Things You Don't Like About The Beatles

[2 of 3]

Everybody knows somebody who thinks The Beatles suck. Since we are all huge fans, and like Fox News we want to be "fair and balanced" ...sorry...got carried away there  ..so...right...what was I saying?...oh yeah...since we are all huge fans....what is it about the Beatles that you DON"T like?

I'll start:

Sometimes I get a bit annoyed with the double tracked vocal. Especially from Lennon. The guy had the best voice ever...and you almost never got to hear it without some shenanigan's in the control room.

Next! 

[Kylenz]

They were all smokers. On the back covers of every album sleeve, there they all are, casually with cigarettes in their hand. Yuck. Such a smelly stinky and unhealthy thing to do. Oh well it was acceptable for the times I guess.

[2 of 3]

True....it probably took Mr Harrison away from us much too soon...or at the very least...gave him that Dark Horse voice...yikes! 

[mervap]

I suppose it was product of the times, but I don't care for the casual use of drugs. As dudes the world watched, the Lads had an opportunity to advocate almost anything and be be paid attention to....and did. Most of the things they did and said were of a positive nature....not the drugs.

[Greg]

Here's a thing I don't like about The Beatles:  They carried grudges against each other for way too long.  I wish they could have gotten over their issues (easy for me to say) and really become close again.  Paul and Ringo actually did.  But they really weren't The Beatles throughout the 70's now were they?  They were ex-Beatles.  So that doesn't really count.

From 62 to early 70 there isn't really anything I don't like about them except that they weren't as nice to Pete Best as I wished they'd been.  Maybe you don't care.  I do.

If you count the Real Love/Free As A Bird as Beatles then sign me up for disliking that.

I'm curious to read more thoughts on this topic.  Interesting question. 

...and yeah, the double-track vocal.  Nice one.  I always thought that wasn't necessary for them.

[Kylenz]

I was watching a documentary on The Who the other day, and Pete Townshend said he never took drugs again after a couple of bad acid trips ('67). It's a pity that a few others in the music world didn't come to their senses before it was too late, like his bandmate Keith Moon for example. John Entwistle was also found to have cocaine in his system, which caused his heart attack.

I agree, as role models they should've been more mindful of the drug-taking. I wonder though, did the drugs bring out a positive outcome in terms of more creative songwriting? Not advocating it by any means, but do you think the music output would've turned out to be less interesting without the drug influence?

[2 of 3]

  I wonder though, did the drugs bring out a positive outcome in terms of more creative songwriting?

That's a good question all on it's own Kyle. I've never done any kind of drugs...I have a beer once in a while...wine at dinner...other than that...pretty boring yeah.   But I do have a few friends who have done just about everything, and they have told me about seeing other dimensions...other planes of thought..talked to God...seeing the past and future...things like that. So....I guess it's hard for me to be objective.  I guess in Lennon's case, you could say Yoko was a drug.

[Paperback Writer]

Tough question for me...LOL

On the drug/ciggie stuff, well, people make their own choices, I don't think the Beatles should be scape-goated, it all starts at home/parenting - that was an example of early political right-wing BS, remember burning the Beatles records? 

Besides in REAL-TIME, during 95% of their career, it was not known, or announced that they did drugs, people assumed it.  The Beatles were progressive, influencial figures in society/politics and the right-wingers wanted to discredit them - anyway they could.  Also all those tell all books came out years after the Beatles were over.  They were in their 20's as Beatles, expecting them to be role models for their peers or already rebellious or independent thinking teens is un-realistic.

I hated that they were not patient with themselves, each other and technology to perform live, i.e. wish they took more time to let the technology catch up to the scale of giving live concerts, or forgot about large live concerts and did very small concerts in studios, broadcasting live on emerging satellite TV, instead, allowing them to grow as a performing band.   Giving each other and the band, time, space to make  solo albums, pursue individual personal/family interests and slow the pace down of making an album would have helped - hated the crunch of time they felt.

[Greg]

Yeah, I've got admiration for anyone who is concerned about the drug issue with them.  I personally don't have a problem with it.  Alcohol has killed seven members of my family, and drugs have not killed any (alcohol is a drug I know).  Anyway, I don't have a problem with The Beatles drinking, though.  Anyway, this just leads to the drug debate thing...endless.

And I also agree with the live concert issue that PW mentioned.

[2 of 3]

Yeah, the later years 1968-70 without any concert footage is a real shame. The Rooftop show was far to short...it's really too bad everyone but McCartney was against doing a live show. Damn.

[Kylenz]

I think it was Cliff Richard who slammed The Beatles for recording with out-of-tune guitars - and I think he was correct. Listen to 'Ticket To Ride' and 'You're Going to Lose That Girl' - the slightly sharp bass guitar that causes a jarring dissonance. Even on Nowhere Man, it sounds like the E string on the bass is roughly in tune, but the A string is again slightly sharp, you can hear it when Macca plays those little ascending runs. I know Cliffy copped a lot of flak for what he said, but he had a fair point.

[2 of 3]

Hey Kyle.....how's the earthquake?

[acebackwords]

Yeah, probably the one thing that irked me about the Beatles was the way they advocated and romanticized their drug use.  There's nothing new about musicians and drugs  -- and there's plenty of obscure drug references in old jazz songs and etc.  But whats particularly egregious about all the Beatles drug songs was that they were disseminated directly to an audience of millions of impressionable children.  My latest book  -- "ACID HEROES: The Psychedelic '60s & its Aftermath"  -- makes that case of the unhealthy influence the Beatles had in that regard.

And I was always nauseated by the Lennon as peace guru image.  The guy was a major lunatic.  A genius artist for sure, but far from a role model with a message of uplift for humanity.

[2 of 3]

Yeah, probably the one thing that irked me about the Beatles was the way they advocated and romanticized their drug use.

Did they? I seem to recall that somebody asked and they didn't lie about it. Is that the same thing as promoting it?

[acebackwords]

Yeah, probably the one thing that irked me about the Beatles was the way they advocated and romanticized their drug use.

Did they? I seem to recall that somebody asked and they didn't lie about it. Is that the same thing as promoting it?

I could give a long list -- in fact I wrote a whole book about the premise  -- but I'll just give two quick examples:

1.)  Lennon lifted the lyrics for "Tomorrow Never Knows" almost word-for-word from a Timothy Leary pamphlet, "The Psychedelic Experience" that was basically a guide for how to take an acid trip (thats how Lennon used the pamphlet personally, and then he turned it into a musical guide).

2.)  McCartney said the "Magical Mystery Tour" was inspired by Ken Kesey and his public acid parties.  So basically them Beatles took the two greatest promoters and proseletyzers of psychedelic drugs, Leary and Kesey, and re-broadcast their message to their millions of fans.

P.S.  Lennon, personally, was famous for urging virtually everyone in his orbit to take acid with him.