastern music, Harrison’s passion. If you’re talking about the day they recorded Please Please Me, maybe…after that, Martin was an equal quarter of a group of four exceptional musicians, five when you add the essential Ringo.
If they were sooooo smart, why didn't McCartney BUY THEIR CATALOG instead of letting it go to MJ, then expecting MJ to GIVE IT TO HIM? Does that really sound like a "smart" man?
@@rollingstoneworks3183No argument here, I agree with you 100% except on Martin. I agree that he was an equal partner in contributing musically and that he had a great influence on them, but I still believe John and Paul kept the final word for themselves. That they all expanded their musical knowledge is obvious.
They didn't mention Zappa. And that was correct, because even though Zappa said on MANY occasions that he wasn't a big beatles fan, and even though Paul McCartney wouldn't give him the rights to use the parody album cover of SGT PEPPER (by the way ,McCartney says that Freak Out was an influence on Sgt Pepper) but Frank used the parody cover ANYWAYS...lol Zappa has also said that there are 3 or 4 Beatles songs that he actually LIKED. But he probably should have been some kind of honourable mention...lol.
I don't need anyone else to confirm or deny how good The Beatles were. I'm a musician and I write music, so I can see it on my own. I would like to ask a lot of these people "So, what's your REAL reason for hating the Beatles?" as if you could get an honest answer.
Quincy Jones developed a dislike for The Beatles, especial Paul McCartney, because back in Los Angeles in '68 Paul had spent a few one-nighters with the woman who would eventually become Jone's wife, a young and upcoming TV star known as Peggy Lipton (The Mod Squad). One day in LA, Paul and friends were headed out on a day boat cruise. Peggy had orginally been invited, but Paul then asked his newest interest, Linda Eastman, to join him instead. As the party was boarding the boat Peggy showed up and they, quite literally, left her standing on the dock as they boated away...Jones undoubtably knew the story and the hurt and embarrassment that Peggy felt. Of course, that Linda Eastman eventually became Linda McCartney...and the rest is history.
The 60s were a weird time musically. A lot of what you know as rock n’ roll was played by the same house band - “the wrecking crew” - in L.A. Beatles musical ability wasn’t that great. Or original. But they had. Marketing genius and we’re in he right place at the right time. Quincy jones is no hater, neither is Clapton - they are musicians, some of the best. If you think about it, how many duets have you heard with a beatle? THen think about how many Clapton (bb king for instance) has played with. Or harry connick? If you have talent, lots of people will want to play with you. If you’re just a face and a haircut, then nobody will waste their time. Nobody ever bought a Peter Tork (Monkees) duet album. Lionel Richie can’t read music, but his duets are top notch. Ray Charles was blind, but he’s sung with everybody. Talent galore. I could keep on, but I agree with the video. Go watch the documentary the wrecking crew on Netflix and see what the 60s and 70S were like.
Ginger Baker criticising artists who couldn't read or write musical notation is a bit rich coming from a drummer who played blues and jazz which, by their nature, are largely improvised. Irving Berlin couldn't read or write musical notation either but he still wrote Alexander's Ragtime Band, Blue Skies, Puttin' On The Ritz, White Christmas, God Bless America and There's No Business Like Show Business. Ginger Baker only wrote half a dozen songs himself and none of them would get in the top 100 songs by Paul McCartney or Irving Berlin.
Bird can sing and not cared for yellow sub but I loved them,all the songs they wrote and or sung. Just in love. Loyal and feel good music thsnkyou Beatles John Paul George Ringo Billy Shears.
Everyone does have an opinion and the right to express but jealousy plays a part. Personally, I like all music, growing up the way I did we do not like to say bad things about anyone, everyone says what they like and they have the right but not everyone's taste is the same. I am a senior, and music is my life, as we age we listen more closely to music and opinions change. KODOS, to all song writers lots of feelings go into their music. Thank you for being open minded. Understanding and kindness is what we need also taking care of Mother Earth. Love you reaction.😢🫶
ALL of the people on this list are/were SUCCESSFUL, so how can you outright state that ALL OF THEM ARE JEALOUS, but because YOU like the Beetles, you're NOT? In other words, you born in Fantasyland? Welcome to reality where we have A RIGHT TO OUR OPINION.
Music like food is a matter of taste it just so happens that most people Love The Beatles they are the largest selling artist of all time and the most influential artists but just because a majority of people love them that doesn't mean they are for everyone however when people hate on them that's just jealousy every artist wants that type of love and appreciation there seems to be only for the Beatles.
If you see many commentaries, for somes at one point they lashed the Beatles, but later they recognized their importance and that they're not the "target" of the Beatles music or their outstanding composition abilities. As for people like Mr Jones, it's another factor that come on the line, Quincy Jones is a musician and a composer, so he learned How to make music, so with a band like the Beatles who are self educated musicians, for him they're not musicians and in a way It can be understable but it's easy to "fire on dead" people...
@ 13:09 I don't know what Ray Davies thought of the rest of the Revolver album or the Beatles in general, but he's spot on with his criticisms of certain Revolver tracks. The import of "Taxman" was more in its message than its musical boundaries, "Got to Get You Into My Life" is easily one of the weakest tracks on the album... and NOBODY hates "Yellow Submarine" more than die-hard Beatles fans.
I would never go so far as to say the Beatles were bad, but at the same time really never saw what the big deal was about them either. Give me the Stones and Led Zeppelin any day over the Beatles
I think you are right. There is a bit of jealousy but a lot of those guys are extremely talented - the Beatles were very simplistic compared to some of their complex talents - but it doesn't have to be complex to be enjoyable by the masses.
I think some of it is that when people are hyped and worshiped as much as The Beatles were/are it's hard for some people to like them. Even the fact that we can't criticize them is a clue. There were/are a lot of great musicians (individuals and bands) who never got their due from the music industry and the public. The Beatles had some good songs and surely were very influential but were quite possibly overrated.
They're EXTREMELY OVERRATED, and still people are claiming HERE in the comments that these SUCCESSFUL musicians are "automatically jealous," because FF these acts didn't like their out-off-tune English twinks, I mean "Gods." It's pitiful the bloviating these schmucks do.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
From love me do to the long and winding road in 7 years. Nobody had such a deep and diverse catalog. The right 4 musicians, singers, and writers came together for a once in a century sound track of our lives. It just happened and turned out that way. How lucky for us.
Agreed! And don't forget George Martin!
@@ron88303 George Martin's tribute album with musical stars doing the Beatles less popular songs is GOLDEN.
Love or loathe them, there’s no mistaking the fact that the Beatles songs have showed themselves to be absolutely timeless and some songs always relevant, to a new and different generation. If that’s not greatness, then what is?🙏
The beatles will the the greatest group in the 20th century - the evolution of their music in the nine years they were together is astounding. The numbers say it all regarding record sales and the cultural impact they had. How many of these critics wrote their own music? I saw the Beatles when I was 12 at the Indiana State Fair and I have veen to a concert that rivaled that evening even though I could not hear most of the performance. The number of fanous rockers that acknowledge the greatness of the Beatles outnumber this group 10 to 1.
Yes. Reputable music academies will teach you what the Beatles did for song writing.
"R.E.M. is a pretty good band, but if it wasn't for The Beatles they would be taking the stairs, not an elevator." - Ringo Starr
I would have put it more bluntly. Should have said "You guys suck."
Well I was born right after the Beatles, so really REM should have been my generation, but I never could stand them. I did and still love the Beatles though
The Beatles from a fan point of view is a great band that’s my opinion. But you have to keep an open mind on others opinions. But some of the sayings from other bands was harsh and rough .
REM is what my eyes do when their boring music plays
Great quote and so correct. I think REM produced some incredible music and lyrics, but could never be compared to the Beatles. Music goes in and out of style, but never the Beatles.
If I was a musician in the 60's, I would have hated them as well. Everything that you hoped for yourself and/or your band, these guys already had it and with such ease. They literally made everyone else look average. I remember seeing photos of other bands sitting around having their first listen to a new Beatles album. It would have just been depressing. Musician's can instantly recognise genius when they hear it and some of them clearly couldn't deal with it.
Never liked them as a listener. Skinny jeans jacked up high. Kind of too fem for me. Then I studied music. What the Beatles did was everywhere. Lot's of great songs have been influenced by the Beatles but who's going to admit it.
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion but I would say the Beatles will continue to influence and be listened to long after these
ABSOLUTELY!!
Jealousy is such an ugly emotion. The Beatles forever.❤️
Relating to the Beatles with a tie in to movies, there is a movie from 2019 called "Yesterday" that I saw not too long ago. A struggling musician realizes he's the only person on Earth who can remember The Beatles after waking up in an alternate reality where they never existed. Interesting plot and I laughed pretty hard. I would definitely recommend as a light hearted movie mostly revolving around the Beatles music
I’ve seen some great clips from that movie.
Good flick
If that were me, I'd have a potential goldmine. If I could play an instrument (which I can) and remember some of their songs, I'd be an original! : )
I saw that and I liked it! There's another called "Across the Universe" after the song with character names from Beatles songs like "Sadie", "Prudence", "Jude", etc...all the songs are Beatles songs... It's been a while but, I think it's a musical or partly a musical. I liked that one as well!
One of my favorite movies is Almcost Famous and one of the characters is Penny Lane played by Kate Hudson! Wow!
Every music lover should see Almost Famous!
@@keithbrown7685 I'm a guitar player and, it'd be the remembering part that would wind me up with just a few hit songs I think but, that's the fun thing about the movie I think right?
I asked myself the same thing while watching so , if we did _everyone_ who played (or sang .. they could learn 🤣)
Norwegian Wood, Blackbird, Rocky Raccoon, and the Beatles version of songs like Twist and Shout (just a few chords and singing until you hurt yourself right) and, "I'm a superstar, well right you are" (Instant Karma pun.. couldn't "Help" it) and off to the bank singin' "Baby you're a rich man too"! 🤣✌️❤️🎸🎶🙏
To me some of this sounds like sour grapes 🍇. And others it's just preferring one genre of music over another. In my mind The Beatles slammed open the door for the music that made the sixties and seventies so memorable.
beat me to it
The Beatles were a boy band. They had an army of writers, producers and musicians making them sound good. They were basically the Monkees… but refused to admit their music was created by old men. The bitterness was from artists who knew that. The Beatles myth is that they were geniuses. They were pop singers who could barely play their instruments.
Lennon and McCartney are indeed musical geniuses, as well as Harrison. Ringo is a fantastic drummer. I do think that their contemporary musical bands were jealous. Was every song the Beatles wrote perfect - NO! I have been a fan since February 1964 and I don't like EVERY song on EVERY album!! But overall, their body of work is incomparable and will be revered forever!! ♾️ ❤❤❤❤ is
@wiltchamberlainisthegoat344 You're dreaming.
@@marleneobstnash5517 Ringo is a garbage drummer. The most basic of drummers.
Hi - I really enjoy watching you alone and also you with either one or both of your brothers. You're thoughtful and funny and your own messages are positive and heartwarming. I'm a big fan of the Beatles and a lot of their post Beatles work. I know you have listened to many of their songs. I have a suggestion for you and any others who might be willing. Many find it hard to get into or appreciate their earlier songs. Try listening to their albums in chronological order. Some of the songs are covers of others records and some may seem simple or sappy. But they also show some different musical techniques and ways to sing with harmonies and other types of background vocals. You will discover some real gems and just some catchy ones that will stay with you. Don't know if I've explained this well but I hope you'll give it a try at least for your own journey.
Some people think that it gibes them an air of coolness to hate things that are popular, even if they know what they proclaim to hate is actually great, and you can’t get any more popular than The Beatles. I personally know people who claim to hate them. But when i mention some of their songs, those people would say “I actually like that one”. I could find 30 songs that they would like and still they would say they hate them. But then they’d claim to love another artist after knowing only one of that artist’s songs. And then there are the people that say “all of their songs sound the same”. I ask them are you telling me that “She Loves You” sounds exactly like “Help” which sounds exactly like “A Day In The Life”, which sounds exactly like “Revolution”, etc etc etc. Of course, they have no good answer.
👍😎 Have to say something else. They last recorded in 1970, 30 years later the #1 album in the country was Beatles 1. And the song with the most cover versions is Yesterday. (Drop 🎤 here).
That's not even true. The song with the most cover versions (which by the way doesn't make you popular, because they could've copied it from someone else; hence "cover") is "You Raise Me Up" the 126th version was done by Josh Groban, and is also the most popular.
@@radicalreactions1633 LOL According to Guinness World Records, "Yesterday" has the most cover versions of any song ever written. The song remains popular today with more than 1,600 recorded cover versions. LOL 126 to 1600, ouh thats a lot, I mean a fckn lot LOL and for the single recording artist, its Bob Dylan with 331 LOL 126 to 331, its still a lot gap LOL
@@michaelsunhaki9163 Thanks for the facts, I haven’t looked that up in a long time. And @Radical Reactions that kinda does make you popular. People who weren’t around during Beatlemania don’t have a clue what popular is, it was insane. All that old footage was not set up for the cameras like it would be now, it was real. There’s no one sense that’s been that popular/famous. Not even close.
@@XCaliKev Agree 100%.
@@radicalreactions1633 According to Guinness World Records, “Yesterday” has the most cover versions of any song ever written. The song remains popular today with more than 1,600 recorded cover versions.
What's so sad is that with EVERY ONE of these acts I had at least respect or even enjoyed their music BEFORE I heard this criticism. You're right Jamaal, it's distinct jealousy they're feeling, and now I have muted feeling about their music after hearing such absurdity!
I agree, it is VERY MUCH JEALOUSY.
Elvis covered Something, Yesterday, Get Back Hey Jude and Lady Madonna…
Before the Beatles we were listening to frickin Patty Page,the Beatles were the best band in the land and they changed everything!
I actually just watched an old video on the youtube of Harry Connick Jr. singing the The Beatles song "And I Love Her" in a jazzy tune on American Idol.
I think it’s part jealousy and part different taste in music. Totally ok to not like a particular style of music but when they call someone’s music crap or personally dis someone it’s jealousy. There is room for all kinds of music.
Says the Beatle fan. There was a lot of facts there too. The Beatles were average musicians, but they could write songs.
@@punkinhoot I fail to see how that has any bearing on liking or not liking a style of music.
@@punkinhoot to me it was a video of musicians who didn’t like Beatles music and some took it further to not like the Beatles personally. Hey, to each their own. As I said previously, there is plenty of room for all kinds of music. And, not everyone is going to get along.
People might not like The Beatles, but everyone LOVES Jamel AKA Jamal!!!
To quote Ringo if he liked Beethoven: "Especially his poems." HAHAHA
Well, you cant please everybody. Even if you're the Beatles.
People are going to like or dislike the Beatles: that's nothing new. All bands have their fans and detractors. Regardless if it's their contemporaries or just regular music lovers, all bands have this. Like Rick Nelson said in the song Garden Party: "Say you can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself."
I was thinking along similar lines. There is NOBODY all the people are going to like.
There is an amazing article I found once online that just consisted of critics and commentators ripping them apart when Beatlemania started in 1964. Young music fans today get upset when people on Twitter are hating on their favorite singer or band but all of that was said about The Beatles too.
First off, I love the Beatles. Secondly the wisest decision they made was to stop touring and become a studio band. At best, live they were a good Pub and Club outfit. And before you ask, yes I did see them live a couple of times in London, Kilburn and Wembely to be exact.
Comments like these can be said about every band. I grew up the youngest of 5 boys and all of those British Invasion bands were on my brothers turntables. The Beatles were always innovative and influential. I enjoyed listening to the Beatles, but I gravitated towards the Who for their outstanding lyrics and musicianship and just raw power and energy. The Beatles were huge influencers on a lot of bands. So, I would definitely give them their props.
Yes, I grew up listening to the Beatles, but I would have to place them second under the Who. Sorry, just sayin'.
@@dennisloveland498 It's ok, you don't have to be sorry for being in the minority.
@@dennisloveland498 I'm not (and never was) a Who fan, but I respect their art. Nothing wrong with them being your favorite.
Everybody has a right to not like whoever....I happen to love the Beatles and their music is my comfort food.
Ginger Baker hated EVERYBODY lol. He was a genius, but a complete pain in the ass to work with because he was such a jackass. His own son Kofi said this when asked if becoming a drummer was difficult because of who his dad was:
"It’s never really bothered me because my dad is such an asshole anyway that it’s not like I was stressed about making him proud or anything. So, no, it wasn’t really stressful."
Early on, Lou Reed hated almost everyone too. He learned to like more music when he got older.
I said in my reply that I never could nail down good stories of Baker or of Clapton, really. Just comments on their skill. Like Momma always said, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all!
The Beatles were anti Vietnam war not America , John lived and died in New York , Paul married an American
and was in love till she passed. George & Ringo both lived/live in Los Angeles . Everyone to their own but
the Beatles are still one of the best bands ever......
With every song and album the Beatles released they were constantly ahead of the game and other musicians were definitely jealous because they kept changing constantly.
Ringo is one of the best drummers ever. There’s no two ways about it.
I enjoyed your reaction and you make some good points. There's definitely jealousy in some of the comments, especially in the really harsh ones. You know it's not just a dislike of the music when people criticize with that much emotion. I think some were sincere and just find that the Beatles music didn't appeal to them. There's no doubt that Elvis saw the Beatles as a threat to his popularity, but I also think he was sincere (though misguided in my opinion) in some of his objections.
The Who and the Beatles had a longstanding history of competition with each other. Paul McCartney wrote Helter Skelter after Pete Townsend said "I Can See For Miles" was the loudest, rawest,, dirtiest song the Who ever recorded, with the intention of recording something louder, rawer and dirtier!
Quincy Jones, as a great jazz musician and arranger felt a knowledge of music theory was very important, but lots of great music has been written by people with little or no knowledge of music theory and without the ability to read musical scores. I think the biggest advantage of that knowledge is that it provides a common language to communicate musical ideas to a wide variety of musicians, which is probably far more important to someone arranging and leading a band of diverse musicians than to an individual or small band who may have developed their own methods of of communicating their ideas amongst themselves.
Elvis felt intimidated by The Beatles and feared they would dethrone him. He was right. They did. Many of those other critics wouldn't have had a career without The Beatles. There is no shortage of inflated egos green with envy.
I like Elvis for the most part but the fact that he never wrote any of his own music, IMO, set the Beatles above him
No he wasn't right, neither are you. lol. And you're also delusional if you think anything you say is true. There's no shortage of stupid people in large groups, like you, that don't understand the music industry works.
@@akadros310 Not really, when most of their music was written for people that could never stay in tune.
@@radicalreactions1633 Most Beatles haters are bigots.
Even John Lennon himself said they werent the best musician in the world and that there were folks waay better than them. But to me its the songwriting that sets them above most other bands. From Love me Do to Abbey Road in 8 years is phenonmenal. Paul might not be the best musician there is but he taught himself , by ear.... I think of the scene in the "Get Back" documentary where theyre fighting with a song (ive got a feeling, i think)and its all just rudimentary; then Billy Preston comes in and sits down and joins in with them and Paul and John light up ,cuz he brings in that true musician they were struggling to get. And yes George Martin was pivitol in helping their music stand out. But it WAS their music, their songs are the foundation , which was incredibly strong.
Great point. You don't have to master an instrument in order to create good music. Like with new drummers. Stop listening to Neil Pert and look at what Ringo is doing.
Quincy Jones later spoke about his comments saying that his kids and Paul McCartney gave him grief about it and he apologized. Paul is a phenomenal musical bass player. Many a professional bassist has acknowledged his innovations on the instrument. The same is true for Ringo. If all drummers were slick technically brilliant players the world of music would be infinitely more dull. Ringo managed a wonderful magic trick on the drums. He was an egoless supportive player but also managed to be incredibly creative at the same time. To be both creative and simple is a tricky thing. Like a Matisse painting. You make it seem effortless but it takes a kind of work and skill. Listen to the drums and bass on Come Together, a great example of McCartney and Starr as a creative and supportive team putting their stamp on a classic Beatles track. But I suppose Haters gonna hate.
WHY would ANY group NOT like The Beatles. They were forerunners for a lot of rock 'n' roll performers! The music, especially their early music was amazing. And their later songs (many that I didn't care for that much actually), were still ahead of their time and started many trends and influenced many artists. They weren't hugely popular for nothing!!
Beatles the best. History has been recorded and its in stone.
Let the haters hate. It says more about them than it does about their target of hate. When it comes to "The Beatles" it's either jealousy or ignorance because it doesn't get any better than "The Beatles"!!
When you consider all of the musical acts out there over 50 years, this is a very, very short list of people who, for different reasons and to varying intensities, did not appreciate the Beatles. I'd like to see the list of musicians who did appreciate them and cite them as an influence. That would be a very long, notable and prestigious list. But musical tastes vary tremendously and i wouldnt rule out jealousy in some cases.
I think this list would be way too long for a video
The Beatles brought long hair on the scene. The Beatles also brought strength to the foundation of Rock and Roll. No fans equals no growth in the genre. The Beatles had lots of fans, especially in the United States. They took the risk of coming here first. Their manager was a genius though and that did help them become the icons they became.
Not only that, but look also how their music evolved in such a short time period.
They had a LOT of fans all over THE WORLD. Japan especially loved them and most of them didn't know English at that time, and the Beatles were STILL huge, there.
Different strokes for different folks. It's why we have multiple flavors of ice cream even though chocolate is clearly superior. ; )
Strawberry! 😊
@@pdog547 To each their own. ; )
Preface- I grew up with this music. I can tell you when every song came out because I remember where I was. AM radio was always on in my home, the tv, not so much. WOWO out of Ft Wayne Indiana. I'm about the personality of the musicians because I am lyric driven and knowing the back stories to the soundtrack of my life came naturally to me. We are trivia nuts, too. If you want to discount my opinions, that's fine but where I don't understand the chords and notes I do understand the personalities of the players.
One of the most provocative things about the Beatles was that mysterious magical dynamic. Think about all the craziness of their popularity then flip that over. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Who were the Beatles? Four lads from Liverpool who seemingly came out of nowhere and upset the music industry. Other than Elvis when had this happened before? Television was to the Beatles as Social Media is to Influencers. I can understand Quincy Jones' frustrations.
I'm not going to comment on Presley, his dislike wasn't on their abilities as it was a prevailing attitude of many many conservative Americans.
Reading interviews and watching documentaries over the years the band members of Cream have been unsatisfactory in giving good answers about interpersonal dynamics and there are almost no 'fun' stories coming from Clapton at all. I always got the impression that Ginger Baker had skeletons so maybe he was just arrogant? McCartney's father was a band leader of some success and he's not the only writer who was kind of superstitious about his ability to write into the future (Billy Joel) Besides, why did he need to learn musical notation if he was successful without it? Some musicians who have become the greatest did so by practicing for years and developing techniques. McCartney's effortless song writing intimidated John Lennon. Sour grapes? Maybe a bit.
self-destructive
Pete Townsend - I just watched the documentary on the making of Tommy, his rock opera, from the same era that this interview was given. In it they explain that he was frustrated with his writing efforts and that their airplay was so hit and miss that they couldn't sustain popularity. Tommy not only made them rock gods but he changed opera forever. Also, he's describing the 4 track (or early 8 track) recording system. No, the Beatles were not great vocalists in the beginning, it was their raw energy. They'd come up from the basement venues of Liverpool and Hamburg. Later McCartney developed his vocals and became the first white guy that I know of to scream a song (Twist and Shout). something Rock didn't catch up to until more modern times. The Beatles were technical pioneers and important for many things, but they gave up performing because their fans made so much noise the band couldn't hear themselves perform let along the crowd themselves. Their attitude was that it was a waste of their time. My personal favorite rant opinion in R&R is that it's not perfection, it's the reaction. Barbra Streisand vs Carole King for example. Also, when a musical piece vibes with millions of people it's the sum of the effort, not it's individual pieces. Now and then I watch Alex & Andy's reaction channel because they are both musicians, but it never sits well with me when they criticize a vocal effort. If Tom Petty wrote the gd song, then Tom Petty gets to sing that gd song! Pink Floyd employed vocalists because they lacked the ability (Money) or they needed a vocal to fill in for an intstrument (Great Gig in the Sky).
As for Revolution I'd like to go on record saying that this is where the Beatles lost their credibility with the most progressive elements of the sixties. The lyrics read as a caution to revolution, not a call to action. The flower children were a real element of the sixties but I don't think anyone has honestly separated out that movement, which included the communes and marijuana activists, from the politicization of the socialist ideologies that pushed the campus riots and the bombings of federal buildings. I don't know what Rundgren's politics are but I can guess and Revolution was not something he would have respected. More than that and I'd say this was a personal opinion of his.
My opinion of Stipe is that he didn't want to give the Beatles credit for pioneering the type of music he plays himself. Jangling guitars and raw emotional lyrics? Where had we heard that before?
Connick is talking about what he doesn't know. Meaning that he was just being elitist, imo. At the time this interview was given the music industry had changed quite a bit and it was cool to hate on the Beatles. Even now people will say they stole music or profited from other peoples' efforts but there is no case to be made there. I'm also pretty sure that this was the beginning of the Starbuck's era and their coffee house music discs. That was an entirely new generation of Crooner fans.
Deauvilles.. wow, I'd forgotten about them. He was a pop singer left behind by the times. See above for my take on poor vocals.
Yes, Jones is a legend but again, a classically trained musician vs non.
Trent Reznor - an example of someone regretting having every word recorded? He's also given ownership of Hurt to Johnny Cash. I give him credit for owning new ideas and opinions. Men are naturally competitive with each other, and I applaud that. This comes out in opinions like Reznor's not so much from negative feelings as it is a way of ranking himself in the world. A very positive behavior because he's realistic, I think.
Kinks - It shouldn't be counted against Ray Davies that he didn't understand Revolver. The reason Rolling Stone has stopped being a rock n roll rag is because they couldn't get a revue right if their lives depended on it. And that was their job! Plus look at the expressionism of the Kinks's music. It was more Rockabilly and Skiffle; proto punk and takes itself seriously. They were writing music to get drunk to, have a fight to. Sgt Pepper's was goofy and psychedelic.
If you like rock documentaries then you could search on Prime or Tubee. Some of the listings are from the late seventies or early eighties. I believe there's a Bowie doc that ends before his Thin White Duke era. That's where the Tommy documentary is.
Who was the drummer on Dear Prudence?
th-cam.com/video/ptAmOYIFIx8/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUmd2hvIHJlYWxseSBwbGF5ZWQgdGhlIGRydW1zIGluIGJlYXRsZXM%3D
Does Ringo suck?
th-cam.com/video/LvIBr4-mDZU/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUmd2hvIHJlYWxseSBwbGF5ZWQgdGhlIGRydW1zIGluIGJlYXRsZXM%3D
One of the greatest American songwriters of all time, Irving Berlin, famously couldn't read or write music but still created over a 1,000 songs.
Well said
Thanks!@@joningle
It been 53 years since they broke up and are still the most relevant band.
I agree, the jealousy felt strong.
I’ve always believed there was a strong rivalry between many groups & singers. Some criticisms in this video may be warranted, but most of it can be chocked up to jealousy and being from different eras and/or having different tastes.
I would not underestimate how much George Martin contributed to their success. Not a slight to the Fab 4 just recognition of GM.
Absolutely. the title of fifth Beatle truly belongs to him.
In the 1990's, I hung out with a co-worker at the phone company. He often played guitar during lunch breaks. As he always played 1950s era music during those sessions, I asked him one day why, as his age indicated he was a teen during the 1960's. After saying, "Why not some Beatles?", he told me an enlightening tale. He said, "Gerry, in the early 1960's, the Beatles were viewed in the same vein as the Backstreet Boys, they were a girl band, and no self-respecting male music aficionado would give them the time of day. We were more greasers, leather-wearing tough guys, who would not be caught dead singing I want to Hold Your Hand." He then said, "As time went on, and the Beatles matured musically, a lot of guys, myself included, had to admit these guys had matured musically, becoming musically pioneering geniuses who now deserved the accolades."
My 85 year old cousin has a distinct disdain for 'guitar music' lol
@@josieangels7771 That's common. I was raised on classical music. Mom and dad, WWII era, despised modern music.
@@josieangels7771 I have a deep disdain for disco. 😀
When you are the greatest band of all time you are going to have the biggest target on your back !!!
I can play anything ever recorded.
I can push the play button with the best of them.
There’s always people that don’t like the Beatles. Check out the thousands of musicians that love and were inspired by the Beatles. U2, Nirvana, Black Sabbath, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, Heart, Mamas, and the Papas, Kiss, Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell, foo Fighters, Crosby,Stills,Nash, Young, Tom Petty, Prince, Jeff Lynn, Joe Walsh, Annie Lennox, John Fogarty, the list goes on and on.
Well put sir, very well put.
Most of those people that you named are TRASH that also can't sing, gee, I wonder why /s?
"I just thought the other stuff couldn't even come up to our ankles. They were just pretentious"
Been 3 hours that I'm looking at this sentence, and I'm still baffled. This makes negative sense.
I knew that Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground weren't fans for whatever reason. Apparently my favorite song of theirs, "Who Loves the Sun?" was mocking "Here Comes the Sun". Still a really great song though and actually one I would recommend you react to
It's a top song. And a great opener to 'Loaded', an album that I really like.
I never could get into them. I think it's the negativity or whatever you want to call it. Same with punk and grunge. Sad music (grunge) I can do, angry and sarcastic? Not so much.
@@josieangels7771 I would recommend then that you avoid their first two albums and check out 'The Velvet Underground' (with the black cover, not to be confused with the banana album) and 'Loaded'. There are some surprisingly pretty songs there (there's some weird stuff too, to be fair). 'Pale Blue Eyes' is a beautiful song. 'Who Loves the Sun', as mentioned earlier. Velvet Underground are worth exploring.
Elvis was not jealous of the Beatles in fact he liked a lot of their music even sung some of their songs but he did not like what they promoted. One of the Beatles even told Elvis he needed to get rid of his back up girls. The Beatles didn't like Elvis after he came out of the service. Even though they were so enamored they wouldn't talk. Elvis told them ok I'm going to bed if know one is going to speak. Elvis humor broke the ice.
You do know Elvis tried to get the beatles, especially Lennon thrown out of the US, right?
A lot of these people didn't grow up with the Beatles, and didn't really know their music. I also see some jealousy in some of these bands, as they never made it as big. Others, it just wasn't their type of music. "Different strokes for different folks"!
If they would have said as much, instead of taking shots, I could have appreciated them at least for their honesty. Instead, what do they do, they act out.
this is funny quincy jones collected an oscar for let it be on the beatles behalf and phoned up paul and ringo to apoligise for his remarks
Proof?
@@radicalreactions1633 check on ytube it's on there Quincy played the orchestra and then went up and collected let it be award and the apologies were in some magazine articles do the research
Micheal Stipe was so honest, I like that attitude, also who said "they were ahead etc..." were right, honest but from the others what came out were just no good words, that's why I feel like there was both jealousy or envy or something like that, but Roger Waters, David Gilmore, Bob Dylan, (Fun Fact: even David Bowie who accepted to form a band with McCartney and Lennon in the 70's, unfortunately all the idea disappeared during a night...),Curt Cobain and obviously many more huge names agree that they were so good, even George Martin was always so surprised by their ability and genius minds!!
Beatles were the best in the 60s and no one has supplanted them since. The ultimate combination of best songs, innovative sounds and instrumentation, compelling vocals, and interesting lyrics as they evolved in their career. Lots of imitators, followers, wannabes, but no one really comes close. I grew up with their music in the 60s, so I experienced them in real time. In reality, they set an impossible bar for others to reach or surpass. The 60s and 70s were amazing times in pop music as far as variety and excellence and to me it seems as if succeeding decades have not approached anything close to those times. And a lot of it has to do with melody which was a dominant factor in the success of that music. The majority of music past the 70s doesn’t rely on melody.
Completely agree with you. I was a 60's teen. I liked most other bands, but the Beatles were always doing something new. And it was about the melody, and some very surprising lyrics and arrangements. Yes, they had George Martin, but these guys were self-taught musicians, writers, and wordsmiths. Raw talent with a man who knew how to guide that talent. All the best to you, Art Prince.
People hate! The facts are undeniable!!!!
To be fair Ginger Baker hated everyone. Lou Reed calling people pretentious, that's hilarious. Quincy Jones comes off to me as a grumpy old man needing to pump up his own rep. Sad thing is he doesn't need to do so, he's a music legend in his own right. The other thing that I always keep in mind is most of these comments are taken 35 years after The Beatles were an active band.
Like I always say though, they have the right to be wrong just like I do.
Ray Davies famously has a massive chip on his shoulder.
If this video was about people who love the Beatles it would be three times longer.
I don’t like or trust anyone who dislikes the Beatles. Something is wrong with that person if positivity is upsetting to them.
Sadly, some people think that talking about love is weak, soft, or unrealistic. And most of The Beatles' songs are about love.
1) Pete Townshend made a revealing comment during an interview in the 1980s. He said that he and Ray Davies would always have to get used to the fact that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones would always be bigger than The Who and The Kinks. Those four bands are almost universally considered the four best British bands of the 60s, but I imagine it's hard to be #3 or #4 when you think you're really #1.
2) Quincy Jones and Harry Connick are both jazz players, and jazzers generally hate rock music, mainly because they consider it to be too simplistic. Personally, I don't like jazz, so of course I consider their comments to be typical of the jazz musician mindset - and needless to say I don't like their music. But I would never say they don't have talent, as Jones especially seemed to imply about The Beatles. Or maybe his own record sales started slumping once Beatlemania hit, and he was just jealous.
3) Ginger Baker was an incredibly bitter man in his later years, and he hit out at everybody in rock music, especially fellow drummers like Keith Moon and John Bonham. However, I've seen an earlier interview in which he openly declared his admiration for Ringo, which was interesting - he even sat in with the All-Starr Band when fellow Cream member Jack Bruce was touring with them. Also, he was one of many musicians to play on George Harrison's All Things Must Pass album. So he must have liked them at some point in his life.
4) Lou Reed hated everything and everybody. I think it would almost be an insult to NOT be hated by Lou Reed - sort of like not being insulted by Don Rickles......
I think you'll find more musicians that admire The Beatles than dislike the group. If sales of records is any gauge of their worth, then the facts speak for themselves.
Yes, I knew all of this. Ginger Baker, famous curmudgeon. Lou Reed, famous sh*t-stirrer. Townshend, critiquing arrangements and recording techniques not songwriting. Rundgren, dissing Lennon after the breakup of the Beatles (so does that actually count as "couldn't stand the Beatles"?) and making a political critique without acknowledging that he himself is not politically active at all. Stipe, hyper-obsessed with his own depth as an artist (not unlike Lennon, right??) and freely admitting that his indifference to the Beatles is a matter of personal taste as well as generational influence. Connick, rooted in pre-'60s pop and disliking everything else categorically; ignoring the fact that his idol, Sinatra, was a Beatles admirer; not very interested in mining song lyrics for deeper meaning; also, as a professional, it's quite unlilkely that he honestly doesn't acknowledge the abilities of Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison as songwriters . Len Barry, not acknowledged by anyone as any kind of authority on rock'n'roll and an admitted political conservative who enjoyed Beatles recordings but correctly critiqued their live performances once they'd made it big; that "bad work ethic" stuff is pure nonsense. Quincy Jones, professional standards of musicianship that have little resemblance to the Beatles' technique of fooling around in the studio until they got something right and then having George Martin and others use post-production to craft the works to perfection. Reznor, changed his mind over time (he was young and arrogant when he made the original statements). Ray Davies, another famous curmudgeon and also a "southern" snob (i.e., a Londoner vs. those barbaric Liverpudlians).
Also, Velvet Underground is some of the most uninteresting music I've ever heard, IMHO.
I always thought it was art-fart music.
@@keithbrown7685 Pretentious noise.
The Beatles were a phenomenon. Some information suggests that they were a put together band and all the early music was written for them. That said, the very fast popularity of the Beatles was no accident. It was highly promoted. The Beatles were incredibly frustrated trying to play music in the us. They had never seen that large of crowds and the audience would not stop screaming and they couldn’t hear the monitors. How could they play well? They quit that bs very soon. I don’t know really what is true in all the stories. But I believe the other musicians had a right to be upset. It was all about money for the industry. The Beatles were the industry pets of the day imo. And I have loved the music as long as I can remember. Same with wings. And jl’s solo stuff all of them. GH made some of my favorite to this day. I have them all on my playlist. Photograph, Band on the Run, Watching the Wheels, Give Me Love. All great songs. I think they earned their place And I think the lasting love of the fans is what the others are most jealous of imho. And I mostly love their music too (except NIN. And I’ll forgive Trent bcZ of his last statement. ) And yes people like ginger baker and John Lennon can never be friends. That’s a given. Elvis was a conservative. He was a good dude. He couldn’t deal with the changes in the planet Again my opinion. He was a sensitive. And old fashioned. They essentially packed his bags for Las Vegas He was the best entertainer on the planet at the time (not discounting Frankie) and these people hadn’t payed their dues. They played a few years in German clubs. Then they were instant superstars. Can you blame him? I don’t! The industry effs over their best artists and they become slaves. Happened to the Beatles as well. Money and fame isn’t everything. Freedom is. ❤️🔥🫶🏼
Most of these comments are from early, early Beatles and more than likely out of context clips and completely ignorant. Saying the stereo track had all the vocals on one side and instruments on the other is a prime example of stupidity. The Beatles recorded in Mono and only as an afterthought did some engineer throw together a jumbled mess of a stereo mix to make someone happy.
There were hundreds of British Invasion bands in the 60s. Most of which no one will ever know about. The Beatles stood out of the pack because they consistently put out quality music and kept evolving with every record.
Saying Paul was a bad bassist or Ringo was a bad drummer is just stupidity defined. Most people who have negative opinions of The Beatles have never sit down and listened to all their material. Dismissing an entire genre defining band just shows how uniformed you are about the realities of 60 years of music.
Most of the great music in the 70s is a direct result of kids hearing the Beatles and then starting their own bands. The cycle continues every decade.
The only thing I agree with is John Lennon's solo output. It was uneven at best.
The fact that children in 2023 love and sing along with The Beatles is all the proof you need of their staying power. How many Turtles and Herman's Hermits songs are they singing?
The Beatles knew they weren't the Best Players and as George Harrison said he and Ringo didn't practise their Instruments. Their live playing suffered under a barrage of Fans screaming and gave up touring. Something the other Artists didn't have to endure. What they did do was open up RnR to mass audience which had just been suppressed by Apartheid America. They made it acceptable for all ages to enjoy and made sure Americans knew that America had many African-American artists to be proud of and who influenced the Beatles...Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddly, Screamin Jay Hawkins to name a few. Many artists have mentioned how the Beatles showed that your friends could get together play in a Band and write your own material giving you greater control over your music. They also didn't Stagnate and grew to include many Genres of Music as they were sponges and were influenced by many other artists. So they didn't squander the opportunity given to them. I can see where Quincy Jones came from as he is one of the few people who probably covered as many Genres as the Beatles. But there was no mention of their songwriting. Todd Rundgren did a few very Beatle like songs maybe to show he was better. He even did a Beatles tribute tour with Christopher Cross. The Beatles and other bands opened up popular music to where it could be anything you wanted it to be. They sent messages of love, peace, equality and diversity. And not many other Artists on that list released Albums as Diverse in Genre as Sgt peppers and The White Album.
A bunch of jealous haters!! In the year 2000 the Beatles put out an album of their #1 hits. It was the best selling album of the decade, thirty years after they broke up!!! End of discussion!!!
Grunge's title to the video is misleading. Many of the criticisms in the video are limited ones, not ones that completely rejected the Beatles. Rundgren wasn't even talking about the Beatles, he was talking about Lennon's solo career. Townshend said that the instrumental track without the voices sounds lousy, but if you leave out the voices, you aren't really listening to the Beatles. To be fair to any artist, you have to listen to their music the way the artist created it, not to what it sounds like if you subtract something. Townshend also said that he loved "Strawberry Fields Forever", but the video didn't mention that. Elvis' criticisms weren't about their music, but about their being anti-American and encouraging drug use. I don't think they were anti-American at all. John was critical of the Vietnam war, which isn't being anti-American. America was where John wanted to live. The Beatles only said they took drugs when an interviewer asked about it. Ironically, Elvis died from drug use, but none of the Beatles did. Ray Davies' negative comments were about 3 songs on Revolver, not the band in general. Two of the artists that criticized The Beatles walked back their comments later.
Perfectly fine not to like something, tastes are personal and thats what creates variety. Lou Reeds reasoning though just seemed to be from a place where even arrogance seems humble.
1. Elvis Presley covered the Beatles' "Get Back" and "Something" in his live shows. He first met the Beatles in the '60s and George Harrison a second time in the '70s. He might have been envious but he didn't hate the Beatles THAT much.
2. Todd Rundgren loved the Beatles and covered "Strawberry Fields Forever." He was just mad at Lennon at that moment for his lyrics. Rundgren's entire production of the XTC album "Skylarking" was an emulation of George Martin's production of the Beatles c. '67-'68.
3. I don't think that George Martin ever subbed out a jazz drummer for Ringo. Quincy Jones says a lot of wack things hating on others. He even dissed Michael Jackson -- and Jones produced "Thriller"! So he can be discounted.
4. As for Ray Davies of the Kinks, I read a more recent article about him. He had just seen the movie "A Hard Day's Night" for the first time. He LOVED it. He loved THEM.
Videos like this take comments out of context. If this idiot wants to say that Elvis put down the Beatles (according to some third-hand source), he must add that Presley sang Beatles songs in his live act. If you're going to mention that Cream's drummer put down the Beatles, why not say that Cream's lead guitarist played guitar on the Beatles' "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and wrote the song "Badge" with George Harrison? Harrison and Clapton were good friends! This is clickbait. The guy made the video to get people angry. But then again, maybe you made THIS video to make people angry!
I grew up with a guy who hated the Beatles. This was in the 70s when their popularity was still huge. He loved everything we liked which was pop, rock, you name it but hated the Beatles and couldn't explain why.
I kinda know where your mate was coming from. I wouldn't say that I hate the Beatles but i've never been a fan of theirs. I can't explain why, they just don't do it for me.
I've never been a big fan. They are important to the history of rock music without a doubt, but...they never excited me the way that The Rolling Stones and The Who did. And I knew why Yoko Ono always wore huge dark sunglasses.
Hmmm, I never thought of that, I always had the impression that she wasn't the type to put up with it. She threw him out when she caught him messing around and he crawled back on hands and knees to her.
You're not a fan of the Beatles because you're a conservative?
And you have any evidence for this??? "And I knew why Yoko Ono always wore huge dark sunglasses."
I was in music when the Beatles hit USA . I too thought there music was elementary . It was very easy to play a d sing . Other bands music was more complex. I think a lot of the people who hated them was from both sides their population and their lack of reading or writing music. It really doesn't matter because they have already made music history .
Up to the late 60's, the only "complex" music was classical music. The Beatles music did grow a bit more complex by the time they disbanded, although other groups were beginning to write more complex songs.
More than any other group you have to take The Beatles in context. They really did lead the mainstream; Bowie & The Who, Kinks, Rolling Stones, Cream ... all excellent bands, but to change the entire course of 'pop' music, i.e. genuinely popular music that appealed to the vast majority, & what is more take them to places undreamed of by any other group, or the listeners themselves, there's nobody to touch The Beatles. With each album they led us on a bit further, a bit deeper. By the time they got to tracks like Eleanor Rigby they were in genuinely profound territory. They were a phenomenon, a product of a unique confluence of people, time, events ... everything. I doubt it'll happen in quite that way ever again.
As a musician who just entered my teens as the Beatles dissolved and liked them prior to that but, I quickly moved beyond them when hearing Jimmi Hendrix, Deep Purple, The Doors, Rolling Stones, the Who, Led Zeppelin etc. While I give them immense respect for their prolific song writing abilities I feel they lacked "soul" as displayed by their stiff and motionless live performances. It is also the reason they stopped touring live. I agree that much of their success is attributed to the creativity of the production engineers. Personally when the 70's hit I relegated them to "Pop" mostly. But hey, good on them for their success regardless.
The Who, Oh please, same with Rungren sorry Jealousy abounds with the Philly boy.😂 And all of these acts. Quincys opinion is fine by me, he's entitled to it.
One word.... JEALOUSY
At least Michael Stipe didn't criticize them per se, but simply said that their musc did not move him. But I think you're right, that there is an element of jealousy involved. Any time someone is as hugely popular as the Beatles, they become an easy target for sour grapes. I'm of an age where I grew up with the Beatles sort of. My earliest recollection years were the Beatles' last years together. Yet their popularity continued unabated for the next couple of decades. In my college and young adult years, I was into stuff like Led Zeppelin and other hard rock bands and got tired of the Beatles being shoved down my throat. Rock radio stations frequently set aside long stretches of a particular time slot with nothing but the Beatles. I eventually got into the emerging "Alternative" rock scene as well as local indie rock here in Boston and then for years, I didn't hear the Beatles because they didn't get played on Alternative rock stations. Then I decided to start playing the bass (which I have been playing both acoustic and electric, for some 27 years since!). I went to a musical instrument store to buy my first bass and the store was playing the Beatles album "Abbey Road" over the sound system. If you've never done so, I highly recommend listening to Abbey Road with headphones and pay particular attention to the bass. By that time in the Beatles' existence, McCartney had become a helluva good bass player. Also, as that was the last album the Beatles recorded, the bass was much more audible in the mix, due to rapidly improving recording technology. Furthermore, even though McCartney was famous for playing a Hofner "violin" bass and still did for live performances, in later albums, he used a Rickenbacker bass in the studio which had a much fatter sound and more presence. I learned to appreciate his bass playing prowess... then I listened to the music anew and regained an appreciation for the Beatles, having been away from their music for a number of years.
AS to George Martin -- there's a pretty good argument that without his production and guidance, the Beatles would not have been quite as successful or innovative. Lou Reed, he's just being contrary. Townshend is a superb writer and arranger, and he might be standing up for himself and The Who who probably should have had more success earlier on. But I think Pete's disdain didn't really last. I can't say a lot about most of the others. And everything above is "My Opinion(TM)".
it's interesting most of these comments are about their musicianship. I think Elvis actually appreciated some of their songs, he sang a couple of them, but you have to remember the Beatles did do some controversial things. In 1966 Lennon said "the Beatles are bigger than Jesus" and that offended a lot of people. To this day the Beatles , while professing to be fans, have critiicized Elvis and his choices far more than he did them.
Elvis hated the Beatles. They knocked him out of first place. There was jealousy for sure, but it's true (and even pretty obvious) that Martin did all the orchestration for them, and that he had much more musical knowledge than they did (they wouldn't have known a french horn from a piccolo trumpet), but they kept control over what went on the record. All of the people and bands who didn't like the Beatles had moved beyond pop music. They wrote deeper lyrics and were better musicians. But the Beatles had appeal over a much broader audience. And they were all very smart.
I know what you’re saying about George Martin, but McCartney was studying music seriously by ‘65…he knew his instruments. John is one of the most inventive musicians of all time, and stretched Martin as much as Martin stretched him. And Martin had no background in eastern music, Harrison’s passion.
If you’re talking about the day they recorded Please Please Me, maybe…after that, Martin was an equal quarter of a group of four exceptional musicians, five when you add the essential Ringo.
If they were sooooo smart, why didn't McCartney BUY THEIR CATALOG instead of letting it go to MJ, then expecting MJ to GIVE IT TO HIM? Does that really sound like a "smart" man?
@@rollingstoneworks3183No argument here, I agree with you 100% except on Martin. I agree that he was an equal partner in contributing musically and that he had a great influence on them, but I still believe John and Paul kept the final word for themselves. That they all expanded their musical knowledge is obvious.
@@radicalreactions1633 MJ outbid Paul. I think they were pretty good friends before the catalog went up for sale. It was a pretty bitter bidding war.
I'll take the Stones any day
They didn't mention Zappa. And that was correct, because even though Zappa said on MANY occasions that he wasn't a big beatles fan, and even though Paul McCartney wouldn't give him the rights to use the parody album cover of SGT PEPPER (by the way ,McCartney says that Freak Out was an influence on Sgt Pepper) but Frank used the parody cover ANYWAYS...lol Zappa has also said that there are 3 or 4 Beatles songs that he actually LIKED. But he probably should have been some kind of honourable mention...lol.
whenever you put Zappa into any sentence, you should know by now it will be far too intellectual for any one to understand.
I don't need anyone else to confirm or deny how good The Beatles were. I'm a musician and I write music, so I can see it on my own. I would like to ask a lot of these people "So, what's your REAL reason for hating the Beatles?" as if you could get an honest answer.
The winner💥💥
Quincy Jones developed a dislike for The Beatles, especial Paul McCartney, because back in Los Angeles in '68 Paul had spent a few one-nighters with the woman who would eventually become Jone's wife, a young and upcoming TV star known as Peggy Lipton (The Mod Squad). One day in LA, Paul and friends were headed out on a day boat cruise. Peggy had orginally been invited, but Paul then asked his newest interest, Linda Eastman, to join him instead. As the party was boarding the boat Peggy showed up and they, quite literally, left her standing on the dock as they boated away...Jones undoubtably knew the story and the hurt and embarrassment that Peggy felt. Of course, that Linda Eastman eventually became Linda McCartney...and the rest is history.
Cuz Macca tapped that before Q! That was some unhinged rage....
The 60s were a weird time musically. A lot of what you know as rock n’ roll was played by the same house band - “the wrecking crew” - in L.A. Beatles musical ability wasn’t that great. Or original. But they had. Marketing genius and we’re in he right place at the right time. Quincy jones is no hater, neither is Clapton - they are musicians, some of the best. If you think about it, how many duets have you heard with a beatle? THen think about how many Clapton (bb king for instance) has played with. Or harry connick? If you have talent, lots of people will want to play with you. If you’re just a face and a haircut, then nobody will waste their time. Nobody ever bought a Peter Tork (Monkees) duet album. Lionel Richie can’t read music, but his duets are top notch. Ray Charles was blind, but he’s sung with everybody. Talent galore. I could keep on, but I agree with the video. Go watch the documentary the wrecking crew on Netflix and see what the 60s and 70S were like.
Ginger Baker criticising artists who couldn't read or write musical notation is a bit rich coming from a drummer who played blues and jazz which, by their nature, are largely improvised. Irving Berlin couldn't read or write musical notation either but he still wrote Alexander's Ragtime Band, Blue Skies, Puttin' On The Ritz, White Christmas, God Bless America and There's No Business Like Show Business. Ginger Baker only wrote half a dozen songs himself and none of them would get in the top 100 songs by Paul McCartney or Irving Berlin.
Sorry but loved the British Invasion! Beatles, Clapton, Zeppelin, Beck, Pink Floyd etc.!!
I don't let other people make up my mind for me. I'm capable of making my on mistakes and turning them around! Hopefully!
Bird can sing and not cared for yellow sub but I loved them,all the songs they wrote and or sung. Just in love. Loyal and feel good music thsnkyou Beatles John Paul George Ringo Billy Shears.
Everyone does have an opinion and the right to express but jealousy plays a part. Personally, I like all music, growing up the way I did we do not like to say bad things about anyone, everyone says what they like and they have the right but not everyone's taste is the same. I am a senior, and music is my life, as we age we listen more closely to music and opinions change. KODOS, to all song writers lots of feelings go into their music. Thank you for being open minded. Understanding and kindness is what we need also taking care of Mother Earth. Love you reaction.😢🫶
ALL of the people on this list are/were SUCCESSFUL, so how can you outright state that ALL OF THEM ARE JEALOUS, but because YOU like the Beetles, you're NOT? In other words, you born in Fantasyland? Welcome to reality where we have A RIGHT TO OUR OPINION.
Music like food is a matter of taste it just so happens that most people Love The Beatles they are the largest selling artist of all time and the most influential artists but just because a majority of people love them that doesn't mean they are for everyone however when people hate on them that's just jealousy every artist wants that type of love and appreciation there seems to be only for the Beatles.
If you see many commentaries, for somes at one point they lashed the Beatles, but later they recognized their importance and that they're not the "target" of the Beatles music or their outstanding composition abilities. As for people like Mr Jones, it's another factor that come on the line, Quincy Jones is a musician and a composer, so he learned How to make music, so with a band like the Beatles who are self educated musicians, for him they're not musicians and in a way It can be understable but it's easy to "fire on dead" people...
@ 13:09 I don't know what Ray Davies thought of the rest of the Revolver album or the Beatles in general, but he's spot on with his criticisms of certain Revolver tracks. The import of "Taxman" was more in its message than its musical boundaries, "Got to Get You Into My Life" is easily one of the weakest tracks on the album... and NOBODY hates "Yellow Submarine" more than die-hard Beatles fans.
I partly agree with that without George Martin, The Beatles would not be half the musical legends they were. Especially from 1967-1970.
Musical taste is personal.
Then why couldn't they just *keep* it personal? Just keep their mouths shut. There's that old adage, if you can't say something nice, don't say it.
I would never go so far as to say the Beatles were bad, but at the same time really never saw what the big deal was about them either. Give me the Stones and Led Zeppelin any day over the Beatles
LOL...Ginger Baker was the biggest a-hole in rock. Just say, "hi!" to him and he'd punch you in the face.
Yes one look at the fantastic documentary beware of mr. Baker will show you that.
And you can watch the whole thing on TH-cam
ONE THING IS FOR SURE THE BEATLES OUT SOLD ALL THEM BANDS BY MILLIONS OF RECORDS
I think you are right. There is a bit of jealousy but a lot of those guys are extremely talented - the Beatles were very simplistic compared to some of their complex talents - but it doesn't have to be complex to be enjoyable by the masses.
All those bands who didn't like The Beatles.. PURE JEALOUSY and nothing else.
I think some of it is that when people are hyped and worshiped as much as The Beatles were/are it's hard for some people to like them. Even the fact that we can't criticize them is a clue. There were/are a lot of great musicians (individuals and bands) who never got their due from the music industry and the public. The Beatles had some good songs and surely were very influential but were quite possibly overrated.
They're EXTREMELY OVERRATED, and still people are claiming HERE in the comments that these SUCCESSFUL musicians are "automatically jealous," because FF these acts didn't like their out-off-tune English twinks, I mean "Gods." It's pitiful the bloviating these schmucks do.