Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?

The Beatles At 50: Why I Hate The Fab Four

by Harry Paterson
5 October 2012 271 Comments

I hate The B*atles. There. I’ve said it. If that’s a little vague, ambiguous or confusing, permit me to clarify and elaborate; I loathe the Fab Four with every fibre of my being. In fact, the strength of my feelings, regarding the world’s first boy band, probably borders on the pathological...

Already I can hear the howls of outrage and indignation from the legions of Beatles snobs and drones. With only the possible exceptions of Catholics, Daily Mail readers and BNP voters, these poor souls must surely be the most conned, gullible and brain-washed cross-section of humanity to have ever drawn breath?

In terms of articulating my feelings, it’s difficult to know where to start, given that the reasons for my detestation are passionate, long-held and many. I’ll do my best, though. Promise…

So, let’s set the ball rolling then, by looking firstly at their undoubted commercial success which, mystifyingly, many hold up as some kind of evidence of their musical omnipotence. This is easily disposed of.

To get things in some sort of perspective, consider, if you will, The Spice Girls; easily one of, if not the, biggest all-girl acts ever, with record sales that dwarf those of eight out of ten other manufactured pop puppets. While I accept that all art is largely a subjective matter, surely we can all agree that “I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really, really, really, wanna zigga zig ahh” is, frankly, bollocks by any commonly accepted criteria? Mind you, it holds up at least as well as “she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah. She loves you yeah, yeah, yeah, she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah”. The conclusion, by now, should be clear to even the most fundamentalist B*atles disciple; commercial success is not an infallible barometer of artistic merit or credibility.

The other fiercely held conviction among the faithful goes something like this: “Ah, but if it weren’t for The B*atles, you wouldn’t have had [insert name of some incredibly implausible band]”. Again, utter bollocks and infuriating, ill-informed drivel. Now, this may surprise you but they weren’t actually responsible for every great musical event that followed them, you know.

Cream, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Iron Butterfly, The Who, Deep Purple and the Stones owe zero, nada, zilch to those over-rated Scouse conmen and they were all a damn site more innovative, revolutionary and superior in every respect, anyway.

In fact, I reckon the most influential musician of the entire 20th century has surely got to be Robert Johnson. By a huge margin. Modern blues, jazz, rock ‘n’ roll and then, ultimately metal, hard rock and even punk, with its penchant for the hackneyed Three Chord Trick, all stem, to one degree or another, from his legendary, seminal twenty nine songs.

The blues permeates the most vital contemporary music of the last century like a rich seam of platinum. It runs like blood through the beating heart of just about any music of note outside the classical world. Don’t even try and claim a similar legacy for those third-rate, mop-topped hacks. I’ll just laugh. Or poke you in the eye with my pen. As if a case could ever be made for, say, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath or even Simon and Garfunkel being, in any way, defined by some shallow, plastic, pop-tarts from the 60s! Go on; try . Yeah, thought so…

Oh, but hang on a moment, though; Lennon & McCartney were the greatest songwriters of the 20th century, weren’t they? Really? Better than, say, Bacharach and David? Irving Berlin, Ray Davies, Brian Wilson, Hank Williams, Elvis Costello, Bob Dylan, Nick Cave, Nick Drake, Pete Townsend or even Paul Weller? Behave.

You wanna talk about their legacy? The Osmonds, Westlife, Boyzone and JL bloody S are their natural heirs!

In terms of song writing, Robert Johnson and the pioneering Bluesmen perfected the classic I-IV-V chord progression that everyone, including the bloody B*atles, has done to death. To come from a completely different angle, in terms of melodic understanding, harmonic construction and technically superior composition, even ABBA were working on a level our Merseyside charlatans could only dream about.

In a similar vein, a friend of mine, Deni Lloyd, observed, “when you think about the level of fame and adoration they enjoyed, then think about other bands of the sixties who were forever in their shadow it puts it into perspective. Their song writing was weak (unlike say, The Kinks), their voices were weaker (unlike say, Chris Farlowe or Del Shannon) and their instrumentation lacklustre (unlike say, The Byrds) all of which would be easier to forgive had they not wholeheartedly bought into their own mythology. They were a bunch of preening, jumped up little shits and the ones that remain are ridiculous, vain old men with a God complex. They’re shit. That’s it”.

So that takes care of their early oeuvre but we all know, don’t we, that the White Album, Revolver and Sergeant Pepper’s Dreary Club Band were the works that saw them mature into really great musical visionaries, though, yes? Well, if ill-disciplined, drug-induced, pretentious doodling is your thing, then maybe, yeah. Personally, “semolina dripping from a dead dog’s eye” “I am the walrus, I am the Egg-man” and “you’ve been a naughty girl, you’ve let your knickers down” are not quite the incisive capturing of the zeitgeist that springs to mind when I ponder the post-war artistic and cultural revolutions.

It’s probably the right time to surprise you and say that, unlike Deni, I don’t actually think The B*atles are crap, per se. No, really, I don’t. Yesterday is a fine tune, to give just one example (although even here we can thank George Martin’s inspired addition of a string quartet as the element that lifts the song to, possibly, genius-level) and, to be fair, I think they wrote perfectly acceptable three or four minute packages of shallow, pop-puff that reflected, quite well, the new, breezy, optimistic vibe of the Swinging Sixties. If only they’d left it there. But no; they had to go to India, consort with religious nutters, buy a sitar, get all mystical and start taking seriously the hysteria surrounding them. Horror of horrors, they actually started to believe they were, God help us, Serious Artistes!

As far as individual musical proficiency goes, it’ll take barely a paragraph to pull these fakers from their Ivory Tower and expose the Emperor’s New Clothes (excuse the mixed metaphors; that’s what they do to me, God damn ‘em!). Ringo, you’re first up, my man; as a drummer, Mr Starr, as Lennnon himself famously remarked, was not only not the best drummer in the world, he wasn’t “…even the best drummer in The B*atles”. Sadly, poor old Ringo lacked sufficient talent to even polish John Bonham’s cymbals. Or pour Keith Moon’s booze. Or even chop Ginger Baker’s lines with his sticks.

Lennon, as most are forced to reluctantly  acknowledge, could barely play guitar at all and George Harrison’s most elevated B*atles moment arrived courtesy of Clapton’s sublime solo on When My Guitar Gently Weeps. As surely it must’ve done, with relief and gratitude, no doubt, when Eric picked it up; at last! A real musician, pluck me, baby!

Macca? Ironically, probably the most talented of the musically juvenile foursome, he still couldn’t disguise the fact that his mediocre talent was more suited to Broadway and the kitsch world of stage musicals than rock ‘n’ roll. Not that they were ever a rock ‘n’ roll band, of course. The very thought is laughable. No, they were always a pop band. Even your Granny likes ‘em.

The real irritant, though, is that they are easily the most overrated band to have ever entered a recording studio, bar none. Thanks to Epstein, they were marketed, packaged, hyped and sold to an impressionable public, desperately yearning for some escapism following the years of post-war austerity, with the myth enduring to this very day. In fact, it’s here, really, that they made their biggest impact on popular culture; a towering testament to the power of marketing, advertising and hype. The world’s first, and still, its most successful, boy band.

You wanna talk about their legacy? The Osmonds, Westlife, Boyzone and JL bloody S are their natural heirs! Oh all right, maybe a tad harsh; after all, they were directly responsible for the Gallagher brothers and Oasis, too. Yeah. Like, thanks lads…

Click here for more stories in Music

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook

If you like it, Pass it on

image descriptionCOMMENTS

Lee 1:25 pm, 10-Jan-2012

whilst I've got a so-so attitude towards the beatles, all this article is going to do is attract fervent abuse from shitheads who think they're Robert Christgau. just like the ill advised David Bowie article recently published on ST. the beatles have some absolutely peaches of songs/albums but there's so much of the beatles legacy that's built on more than just their music.

Lee 1:28 pm, 10-Jan-2012

the last sentence in the 4th paragraph is an excellent one though, about artistic merit.

King Crimson 1:29 pm, 10-Jan-2012

"George Harrison’s most elevated B*atles moment arrived courtesy of Clapton’s sublime solo on When My Guitar Gently Weeps" HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.....ur a funny guy! - seriously

rossco 1:29 pm, 10-Jan-2012

whoever wrote this article is a twat

Sam Saunders (@thislast) 1:30 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Incredible silliness. Eccentric opinion is fine, but this is full of simple ignorance and short on humour. A waste of pixels.

Sam Pearce 1:33 pm, 10-Jan-2012

I think it's justifiable to not like the Beatles (as with anything), but you take the argument way too far... The Spice Girls were loved by small girls, and in hindsight they are only respected as an exceptionally marketed pop group. The Beatles are lauded from such a diverse and far-reaching array of people and critics that it's pretty arrogant to dismiss them as 'sh*t'. You don't have to like them yourself, but 50 years of such widespread acclaim should tell you that there probably is something to applaud. Their influence on popular music was immense, not just musically , but on music as a wider medium (as you note). Again, you dont have to like it, but their influence on it was huge. Also, I don't know your age, but I assume you are relatively young, as I am? If you speak to people who lived through the era, and they tell you about that the only 'pop music' they ever encountered was a half hour slot on a Friday, you begin to see the impact of the Beatles. They revolutionised how accessible music was to young people. The facets you dislike, the hype and the marketing, paved the way for the expansion of popular music on radio and tv. Also, how you can listen to Sgt Pepper, whilst looking at what else was out in 1967, and not think that at least was different, than I will never understand your argument. You call it 'ill-disciplined, drug-induced, pretentious doodling', and maybe it was, but they were the first people to do it and make an impact. Context is of paramount importance when dealing with the Beatles. There were people who were greater musicians, and those who used more blues etc, but the Beatles brought it to the massed, albeit in a much subtler form, and for that you should thank them. On a personal note, so many of their melodies were absolutely fabulous.

GB 1:36 pm, 10-Jan-2012

For once, Harry, i agree with you - I've always thought the Beatles were overrated. For every Hey Jude/Let it Be there are three more that are just crap/odd/boring/crap/twee or crap. I'm with Scroobius Pip - The Beatles were just a band

EponymousBosh 1:49 pm, 10-Jan-2012

It's only right that traditional cultural values be re-examined and challenged by each successive generation. But It helps if it's done with some rationality and intelligence as well as, needless to say, a far better knowledge of the subject than the writer of this gash makes shamelessly obvious. Fuck off back to the sixth form common room and come back when you've spent a bit more time investigating the history of music.

Leggy Mountbatten 1:54 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Harry, your remarks are ill considered at best, and your remarks about "she loves you" recall those rubbish comedians who read out pop lyrics in an over-pompous manner, thinking they are making some kind of point. The assertion that the Stones owe zilch to the Beatles is a humungous factual inaccuracy. You are not the worst offender though. Dave Simpson, who wrote a book in which he stalked every ex-member of the Fall, is on record as saying Shed7 are better than The Beatles. Beat that!

Jonathan 1:55 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Finally, somebody's written the piece that I've wanted to for years. Excellent work, Harry.

EponymousBosh 1:55 pm, 10-Jan-2012

... Oh ... and if you can develop a style of writing which isn't akin to having teeth extracted for anyone apart from your mum when they are reading it, then that will help too.

Harry Paterson 1:57 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Not keen then, Eponymous? ;-)

Harry Paterson 2:07 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Sam Pearce probably makes the most valid counter-argument. The point about context is interesting and not without merit. Mind you, I've never claimed they were shit, just mystifyingly overrated.

Robert 2:11 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Christ, the writing on ST gets worse and worse by the month. The sixth paragraph up is an absolute stinker. You're about as much of a writer as Ringo was a drummer, mate.

James Bushill 2:24 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Um, Bollocks. The Beatles must have been the greatest because no one would ever write this article about any other band. You have to be truly great to inspire this much talentless bilge. What's your motivation for hating them? The fact that the majority of people in the world like them. Any artist that has universal appeal will inevitably inspire hatred in a small minority of angry hipsters. For what reason? Simply the fact that they pick their artists by virtue of their lack of commercial success or the wankiness of their hairstyles. Admittedly the Beatles had poor hair but their hipster appeal was drastically reduced by their massive commercial success. The key signifier of this writer's hipster status - the line "Even your Granny likes ‘em." So f*****g what. I don't judge my bands on who likes them. I judge on whether their music interests me, evokes emotions, makes me feel something, not whether they're "rock n roll" or whether my granny likes them. I don't care if Pol Pot owned their whole back catalogue, who can't beat them. The words speak for themselves - "Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear, No one comes near Look at him working, darning his socks In the night, when there's nobody there, What does he care?" You disappoint me, Harry Paterson.

steve colton 2:28 pm, 10-Jan-2012

It's like the ironic review on here at the moment: "Next, my article on why binge drinking is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing like you and Tony Blairs think."

indigo wolf 2:33 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Vapid and dull ... they did more with one word then you have with many. P.s. Who are you?

pat 2:39 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Finally someone else who thinks the Beatles are as shitty and overrated as I do, excellent summation.

Barrington Womble 3:03 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Another revisionist looking to deconstruct the 'mythology' surrounding The Beatles. I recall back in 2003 with the re-release of Let It Be that a reviewer labelled the Fabs as little more than a competent pub band tinkering around in the studio. I think cretins like the ST writer here need to put into context the musical landscape created by The Beatles (with their peers) in the 1960s. Listening to the Fabs in 2012, it's easy to be blasé and indifferent given that there's 50 years worth of music that has been released since then, so this guy is failing to realise that in the '60s, their music WAS ground-breaking at its inception, as there had been very little (Rock n' Roll was still in its infancy) to capture imagination of the public up to that point. Every slag's had a slice of the pie circa 2012 and the whole genre has been flogged to the death, but rather than trying to be a cynic, maybe you should try putting their music into context (ie. the decade it was released) rather than treating it as if it was sprung upon us by The Feeling last week.

Harry Paterson 3:35 pm, 10-Jan-2012

No one's "trying to be a cynic" I'm just sick to fecking death of their material being shoved down my throat by psueds and intellectuals as the last word in music. Fact 1. They aren't shit. Fact 2. I never claimed they were either. Fact 3. As GB has already observed, "For every Hey Jude/Let it Be there are three more that are just crap/odd/boring/crap/twee or crap" Fact 4. They *are* massively overrated, and the argument about context amounts to, well there was feck all else around so they were amazing by comparison. Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?

Johnny C 3:56 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Maybe not the best, but certainly better than Townsend or Dylan

John T 4:14 pm, 10-Jan-2012

The writer of this blog considers Simon And Garfunkel to be musically superior. Says it all really...

Thompty 4:19 pm, 10-Jan-2012

What a complete tosspole vying for centre of attention. You really shouldn't have bothered with this. zzzzzzzzz

paula brochu 4:21 pm, 10-Jan-2012

It's hard to know where to start in regard to such an uniformed piece. How about just one small point. The Beatles were huge, selling millions of copies of their songs overnight, at a time when the internet and commercial media did not exist as the Spice Girls knew it. I will leave the rest of your silly opinion to others to address.

loose 4:23 pm, 10-Jan-2012

The usual 'hipper-than-thou' nonsense that - as others have pointed out - completely misses the point. In one paragraph the Beatles are disparaged for failing to "capture the zeitgeist", then in the very next paragraph their music is again disparaged for the way it "reflected ... the vibe of the sixties." That kind of inconsistency makes this a very flawed piece for me.

Facebook/Induct.BrianEpstein 4:43 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Anyone who actually gets ANGRY about this is just not THINKING. I giggled through practically every line. How ironic that, in effect, the writer places the entire phenomenon in the hands of Brian, conniving though he makes him seem. His opinion is an (every-bit-as-faulty) polar opposite of the attitude of many rabid fans who minimize the devoted Brian's necessary role in shooting them all to the toppermost of the poppermost ~ then his constant yet successful struggle to keep his boys from fighting with each other. As for the actual musical genius of Brian's boys, it would be more logical to trust the instincts of the great Leonard Bernstein than of one hipster music reviewer. I'm not big on the "yeah, yeah, yeah" phase myself, but from Revolution and Rubber Soul onward, the boys not only revolutionized the way music was made, they changed the world's culture forever. It stands to reason that longevity of an artiste's output is the prime indicator of his true value. So ~ which of the musicians this guy is fawning over will be remembered 50 years from now? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is a really hilarious article. :)

Elizabeth M 5:02 pm, 10-Jan-2012

I don't usually comment on articles, but I felt I had to with this one. I have to agree with you on their earlier music--songs like "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" are hardly "great music". But I think you are misrepresenting their later years by picking "I Am the Walrus" (which, by the way, you got the lyrics wrong for) as a representative song of their later work. The song was written by Lennon after he heard that his former school, Quarry Bank School, was analyzing his lyrics in class. He purposely wanted to confuse them by writing a meaningless song. If you want to talk about their later years, try dismissing Strawberry Fields Forever, For No One, Julia, or A Day In the Life as "ill-disciplined, drug-induced, pretentious doodling". Oh and on another note, try listening to "John Sinclair" if you don't think Lennon could play the guitar. Sure, he wasn't the best guitarist ever, but he hardly deserves your off-hand dismissal.

Tom Hepburn 5:03 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Finally, someone has written down everything I've been saying about The Beatles for years. This is an excellent article; well-written with a strong, completely-substantiated argument. It makes good use of many of the foremost acts of the time to demonstrate why The Beatles are over-rated. But, completely predictably on ST, it is shouted down by a shower of morons because it is a different viewpoint from the cultural norm. The Beatles ARE over-rated. The fact that this is being said NOW doesn't make it any less relevant than if it was said in 1975; in fact, it's probably much more relevant now as you didn't have pointless non-entities like Paul fucking Ross on the tv every fucking week telling you that The Beatles are simply the greatest thing to happen in the whole history of the world back in 1975. There are a couple of things I think they deserve credit for though. Firstly, that they opened up the American market for bands like Cream, The Animals, The Byrds and later Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd to explore; although this was as much down to their promoters and management as the band. And, more importantly, that they were an influence on other prominent bands at the time. Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys credits them as one of the main reasons that drove him to write 'Pet Sounds' and Richards and Jagger, although clearly taking a more interesting direction, were inspired by their rivalry with the band. Anyway, good job on a great article.

Mark 5:03 pm, 10-Jan-2012

They could all write a song better than you can write an article. Even Ringo.

TAMBO 5:07 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Obviously you are right, and the tens of millions of beatles fans are wrong? Pathetic.

Harry Paterson 5:37 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Cheers, Tom. I must admit I've been amused by the haters who, with only a couple of exceptions, have all failed spectacularly to demonstrate *why* I'm wrong or indeed even tried. Like The B*atles, personal abuse instead of rational argument never goes out fashion ;-)

Jim 5:45 pm, 10-Jan-2012

"Fact 4. They *are* massively overrated, and the argument about context amounts to, well there was feck all else around so they were amazing by comparison. Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?" This really does demonstrate your naivety, as Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants". Subsequent artists in that genre have built on what the Beatles started and could arguable be better but that doesn't mean they would have been able to achieve what the Beatles did without using them as inspiration. You also harp on about musical talent, Claptons better than Harrison, their writing was only average. Fair enough but how can you then compaire the Beatles to boy bands who don't play any instruments or write any songs? Thats just inconsistance and goes to show that you're biased. Fact is they have some excellent songs that would match up to anything being released today yet they produced it several decades earlier. If that doesn't deserve respect then nothing will. Just my opinion like.

Big Vern 5:47 pm, 10-Jan-2012

utter be11end

ray von danker 5:57 pm, 10-Jan-2012

My mate hates the Beatles too. He has good music taste. Pixies, new order, Elvis Costello, Nick Cave etc. My mate is in seriously big denial about the Beatles. He knows it. I know it. Harry Paterson suffers this same affliction.

SnootchiBootchies 7:07 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Absolutely on the nail! Kudos sir.

Loudmouth Socialist Northerner 7:13 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Your articles are like a terrible radio phone in show. You seem to wallow in the responses you get positive/negative and thus you write to perpetuate it. You've taken an excellent subject matter and you've spoilt it by your inability to write articles without a childish biased view. Harry "Talksport" Paterson strikes again!

That one 7:34 pm, 10-Jan-2012

I agree, to a point

That one 7:36 pm, 10-Jan-2012

TAMBO, JUST SAW YOUR COMMENT, fans can't be wrong, nor right. Fans have an opinion also known as a taste, to think that an opinion is the same as a logical fact is plainly silliness.

Ziggy Gobshite 7:44 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Imagine not liking The Beatles.

Carps 7:46 pm, 10-Jan-2012

It is possible to construct a pretty definitive counter-argument to this piece of sour-facde whimsy. However it is not worth my time writing it, nor your time reading it.

bojo jone 8:17 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Did John Lennon write this?

JB 8:30 pm, 10-Jan-2012

So millions and millions of people over 50 years (and probably till the end of days are wrong) and you and your friend are right? Don't think so. Another nobody trying to be "cool" and "unique" by saying he doesn't like The Beatles. Zzzz (its been done before) The best argument to how amazing the beatles were is how after 50 years they are still the greatest thing ever happened to music.

andyfives 8:45 pm, 10-Jan-2012

I would have to say I disagree with you on pretty much every count, but everyone is entitled to an opinion right...?

Revolution 9 8:48 pm, 10-Jan-2012

You start off with a bad premise - The Beatles were a BAND, not a boy band. Boy bands dance and sing, bands play their own instruments (and since The Beatles came along to inspire everyone, often write their own songs, unlike boy bands). It's downhill from there with one misinformed observation after another.

Beeco 9:11 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Funnily enough I bet all the other bands you mention would say that The Beatles were an influence on them or at least changed the industry for the better. Sgt Peppers changed the way the execs thought about studio time. I must say I really don't get why Sgt Pepper is lauded as one of the greatest albums of all time. Piper At The Gates Of Dawn by Pink Floyd was a far better psych album and even thats terrible.

That one 9:12 pm, 10-Jan-2012

So JB let's just forget about Nirvana, Led Zepplin, The who, Michael Jackson, Bon Jovi, Alice Cooper, Elvis Presley, Guns and Roses, Bruce Springsteen, The Manic Street Preachers, Elbow, Slipknot, Metallica, Noel Gallagher, Public enemy, Rage against the machine, I could go on for much much longer... None of them could have possibly done anything to shape music today, none of them had millions of fans and millions of albums sold or make it into the charts for months on end. Yes millions of people like the beatles, I admire them personally, but I don't agree with the idea that they could be considered the greatest thing ever to happen to music because that is plain ignorance of what others have achieved, many of the bands and performers I listed have provided even more influence towards change than the beatles did. The beatles were amazing and produced some works of perfection, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Sam Saunders (@thislast) 9:20 pm, 10-Jan-2012

@Jim "well there was feck all else around so they were amazing by comparison." My guess is that you might not have been alive at the time. There was less pop music in aggregate terms, but those who were having hit records and doing national tours while the Beatles were having their first hits included plenty of heavyweight rivals. The Rolling Stones are the most obvious ones. They were also competing with Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison, Elvis Presley, Dusty Springfield and others, right from the beginning. The Animals, Bob Dylan, The Yardbirds, John Mayall ... were also there. The list goes on. Harrison's amazingly creative riffs (song defining riffs), in my ears. sound unique, especially compared with Clapton's beautifully played, but derivative, blues scales.

Harry Paterson 9:31 pm, 10-Jan-2012

I notice no one's going near the Robert Johnson argument. Funny, that...

Alex Clegg 9:47 pm, 10-Jan-2012

You sir are an absolute idiot! The I-IV-V pattern that the Beatles very rarely used, i should know i studied them at A-Level, the beatles brought back proper Western Tonal harmonies into mainstream pop/rock. You can't tell me that all of the massive bands who have followed the Beatles and sighted them as a decisive music influence are lying. Crawl out of your shell when you right anything 0.0005% as good a revolver. Mug

TAMBO 10:17 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Harry, nobodys going near the Robert Johnson argument,because nobodys fukn heard of him.

Owen Blackhurst 11:02 pm, 10-Jan-2012

TAMBO, if you haven't heard of Robert Johnson, then your ability to make a pithy comment on a music piece, based weirdly on popularity (never a good argument when it comes to music pal), has to be seriously called into question. Get hold of the complete recordings, it's ace. I've got no quarry with the fab four, they wouldn't get near the clash, stones and several others for me, but I don't hate them. I do, however, respect people's righto have an opinion. The only bit that rankles is Clapton, because I think he's a hideous cunt and I wouldn't give him credit for anything.

Owen Blackhurst 11:09 pm, 10-Jan-2012

And Paula Brochu, using record sales as a way to define brilliance is nonsense. Harry raises points, based on his opinion, and expands on them. To say someone is great because they sold loads is so narrow-minded. Take That sell loads, tehy're shit. The Pixies sold fuck all, they're great. Ditto Oasis / Shack, et-bleedin-cetera. Someone should write an intelligent response rather than just trot out nonsense like 'they were great, shut up' because that isn't an argument

Dave Lee 11:28 pm, 10-Jan-2012

Of course, one of the greatest things about the Beatles (among many) was their brevity. They wrote short, magnificent songs so you're never more than 3 minutes away from being able to put Robert Johnson back on. Additionally, there lyrics were rarely contained more than 40 or 50 words yet offered intelligent, profundity, philosophy as well as more base emotions - all while rhyming and (usually) making sense. And they never had spelling mistakes. Also, its not the music's fault that it sold so well. AND significance cannot be measured by ability to play an instrument. Just look at John Lydon, Shane McGowan, Morrissey or (in truth) Robert Johnson.

Larry Tucker 11:51 pm, 10-Jan-2012

They get credit for reinventing popular music single-handedly, which is wrong. As you say, they were part of a number of artists experimenting with the form of pop songs at the time. The Beach Boys, Dylan, The Byrds, Zappa, The Kinks and Hendrix, to name but a few. The bands of this period all listened to each other for their influences. Sgt. Pepper provides two good examples of this: The Beatles wrote it as a "concept" album inspired by Zappa's Freak Out! Two days after its release, Hendrix was playing its title track live. I feel they get a lot of their musical credit simply because they had a large fanbase who grew up with them, bought their records and kept their music in the public consciousness. That's not to say they weren't innovative. Norwegian Wood was one of the first tracks using the sitar. Eleanor Rigby has a string quartet and unusual Mediaeval modal harmony. They experimented with integrating Western popular song and Indian classical music or the avant garde of Stockhausen. Sgt. Pepper was the first album with printed lyrics. Tomorrow Never Knows was analogue acid-trip dance music many years ahead of its time. Musically, they were really bloody innovative, they just didn't change pop music by themselves. They had a huge impact on the industry itself. They helped change the emphasis from a conveyor belt of one-hit wonder artistes to established artists who would be given studio time to produce works of art. So, they were certainly very innovative, but so were a lot of other acts at the time. Their popularity from the moptop days helped them persist for fifty years. Oh, and as for the lyrics to I Am The Walrus? They were written to be unintelligible bollocks to stop people interpreting them. Or using them to make a point in a poorly-researched article.

LOL 12:58 am, 11-Jan-2012

Robert Johnson'lyrics are very intelligent (lol) Ooh, baby don't you want to go ? Ooh, baby don't you want to go ? Back to the land of California To my sweet home Chicago Ooh, baby don't you want to go ? Ooh, baby don't you want to go ? Back to the land of California To my sweet home Chicago Now one and one is two, two and two is four I'm heavy loaded baby, I'm booked, I gotta go Cryin' baby, honey don't you want to go ? Back to the land of California To my sweet home Chicago Now two and two is four, four and two is six You gonna keep Monkey'in 'round Here friend-boy You gonna get your business all in a trick But I'm cryin' baby, honey don't you wanna go Back to the land of California To my sweet home Chicago Now six and two is eight, eight and two is ten Friend-boy, she trick you one time, she sure gonna do it again But I'm cryin' hey, baby don't you want to go To the land of California To my sweet home Chicago I'm goin' to California, from there to Des Moines, Iowa'y Somebody will tell me that you, need my help someday, Cryin', hey hey, baby don't you want to go Back to the land of California To my sweet home Chicago

LOL 1:17 am, 11-Jan-2012

The Beatles had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing. In the Beatles' songs we find more than just the occasional trick chord of rock 'n' roll and rhythm and blues. It's not the chords themselves, but the chord sequences that are at the core of the sound of the Beatles. Every typical Beatles' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression. The Beatles always seemed to enjoy importing some unusual notes into their melodies. These special notes clearly are related to their harmonies. Many musicians have pointed at these chord sequences as the key to the group's musical innovations. Often the successful harmonic ventures of the Beatles are treated as isolated feats and features which can be traced back to their European roots. Like wrote American musicologist Alan W. Kramarz "the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves". In 1989 the American musicologist Alan W. Pollack started to analyze the songs of the Beatles. Like wrote Nick Stone, "Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking"

Mark2 1:25 am, 11-Jan-2012

Having lived through the sixties and heard the Beatles songs as they were released, felt their freshness, imagination and vibrancy, I understand that Harry suffers from lack of perspective as he can only view things from now,which is still valid, but limited. The Beatles inspired the Rolling Stones to write their own songs and Ringo sang a better version of 'I Wanna Be Your Man' than the Stones. This is really a poor opinionated and narrow article.

Rae 1:52 am, 11-Jan-2012

NOT FUCKN HEARD OF ROBERT JOHNSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*insert gob smacked, bewildered and utter disbelief faced smiley here* I need a lie down.

Francis Pearson 2:15 am, 11-Jan-2012

In the Shaun of the Dead style zombie attack in which throwing cds (I own no vinyl) constitutes the only form of viable defence, my "Best of the Beatles" would be amongst the first casualties. But I am young and foolish.

Drew 2:50 am, 11-Jan-2012

Harry dear: You seem to be suffering from the delusion that you have made some original argument here. But people been hatin on the Beatles since the Beatles came on the scene. And 100 years from now, there will still be people hatin on 'em. Whether you like or hate the music is beside the point. But no other band has a better story. They were beautiful boys who made it very very big and managed to change the way music was made and created the entire system of artists writing, singing, and performing their own music. Not too shabby. Why did we need the Beatles? Go look at the frickin charts back in 1962 when Neil Sedaka and the like were dominating. The Beatles were the punk rockers of their day. You don't have to like them to respect what they've achieved and continue to achieve. (P.S. Paul's bass playing was absolutely phenomenal.)

JohnnyL 2:58 am, 11-Jan-2012

Without the Beatles there'd have been no E.L.O. Just think about that for a minute.

James 3:19 am, 11-Jan-2012

you are truley ignorant. You have no respect for people who have changed the world but you are too shallow to realize it. I dont know what kind of stupid music you listen to but it certainly doesnt compare to the beatles origional and creative and all alround incredable music. Without the beatles, there would be no eminem or tupac,nicky minaj, or cee lo green, so you can take your ignorance someplace else because anyone who likes music, likes the beatles. its a fact you cant not, they are the base of every song today. Your unbelievable.

Randy 3:25 am, 11-Jan-2012

Jealous Guy?

Chris M 6:43 am, 11-Jan-2012

Excellent article. Agree wholeheartedly.

Harry Paterson 11:30 am, 11-Jan-2012

James, interesting spelling and grammar, mate. What language is that?

Harry Paterson 11:35 am, 11-Jan-2012

Alex, you need to go a bit beyond A level music, mate, if that's the core of your argument. The B*atles used I-IV-V and variations on it. Fact. That it provided the springboard for them to go beyond that and do their own thing doesn't negate my point, it *proves* it; Robert Johnson was the most influential musician of the 20th century.

Sam Saunders (@thislast) 11:47 am, 11-Jan-2012

"I notice no one's going near the Robert Johnson argument. Funny, that... " I didn't think it was worth going there. But now you have mentioned it ... Robert Johnson has a justifiable mystique. His magnificent voice and guitar style were beautifully recorded and the legacy (even the Led Zeppelin rip offs) is immense. But he was not a true orignal in a musical sense, He copied and played what others around hm were playing at the time - there is at least one compilation available on CD that offers the chance to hear slightly earlier versions of a lot of Johnson's material. See Johnson purified and perfected a form, but he didn't invent much. I think if we want to find a genuine antecedent to the Beatles in terms of the ability to create so many songs that have a life of their own, Stephen Foster might be the fellow.

Harry Paterson 11:49 am, 11-Jan-2012

Maybe you fundamentalists might calm down a little and consider Lennon being sued for ripping off Chuck Berry and Macka's candid admission, " "What do they say? 'A good artist borrows, a great artist steals' – or something like that. That makes The Beatles great artists because we stole a lot of stuff." Now they certainly aren't alone in this but, equally, they certainly aren't Mozart, Mahler, Bach and Beethoven and do not deserve their near-canonization, which is all I've been arguing. Chill, people. 'It's only rock 'n' roll' Well, pop in this case but you get the point ;-)

Harry Paterson 11:53 am, 11-Jan-2012

Sam, I did say Johnson and *others*. In terms of influence on contemporary rock and pop, Christ, it's at least arguable that Johnson and his peers *invented* it. Certainly, the I-IV-V progression alone is a greater influence on, and contribution to, more artists and songs than The B*atles could even dream of.

Dan 12:23 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Harry Paterson, for what its worth my advice is stop writing *Fact* before you list an opinion. As for your article it does come across a little try hard but everyone has to start somewhere, now get the kettle on... You are the workie yeah?

Deidrie Cavanagh 1:51 pm, 11-Jan-2012

The most subversive, esoteric, willfully magikal band that ever existed.

Jimmy James Jameson 2:03 pm, 11-Jan-2012

The Beatles were playing 8 hour sessions in Hamburg strip clubs to criminals, sailors and prostitutes when Jagger, Richards, Clapton etc were still fannying around at art school. They lived in a hole behind the screen of a porn cinema and were shagging as many strippers as they could manage. They were as rock and roll as they come. Brian Epstein cleaned up their image and made them successful, George Martin helped develop their sound, of which has inspired just about everybody since. Their contribution to music and culture simply cannot be underated. Like or dislike, what they achieved in 7 years of recording is an astonishing legacy, which will never be repeated.

Jimmy James Jameson 2:04 pm, 11-Jan-2012

*meant overrated*

DrRoberts66 2:48 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Howard Goodall - a classically-trained musician and composer - claims the Beatles single-handedly rescued Western music and posterity will see them ranked alongside Beethoven and Wagner. I think Goodall's opinion carries far more weight than the semi-literate Harry Paterson.

Thompty 2:54 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Dear Harry You seem to be getting increasingly desperate in your language and behaviour on here, calling people fundamentalists and criticising grammar and spelling. Your article is a poorly researched, subjective, hysterical pile of old tosh, and you are a hypocrite for the tone you're taking with people responding here, mostly in intelligent and measured terms...behaviour you seem entirely incapable of..

Harry Paterson 3:10 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Thompty, auld lad (?) where's your sense of humour? And that of your co-detractors? You guys really do need to lighten up a little. Such po-faced, strident and earnest responses to a piece written with tongue inserted, at least partially, in cheek is bit disproportionate ;-)

Deidrie Cavanagh 3:27 pm, 11-Jan-2012

The Walrus Was Faul. McCartney was an adept :)

Andy 3:55 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Harry - you truly are a miserable, self opinionated twat. You need to get out more.

LOL 3:56 pm, 11-Jan-2012

(To Harry Paterson). I asking me this question. Are you ignorant or dishonest. You wrote :"Lennon being sued for ripping off Chuck Berry" It's wrong. It's not Chuck Berry who sued The Beatles. It's Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. Chuck Berry would never sued The Beatles for one stupid reason. Chuck Berry also did the same thing. On his first single with the song "Maybellene": (Wikipedia) "According to Berry, his favorite song to sing at “salt and pepper clubs” as he called them, (black and white clubs) was the traditional country song "Ida Red", an uptempo dance number made popular by Bob Wills & The Texas Playboys with their 1938 recording. With encouragement from Muddy Waters, Berry in 1955 brought to Chess Records a tape of his cover of Bob Wills' version of the tune which he had renamed “Ida May” and a blues song he wrote “Wee Wee Hours”, which he stated was inspired by Joe Turner’s “Wee Baby Blue”. To Berry’s surprise, Leonard Chess showed little interest in the blues material but was enthusiastic about the commercial possibilities in a “hillbilly song sung by a black man”. Chess wanted a bigger beat for the song and added a bass and maracas player to the trio at the recording session. He also felt the titles “Ida Red” and “Ida May” were “too rural”. Spotting a mascara box on the floor of the studio, according to Berry’s partner Johnnie Johnson, Chess said, “Well, hell, let’s name the damn thing Maybellene” altering the spelling to avoid a suit by the cosmetic company. The lyrics were rewritten at the direction of Chess as well. “The kids wanted the big beat, cars, and young love,” Chess recalled. “It was the trend and we jumped on it.” It has been claimed that taking old recordings and modifying them, by changing the instrumentals and the lyrics was a common practice in the 1950s. With these changes the original songs were often not detectable particularly if the melody was slightly modified. This practice took place because copyright laws on older recordings were rarely enforced. As Chess had predicted, the lyrics struck a chord with teenagers fascinated by cars, speed, and sexuality. "Maybellene” became one of the first records to score big on rhythm and blues, country and western, and pop charts. Featuring some inimitable Chuck Berry riffs, some blues-style picking on a country guitar, and Johnson’s piano, which added a hummable rhythm to the steady backbeat, "Maybellene" was a pivotal song in the emergence of rock 'n' roll. This exciting fusion of a rhythm and blues beat with a rural country style was the catalyst for the type of rock 'n' roll that emerged in the mid-1950s" . Like you see dear Harry Paterson, Chuck Berry did the same thing. With Leonard Chess he used the song "Ida Red",by Bob Wills & The Texas Playboys and both they create "Maybellene". The Beatles did the same thing than Chuck Berry and Leonard Chess. The Beatles used the song "Ida Red" by Bob Wills & The Texas Playboys and both they create "Come Thogether". Chuck Berry never sued The Beatles. It's Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me".. I hope you understand dear Harry Paterson, Morris Levy wanted money from the Beatles and hype for his publishing company. Morris Levy didn't care about Chuck Berry And The Beatles, all he wanted was money. (Wikipedia : Morris Levy) "Morris Levy was an American music industry executive, best known as the founder and owner of Roulette Records. He was described by Billboard magazine as 'one of the record industry's most controversial and flamboyant players,' and by Allmusic as 'a notorious crook who swindled artists out of their owed royalties'...."When at Birdland, he was approached by a representative of ASCAP, seeking payment on behalf of songwriters for his being allowed to book live music. Levy then formed a publishing company, Patricia Music, to which he acquired the rights of songs performed in his clubs. In 1956, he founded Roulette Records with George Goldner, initially to release rock and roll music but also diversifying into jazz. AT ONE POINT HE OWNED THE RIGHTS TO THE PHRASE 'ROCK AND ROLL' ITSELF, which had become widely used after its use by Levy's friend, Alan Freed, and was also known to add his name as songwriter to the credits of many of the artists recorded on his label. In 1957, Variety described him as the 'Octopus' of the music industry, because of his reach and tenacity within the business. In the mid-1970s Levy filed a much-publicised lawsuit against John Lennon for appropriating a line from the Chuck Berry song, 'You Can't Catch Me' (for which Levy owned the publishing rights) in The Beatles' song 'Come Together.' Lennon ultimately settled with Levy by agreeing to record three songs from Levy's publishing catalogue during the sessions for his 1975 LP Rock 'n' Roll, co-produced with Phil Spector. After complications, due to Spector, and attempts at a second agreement failed, Levy used demo recording from Lennon to produce and release 'Roots'. Levy successfully sued Lennon with an award of $6,795, but was countersued by Lennon, Capitol, EMI, and Apple for an award of $145,300. Levy sold Roulette Records and his publishing rights in 1986 for a reported $55 million. The same year, he was convicted by a Federal jury in Camden, New Jersey, as a conspirator in the extortion of a music wholesaler, and was sentenced to a ten-year jail sentence".

JB 4:05 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Going to a McCartney concert is a good way to see The Beatles impact on music. You will see women & men crying, kids singing, teenagers with a look on their face like they just won the jackpot. It truly is a magical experience. What the Beatles did will be REALLY hard to do again. It's the only band that unites people of all ages, of all countries. No other band has that power. The day Lennon met McCartney = the most important day in music history.

Harry Paterson 4:30 pm, 11-Jan-2012

LOL - Use some paragraph breaks, mate, and I'll read your War and Peace-sized comment :-D Andy - 'self-self-opinionated'? Yeah, can't argue with you there but 'miserable'? I think those with a functioning sense of humour can clearly see where a 'miserable twat' might be found, alongside the outraged, indignant, po-faced and hysterical and it aint on this side of debate, son ;-) JB - You aint selling it to me, to be honest. Sounds more like an Assemblies of God ministry than a gig :-/ DrRobets66 - Interesting logic you use there. Let's try that; 'Harry Paterson - a classically-trained musician and sometime song-writer - claims the Beatles single-handedly demonstrated the power of hype over substance and posterity will see them ranked above the Sex Pistols in the ranks of great rock 'n' roll swindling. I think Harry's opinion carries far more weight than the barely logical DrRoberts66' Wow! It works! Just cite person A's subjective opinion is more credible than person B's and bingo; a watertight argument and an unassailable piece of reasoning. Oh, hang on...

Whitcomb 4:51 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Harry, I don't mind you trying to take the Beatles down a peg or two...after all, it was George Harrison's pal, Eric Idle, who put together the hilarious parody of the group --"The Rutles" -- in the film "All You Need Is Cash." A little icon-smashing is OK by me. However, I don't think declaring that Robert Johnson is the single most important musician of the 20th century buttresses your argument that the Beatles amount to dog-doo. For one thing, the Beatles never attempted to be a straight blues band. They were mainly R&B, with rockabilly, country and western, pop, folk, and rock 'n' roll thrown into the mix. That variety strikes me as one of their strengths. Yes, I could have done without some of the spiritual pretensions of George, or John Lennon's agit-prop songs, and certainly Paul's "silly love songs," some of which even Sir Paul now calls "rubbish." So they have their shortcomings. But speaking from a U.S. perspective and as someone who was alive when they hit in America, I don't think you can underestimate the musical and cultural earthquake they set off, at least in the States. In the early '60s in America, Elvis was fading as a musical force, Buddy Holly was dead and Chuck Berry was still considered something of an underground figure. Then, suddenly, here come the Beatles to upend the musical status quo. Sure, they got a big boost from Brian Epstein's relentless marketing, but that's what band managers are supposed to do. They could have flopped in the U.S., but the timing was perfect and they had the musical chops to back it up.

steve colton 5:00 pm, 11-Jan-2012

If you set out to outrage humourless Beatles fans, mission accomplished. Question is, why bother? You can it's say tongue-in-cheek or whatever, but this is basically just a self-congratulatory tribute to what you see as your own wondrous taste. And it's not exactly a new idea to dump on something that lots of other people feel understandable good will towards, is it?

Sam Saunders (@thislast) 5:07 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Harry, I'm not sure about the "I-IV-V" progression thing. There are plenty of blues things that are not so rigid on that. But blues apart, the harmonic structure of some Beatles songs are varied, surprising and complex. You won't hear many amateur musicians like me playing them off the cuff. And if you ask even good players to rattle through "Eleanor Rigby" or similar, from memory, they are likely to struggle if they haven't already got it in their repertoire. Complexity isn't, in itself, a good or a bad thing. But it does show allow for great variety within the Beatles' music - from early copies of US girl groups to outstandingly original popular songs like Penny Lane. To be honest, they have never been my first listening choice, but their social and musical impact was unique. The extraordinary conjunction of cultural change and their particular genius was a singular, unrepeatable phenomenon. They even subsumed the greater lyrical genius of Bob Dylan, preparing a public and making it possible for him to continue with great art for another forty years after they have crashed and burned. Don't forget Stephen Foster. New York's Curtis Eller will tell you all about him.

Sam Saunders (@thislast) 5:09 pm, 11-Jan-2012

not "show allow". Just "allow" (late change, sorry)

Harry Paterson 5:23 pm, 11-Jan-2012

Sam Saunders and Whitcomb - Thanks for some intelligent, well-argued and thought-provoking countering. And not a personal insult anywhere in sight ;-)

Andy 5:35 pm, 11-Jan-2012

@Harry. Please explain 'Yeah, can't argue with you there but 'miserable'? I think those with a functioning sense of humour can clearly see where a 'miserable twat' might be found, alongside the outraged, indignant, po-faced and hysterical and it aint on this side of debate, son ;-)'. Its been a long day and i'm not sure if i should be laughing at your reply or not - i am giggling but i'm not sure why! Cheers!

Harry Paterson 7:31 pm, 11-Jan-2012

You know what, Andy? So am I now, after reading your response, and I haven't got a clue either! WTF? LOL! :-D

Deidrie Cavanagh 8:35 pm, 11-Jan-2012

No Beatles no Mary Hopkins and no Winged Beetle!

In My Life 2:02 pm, 14-Jan-2012

When Harry Paterson is dust The Beatles music will still be there, don't know in what shape or form it will be delivered, but there it will be, and who will remember Harry Patterson other than for being one more scribe after his 5 minutes of fame trying to degenerate guys who will be there in history for near on ever. Have a nice day Harry.

H. 2:38 pm, 14-Jan-2012

Mate, the music of The Spice girls will still be around, in one form or another, when I'm dust so not much of a point, really ;-) Also, it's 'fifteen minutes' not 'five' and one can't 'degenerate' anyone. I'd have gone with 'denigrate', personally. But then I'm literate... Finally, it's 'Paterson' not 'Patterson' You have a nice day yourself :-D

Thomas Cridland 7:38 pm, 14-Jan-2012

Whoever wrote this article is an absolute ponce. Comparing The Beatles to the Spice Girls is just moronic. Some of their more "juvenile" writing may now be overrated, but one is meant take them in context. Some of the excellent music that followed in the 70s may be technically superior, but if you asked Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin or Clapton about their influences (and I'm not saying they wouldn't mention Robert Johnson) they would certainly list The Beatles as one of them. I can't be bothered to list further reasons why you're wrong. I might have enjoyed your poorly worded rant, had it been about anything else. How dare you blame The Beatles for Westlife and JLS.

H. 8:54 pm, 14-Jan-2012

Put your tongue in your cheek, read it again and cheer the feck up, you humourless ponce. When you've done that,perhaps you could show where a grammatically flawless and perfectly spelled piece of lighthearted nonsense is 'poorly worded' Actually, scrap all the above. Just go and get laid. Christ, you need it...

In My Life 11:14 pm, 14-Jan-2012

When Harry Paterson is dust, I got that bit right, but its still 5 minutes in your case after this article. As for the Spice Girls, who remembers it now never mind 50 years down the road. Literate you may be but as for being right, you most definitely are not.

potter Ant 10:25 pm, 16-Jan-2012

your to young to understand what happened so you are forgiven for writing words that are not fit for paper ... lucky for you the internet as i doubt any fucker other then someone who wanted to suck your cock would pay you. Do one on the stones next.

phil 8:56 pm, 17-Jan-2012

yeahhhhhhhhhhh thank god, great article the responses to not surprise me... keep up the good work

potter Ant 11:19 pm, 17-Jan-2012

Phil it is not work ... when a rat enters your garden and eats the birds seeds is he working? No he is being a rat. Work = payment. For some insane reason he wrote it for free ... work it out. If they don't pay you give em fuck all!

cubby777 1:00 am, 18-Jan-2012

The writer is entitled to his opinion,but it seems he hasn't enough knowledge of popular music/culture to make me interested in his lazy piece.

james 1:33 am, 18-Jan-2012

ok bottom line= If you do not like the beatles, you are a loser. thats it. its that simple

phil 11:07 am, 18-Jan-2012

The guy just doesnt like the beatles, i dont like the Beatles - they are just not my cup of tea, and I feel no connection to them at all. The writer wanted a rant....nothing wrong with that...get over it We are constantly pummelled by the media that the beatles are the best and John Lennon is god etc Dont forget before Lennon died, he was a sad figure in music, struggling around the nether regions of the album charts. Double fantasy was a flop and embarrassing (until he died of course - now it is a legendary album!) Imagine is one of the most embarrassing records ever. Paul Mcart is a constant source of embarrassment , rocking out with Mull of Kintyre when Anarchy in the Uk was number one and following it up with frog chorus and endless self indulgent projects It is good to hear an alterntive point of view

John Stitch 11:55 am, 18-Jan-2012

The main legacy of certain artists / bands is to create the cultural space which allows other arguably superior and more interesting acts to thrive, and to give people a route into a new kind of music. I think The Beatles fall into this category. Without The Beatles would the same number of people taken an interest in The Kinks, The Who or The Byrds? Similarly you could look back at punk / new wave and say that the Pistols were rubbish because they weren't as good as The Clash or Joy Division, but without the former, would we have had / heard of the latter? Was Grandmaster Flash the first or best Hip-Hop DJ? No, probably not, but he was certainly the first one most people had heard of. Without Showaddywaddy would we have had Shakin Stevens? I rest my case.

LOL 8:03 pm, 18-Jan-2012

Songs of Chuck Berry are very intelligent (lol) No Particular Place To Go Ridin' along in my automobile My baby beside me at the wheel I stole a kiss at the turn of a mile My curiosity runnin' wild Cruisin' and playin' the radio With no particular place to go. Ridin' along in my automobile I was anxious to tell her the way I feel, So I told her softly and sincere, And she leaned and whispered in my ear Cuddlin' more and drivin' slow, With no particular place to go. No particular place to go, So we parked way out on the Kokomo The night was young and the moon was gold So we both decided to take a stroll Can you imagine the way I felt? I couldn't unfasten her safety belt! Ridin' along in my calaboose Still tryin' to get her belt aloose All the way home I held a grudge, For the safety belt that wouldn't budge Cruisin' and playin' the radio With no particular place to go.

LOL 8:08 pm, 18-Jan-2012

"Love In Vain" 'by' Robert Johnson was just an adaptation of another song : "When The Sun Goes Down" by Leroy Carr.

james 12:58 am, 19-Jan-2012

The beatles ARE music. if you dont like the beatles, you do not like music. If you were actually into music, and played an instrument and it was your passion, YOU LOVE THE BEATLES

Big Lol 1:21 am, 19-Jan-2012

David Gilmour the legendary guitarist, who achieved global stardom in the psychedelic band, has revealed the Fab Four have always been his favourite group, and admits he would have given anything to join his 60s contemporaries. Speaking at the premiere of his new live DVD 'Remember That Night - Live At The Royal Albert Hall' in London's Leicester Square last night (06.09.07), Gilmour said: "I really wish I had been in The Beatles. I was always a massive fan. The Beatles taught me how to play guitar, I learnt everything. The bass parts, the lead, the rhythm, everything. They were fantastic."

Sadie Sartre 5:03 am, 19-Jan-2012

Sam Saunders, I love you. How about this? Two years from now, we'll test everyone as to what dumb ass dissed The Beatles in an article he (that's a hint) wrote for "Sabotage Times." Hell, if anyone even remembers the article, they deserve half credit. In the words of Paul McCartney: "It's The Beatles. Shuddup."

Harry Paterson 8:22 am, 19-Jan-2012

Interesting argument, 'james'. I'm a classically trained trumpet player, a meat-and-potatoes guitarist and one-time singer with a few hundred gigs under my belt. I live, breathe and die most music from Mahler to Motorhead. Kinda dents your 'theory' a little bit ;-)

GB 10:11 am, 19-Jan-2012

@James - um, no. This isn't the Commons, theres no need for ridiculous sound bites. @Sadie Sartre - Are you saying that just because something is popular/remembered/famous it is the best thing ever? Because there are Joe Pasquales, Jade Goodys and Jordans that will be remembered for years - that doesn't make them great. And as for impact; even Reality TV has had a cultural and social impact - doesnt mean it deserves absolute praise. Also, its entirely pointless positing on who will be remembered more, Harry or the Beatles. This isn't religion and this isn't blasphemy - its just a fucking band. If you separate the history and hype from the actual music its pretty fucking obvious

lol 10:41 am, 19-Jan-2012

Veteran pianist-composer-arranger John Beasley gained invaluable bandstand experience on the road with such revered jazz elders as Freddie Hubbard and Miles Davis while also recording with the likes of Chick Corea, Hubert Laws, and Dianne Reeves along with serving as musical director for Queen Latifah and Steely Dan. He said about The Beatles: "When I heard 'Revolution,''A Long and Winding Road,' and 'Let it Be' I realized THEY WERE THE FIRST EXAMPLES OF POP-FUSION MUSIC. The Beatles fused melodicism and harmony with the spirit of rock and roll. I was writing songs at an early age, so I incorporated this 'fusion' in my compositions. They paved the way for experimentation in the studio-whether it's Lennon doing a vocal track lying on the floor to create a different sound, they just let it be. When I'm in the studio, I keep that spirit of experimentation. Whatever goes! I see their body of work mirror the arc of great jazz musicians. Their music changed from song to song and record to record. The Fab Four has inspired me to keep high standards of creativity with every project that I undertake."

lol 10:45 am, 19-Jan-2012

Jack Wilkins Guitarist has been a part of the international jazz scene for more than four decades. His flawless technique and imaginative chordal approach have inspired collaborations with Chet Baker, Sarah Vaughan, Bob Brookmeyer, Buddy Rich and many others. He said about The Beatles: " With Sgt. Pepper's, everything changed about The Beatles. I was amazed how they had grown as a band and individually. The musicianship and compositions were stunning. They had elements of all types of music which made me think they were truly a 'FUSION' band."

lol 10:48 am, 19-Jan-2012

Steve Khan : In a special issue of Japan's "JAZZ LIFE" magazine, they selected the 22 All-Time Greatest Jazz Guitarists. Of course, legends like Charlie Christian, Django Reinhardt, Wes Montgomery, Kenny Burrell, and Jim Hall were included alongside more recent giants George Benson, Pat Martino, Larry Coryell, and John McLaughlin. But right there amongst contemporaries John Abercrombie, Pat Metheny, John Scofield, Mike Stern and Bill Frisell was Steve Khan! Testament to a large body of work which now spans more than 30 years. Hard to believe this dream began at a rather late age with Wes Montgomery held as the model to which to aspire). He said about The Beatles: " Of course, The Beatles, in their way, opened the doors to breaking down the rigid boundaries that then existed between all forms of popular music, and, even at the time,'WORLD MUSIC'."

lol 10:53 am, 19-Jan-2012

Clay Ross Brooklyn based guitarist and composeris carving a unique niche for himself on the international music scene. He said about The Beatles: "I was discovering The Beatles in college around the time I first heard Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and many 'jazz' artists for the first time. I was amazed at how they could use influences of ragtime on something like 'When I'm 64,' WORLD MUSIC' influences from India on 'Within You, Without You,' then do something totally avant-garde like 'No. 9,' and have it all work. The Beatles taught me that being a great artist, jazz or otherwise, has more to do with concept than technique."

Lol 2:27 pm, 19-Jan-2012

Harry Paterson is angry

Lol 11:43 pm, 19-Jan-2012

Oh please dear Harry Paterson, give me love

Rourke 6:28 am, 20-Jan-2012

The Beatles are too nice and kid-friendly. I rather listen to an Artist(s) who designs art that makes me accept reality: Matthew Good (Indi Rock), Alice In Chains (Indi/Hard Rock), Tool (Art Rock). Thats talent.

Lol 12:51 am, 21-Jan-2012

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest director Milos Forman says in the programme: "It sounds ridiculous but it's not. I'm convinced the Beatles are partly responsible for the fall of Communism." Canadian-based academic Dr Yury Pelyoshonok, who grew up in the USSR in the 1960s, backs up his claim. "The Beatles had this tremendous impact on Soviet kids. The Soviet authorities thought of The Beatles as a secret Cold War weapon," he says. "The kids lost their interest in all Soviet unshakeable dogmas and ideals, and stopped thinking of an English-speaking person as an enemy. "That's when the Communists lost two generations of young people. That was an incredible impact."

james 5:06 pm, 21-Jan-2012

are you kidding me Rourke? You are just looking at the veiw of the beatles that all losers do nowadays. the first year the were popular is what youre calling their entire carreer. listen to their later stuff, ABBEY ROAD, even REVOLVER. you have to be quite a mature kid to like those albums

Lol 12:42 am, 24-Jan-2012

All Beatles Albums are fantastic. Someone does not agree?

NobbyStilesTeeth 7:26 pm, 26-Jan-2012

TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS still fifty fucking years ahead of its time music from outer space!

mike 12:56 pm, 30-Jan-2012

i dont like or dislike the beatles, they were a good pop band for there time, but most of there stuff , pre let it be and abbey road does sound very dated when you give it a listen today,and i have two say i think sgt pepper is one of the most overated albums of all time. but fair play to them, they were first up , and with epstine at the helm they new how to make a pound note,unlike a lot of other bands at that time who just got riped off.

Wut 7:09 am, 15-Feb-2012

is it really "All you need is hype"? Beatles fans brainwashed? is that really your music taste is better than others by disliking The Beatles... wow... sounds like a badass hipster here.

Keith Wildman 12:55 pm, 15-Feb-2012

Anyone with a soul knows just how beautiful the Beatles were and still are.

Harry needs attention 8:41 am, 28-Feb-2012

Music preference is like color choice... Only you know why you like it or not. However you don't sound very cultured or intelligent. One look at Harry's twitter photo and everything becomes very clear.

Best 6:02 am, 9-Sep-2012

Best Marketed band ever new dimension in marketing even bought their own records to increase the hype. discovered music same way Columbus discovered america.

Randy 7:19 pm, 9-Sep-2012

da da da - dah dah - dumb dumb dumb. The over all value of the above vocal beat and measure is in the mega-hundreds of $billions and still loved by hundred of millions. As The Beatles would finish each song with a deep bow of humble respect for their audience. They certainly did pass the audition.

Logan 11:19 pm, 23-Sep-2012

I don't even like the Beatles and I still hate the guy that wrote this article. It takes a special type of asshole to simultaneously insult four groups of people at once and sound like you're going on an ego trip the whole time.

David Barker 11:41 am, 5-Oct-2012

Westlife, Boyzone and JL bloody S are the heirs of Elton John and sappy stuff like him. NOT The Beatles. Dolt.

JohnPaulGeorge&Bongo 12:05 pm, 5-Oct-2012

I hate Beetles as well. Creepy bastards.

Brian R 12:18 pm, 5-Oct-2012

The fact that the author discounts 3 seminal albums but rates Yesterday as a good song tells us all we need to know.

mart 1:28 pm, 5-Oct-2012

There are lot of people as Harry said who need to get out more, get laid, also smile. not be James, he needs locking up, and fucking get over it, it's a well written well argued article, and yes if you have never heard of Robert Johnson, you have no right to comment on any of the 'grown ups' music.

shaun 5:19 pm, 5-Oct-2012

I stopped reading when I got to the word 'credible' :(

Dave Simpson 5:23 pm, 5-Oct-2012

"Dave Simpson, who wrote a book in which he stalked every ex-member of the Fall, is on record as saying Shed7 are better than The Beatles. Beat that!" Er, actually, it was Oasis...

Cholo 5:26 pm, 5-Oct-2012

The Stone Roses are much worse.

Christopher 5:41 pm, 5-Oct-2012


Doesn't matter 10:13 pm, 5-Oct-2012

I'm no Beatles lover by any means but as soon as you mentioned Wurzel Weller you lost me.

Chezzle 1:08 am, 6-Oct-2012

A very lazy piece.

ADV 2:04 am, 6-Oct-2012

here's the proof that you beatles lovers who have been insulting harry in a embarassingly ridicolous manner are the same as them beliebers or directioners: your only reaction is insulting people who don't agree with you,calling them hipsters. they were and probably represented pop music at its fullest:get over it. The comparison with JLS is spot-on...the only thing that leads you to believe in any kind of difference between the two groups is that we've been brainwashed for years about the beatles' importance. it's just cheap revivalism

Mikie 2:11 am, 6-Oct-2012

I love the chum in the water first paragraph. Get em nice and pissed off.

Candler 6:46 am, 6-Oct-2012

Great reply from Sam Pearce, above. Says it all.

James 10:14 am, 6-Oct-2012

Looks like the article served it's purpose. Controversy for the sake of it to get attention for the writer. Was gonna mention something about Son House initially, but actual this article isn't about music - which the Beatles were actually better at than most.

Markxist 6:23 pm, 6-Oct-2012

I love the Beatles but, coming from a town very near Liverpool and having lived, socialised and worked in the city itself what I do hate is Liverpool's obsession and civic pride in a bunch of lads who left their like a shot in 1964. Every pub you go in has something Beatles related, even if it's just a monopoly on the jukebox. Frustratingly there were/are other bands from Liverpool, bands of quality that get overlooked. Drink in Manchester and you hear all sorts, drink in Liverpool and you hear the cities favourite 4 sons ad infinitum. It's such saturation that makes people switch off and not actually realise just how great they were.

RED666S 10:31 pm, 6-Oct-2012

So whats you next article going to be? Here's a few suggestions: How Michael Jackson couldn't put on a decent show Elvis: Just a passing fad for silly teens Cliff Richard: 60 Years of pure luck! I love how you dont even have the bollox to spell out there name in case you get in to trouble. If your writing was 1/100th as good as their music you would be a very rich man indeed. Seriously you should face palm yourself try performing on stage yourself!

George Michael 3:08 pm, 10-Oct-2012

the Stones owe zero, nada, zilch to those over-rated Scouse conmen do some research mate. The Stones first hit was WRITTEN by lennon and mccartney

Nick Booth 8:12 pm, 10-Oct-2012

I didn't know Paul Weller was a legendary song writer

linky 6:07 am, 11-Oct-2012

missing the point again here i think, i loved the beatles when i was a teen but dont listen to much now. but listen to something like ticket to ride, and tell me they arent worth people's time. misfiring massively

Cobalto 2:36 pm, 11-Oct-2012

Your great post was OF COURSE covered with angry comments by those conventional, sissy and easily amazed B*atles fans. That band sucked, bigtime. Congratulations on defying the most commercialy succesful PRODUCT since coca-cola! :)

Jean Quirion 6:21 pm, 11-Oct-2012

Harry who? My neighbor thinks the Beatles are not overated at all. His name is Joe Bleau! I agree with him, i respect his opinion! Again, Harry who? Joe answers me: he's nobody! Thanks Joe!

michelle j 10:16 pm, 16-Nov-2012

Saying anything negative about the beatles is poking the proverbial hornets nest with a stick. They sure get rilled up don't they. It is forbidden in polite company to besmirch the fab four in any way. The further we get from the era of their hey day, the more fans they acquire. Like an avalanche rolling along gobbling everything in its way. They are like a great folk tale that everyone tells and retells until the next generations of children grow to believe it as fact. Yes the beatles have hordes of loyal devoted fans, but their biggest turn off to me has always been that, no on thinks the beatles are as great as the beatles do.

12in64 5:11 pm, 22-Nov-2012

Set aside Beatlmania, fame, cult of personality,charisma, and the rest of all that, so that the point is only the merits of songwriting,innovation, production and performance. The writer of this article is the most DEMONSTRABLY MUSICALLY IGNORANT person I have yet to come across on the entire World-Wide Web, bar none. Also, water is wet, and that's all there is.

Sal Filipelli 3:52 am, 14-Dec-2012

This is too much! I skimmed it and read bits and pieces. All I can say is .. wo .. "Take these broken wings and learn to fly. All your life.. you were only waiting for this moment to arise" Surely the Beatles are overrated.. just as anybody who achieves any level of superstardom is. As long as we're bringing down superstars why don't you lump in Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Madonna, U2, Bruce Springsteen, Carlos Santana and more? It certainly doesn't discount the art that they created or the inspiration that they've given to so many other superstars, mediocre stars, dreamers and never will be's. Nothing worse than being a hater just for the sake of hating. As Kat Williams once put it: "Haters are people who wanted good shit. Good shit didn't happen to them so now they hate good shit"

Romy P 10:10 pm, 11-Jan-2013

Look, you don't have to like them or anything, but that doesn't mean you should call them sh*t. That's basically what you're doing instead of giving a good reason for your hatred towards them. And DON'T EVER compare this amazing band to something like the Spice Girls. You're just comparing one of the songs from the beginning of their career to a Spice Girls Song. That hardly seems fair. Of course they were more commercial then. Their target audience were teens, because they were longing for something new and inventive like the fab four. But after they became famous, there was room to improve themselves, which they did. Did you even listen to, lets see, Abbey Road for instance? Possibly one of their greatest albums. And I absolutely agree with you that the bands and artists you mentioned could be more talented and do not owe anything to the Beatles, but doesn't the fact that the Beatles could be less talented (which I don't agree on) make them even more admirable, since they became so big? O, and stop offending Ringo. Really. - a random Beatles fan

hector diaz 4:00 am, 19-Jan-2013

Ohhh please!!! To say this about Shakira (Shit-ira), or Ricky martin or Justin Bieber it would be totally acceptable but to say that the beatles stole? Didn't they themselves stated that they based their music on Johan Sebastian bach? So they also stole from Bach?

hector diaz 4:02 am, 19-Jan-2013

Someone once said that Elvis was nothing because he never wrote a Sinatra, so mario lanza, so Nat king Cole... There was a songwriter called Agustin lara of mexico, whose songs have been performed by the aforementioned, plus Connie Francis, and many other greats...The problem? Agustin lara couldn't sing! So Lara was nothing because he couldn't do both?

Grahame 10:32 pm, 20-Jan-2013

I think the replies say it all. Very few agreed with your opinion, many more agreed with my opinion. What a talentless cock you really are, Harry Paterson

BEATLEFAN 11:40 pm, 6-Feb-2013

You sir are a dick. You write this article like you're so much better than them, but in actual fact you're not even suited enough to even look at a guitar. Let's see you do what they did! These men were extremely talented, don't even try to say differently, and you can go sod off to that little hole you come from.

Steve 12:37 pm, 4-Mar-2013

The most ridiculous job on the planet is that of the critic. Art is meant to be consumed on an individual basis. There is absolutely no right or wrong when it comes to art. It's there for the individual to either enjoy it or not. The concept that an artist could be "over-rated" is completely absurd. I'm sorry that it offends you that you share the minority opinion when it comes to The Beatles. But if an artist is to be considered "the greatest,"...a silly idea in the first place...but if we must, then the only true way to judge them, would be their longevity of popularity. 50 years later, The Beatles are still one of the most loved bands of all time. Therefore, as artists having had the greatest positive impact on the most people, you have to call them one of the greatest...if not THE greatest. Over-rated to you...does not make it so. There is no such thing as over-rated when it comes to art.

Elizabeth Young 9:32 pm, 16-Mar-2013

This was such an amusing article. At first, it was so infuriating, I didn't really read the article for what it was. Please re-read it. You will see the true intent of the author...To get a rise out of the those of us that loved and were actually there when the Beatles were and still are a phenomenon that will never be repeated. Unfortunately, the author wasn't there for the British invasion and doesn't realize the impact on music it had. And if the author thinks that the Beatles did nothing for changing that in America, what an idiot. He makes his grandious declaration then starts with the Spice Girls. Comparing the Spice Girls to the Beatles? Like the Spice Girls experienced the same fame as the Beatles? Like the Spice Girls were writing their own music? He compares the Spice Girls lyrics to "She loves you yeah, yeah, yeah." Well was this the best lyric he could come up with? Even Beatles fans know there are far better lyrics written by the fab four, but the author chooses to use their most famous, not their most profound. He thinks they are overrated because he wasn't there to experience that era. I thought the same thing about Elvis. In my era, I saw him as the fat, bloated, hasbeen that could only get a Vegas gig where fat old women were throwing their underwear at him. I absolutely hated the song "In the Ghetto". Many years later and even a trip to Graceland, I see his talent and influence. I forget about his fat "drug years". I now get Elvis. Don't worry, the author, later in life will get the Beatles. I promise, he won't be able to help himself.

Phillip 10:58 pm, 16-Mar-2013

What's with the anti catholic thing....idiot

Harry Paterson 9:20 am, 17-Mar-2013

'..The anti catholic thing,' Phillip? Mainly because I'm not a homophobe, a woman-hater, an anti-semite, an apologist for juntas, Nazis and assorted other right-wing dictatorships. I'm neither a frock-wearing hypocrite that props up a medieval coven of child-raping perverts nor a spineless gullible fool who feels my own particular brand of superstitious beliefs entitles to me to dismiss all of the above because of my slavish and unthinking adherence to the 'One True Faith.' Mainly that, mate.

Phillip 10:41 am, 18-Mar-2013

Ok Harry, keep your hair on...having a bad day ?

Harry Paterson 11:50 am, 18-Mar-2013

For about the last 20 years, Phil. Around the time I started losing my hair. Coincidence?

jspiker 1:11 pm, 26-Mar-2013

Yeah. Okay. So you're cool. You hate the Beatles. Early adopter of goatee and soul patch, too, I'm sure. Whatever.

John Mackenzie 7:14 pm, 26-Mar-2013

We love you Beatles oh yes we do we don't love anyone as much as you we love you Beatles we do oh Beatles we love you. They were just a band that made it very very big and wrote songs a lot of people love. I don't think anybody will be writing articles fifty years from now about the Spice Girls, west life or JLS. It is about the songs man people love the songs and I think Harry likes them to secretly. I love many bands from the sixties most of which you mention. It was Pop music but it was very very good pop music. If you want to get technical listen/play complex jazz pieces or study classical music. I play a bit and I can play Beatles songs as I can most rock or punk songs to a reasonable standard. I listen to all sorts of music and like good classical music/ jazz/ folk and very very good pop music and that happens to be The Beatles. They were more than just a band they were a brand to and their success was due to the tenacity of Epstein due to the skilful way they were marketed but they had a sound/look/ and personality that people liked and if people don't like something they wont buy it. They were the Beatles and nobody else can be them no matter how hard they try they were seminal in the field of Pop music and yes did spawn a lot of bad impersonators as did led zeppelin / the doors/ Elvis etc ....... Keep practising the guitar Harry I know I will.

Frank de Pellette 8:31 am, 30-Mar-2013

What a steaming great pile of dire and pretentious bilge. A few biggish words do not a reasoned argument make.

Si 11:45 am, 3-Apr-2013

Don't believe you. Pure affectation, attention seeking. Like saying "I don't like food" - you MUST like something they did at least.

stewpot 1:07 pm, 3-Apr-2013

i enjoyed this piece very much and agree wholeheartedly. i actually don't mind a few of their tunes but despise their canonisation. in terms of over-rated though, they are as nothing as compared to david bowie. the bbc even has an entire radio station (6music) dedicated to him and his 6/10 new album. i saw tin machine, if that's genius i'm happy to be one.

Martin 3:21 pm, 3-Apr-2013

WOW!!! First time I have gone right through the comments Harry! Jeez you really did stir it up (sorry). Can we have one on that dreary over-rated bunch of wankers, from Salford, called The Smiths, now please? LOL!! BTW without the Beatles we wouldn't have had Oasis so there is something else to (rightly) dislike them for. Love you mate - keep strong and don't ever lighten up !!

Mike 6:52 pm, 3-Apr-2013

The writer of this piece evidently doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to music. It's all just plain nonsense and the Beatles record stands up for itself... I'm willing to bet the every single one of those acts named who are purported to be better than The Beatles wishes they were in the Beatles. A few things to pick up on.... You can't call an opinion a "fact" You said the Stones owed zero to the Beatles... I suppose their first ever hit doesn't count, and the fact that John and Paul showed Mick & Keith how to write songs. John Lennon was a great joker and his remark about Ringo not even being the best drummer in the Beatles was just that... A joke! Ringo was chosen to replace Pete Best because of his talent as a drummer. George Martin even remarked that a lot of the editing was easy because of Ringo's ability to keep perfect time and replicate the same tempo time after time Like I said, I don't think the remaing members of the single most influential musical act if all time need to be concerned about this article on their reputations due to it's inaccuracies

alejandro 8:53 am, 5-Apr-2013

it's time you know that you are an idiot.

Mr 5:29 pm, 5-Apr-2013

The Beatles have a place or me cos they were a good way to get into proper music. Now i dont listen much but they still have their use. The city of Liverpool seems to have a largely Beatles-based economy these days and it seems to be paying off if youve been there recently. Also, I like them as a buffer zone, at parties and such. If you have a social gathering with people who have varying tastes, sometimes the Beatles are a good middle ground

vicki 11:46 am, 9-Apr-2013

I never liked the beatles either. I Love The Rolling Stones and other artist ..but beatles are overrated.

Nelson Muntz 9:40 pm, 11-Apr-2013

Nah, I ain't having this article. As *people* the Beatles are very unlikeable but professionally, they were anything but unlikeable. And pray tell why The Who always get a name check? Now they WERE shit; just a lot of noise and posturing. And Pete Townshend is the biggest wanker of the lot (and I'm not making any reference to *that* arrest. I've always thought he was an overhyped douche)

Chris 4:27 pm, 12-Apr-2013

The guy that wrote this is probably invited to the Thatcher gathering next week. WHAT A KNOB!!!

DAVE M 1:45 pm, 22-Apr-2013

As usual,Harry puts across his argument with his usual, strident,splendid erudtion,that one notices in his other articles for sabotage.Though, I dont particularly agree with Harry he still makes some salient points however.It can be argued that all influential music derives from earlier sources;tHE BEATLES like all their contemporaries absorbed all these sounds into the"Mop-tops" sounds etc.Remember,Lennon and Mccartney both came from musical backgrounds,John`s mother taught him banjo chords, and Macca`s father had is own jazz those influences must have been crucial to their development...I am not saying the FABFOUR were the greatest...but YOU must admire SOME of their albums !..Funnily enough the.arguements you laid out,were not disimiliar to that the NEW-YORK- based Lennon said HISSELF In his cocaine-induced rants towards the end of his life..and this was later expanded further by ALBERT GOLDMAN, in his seminal book on JOHN LENNON...and this is actually the thread of your rant,Harry Paterson! Though I basically agree with the main thrust on arguement that THE BEATLES have become a fucking, relentless heritage industry, It does not help that you adopt such a self-righteous,puritanical tone in your replies It kind puts people of you my luddite friend..Now matey, tell me when your book comes on the miners strike I shall purcase it ! PUT THE KETTLE ON....

DAVE 2:28 pm, 22-Apr-2013

Nice work Harry paterson , with your usual splendid erudtion.I ACTUALLY agree the main thrust of your arguement.Funnily enough, it was the same one that the NEW-YORK based Lennon HIMSELF seemed to articulate in his cocaine-induced self indulgence, walled up in his DAKOTA appartment.!! this theory was expostulated later, by Albert Goldman in his seminal book on John Lennon....Though I personally loath the relentles heritage industry view of the Fabfour that were are fed in the media, the FACT IS THE BEATLES were/are a very influential musical force...the vast boy of their work was incredible, YOU MUST appreciate that !!...It does not help matey, in adopting such a fucking self-righteous, puritanical tone in your replies...It kind puts people of you.! Now, my luddite friend,put the kettle on, and tell us when your book the minkers`strike is cming out...CHEERS DAVID MOULDY

Ksmmrs 4:48 pm, 18-May-2013

It's gotten easier the more I've listened, but the Beatles used to really irritate me. It had nothing to do with their success or image; the songs were just very grating to me musically. I don't like their voices, I don't like the production work, I struggle to connect with their lyrics at both their most simple and surreal, and the songs themselves never really settle in my head or have any real effect on me personally. I can appreciate that they were among the pioneers of experimentation and advanced studio-work etc, and yes, there are some songs that I like. But I see them more as a useful influence (in part) for the bands I enjoy, rather than actually ranking among them. They're a decent group. I don't like them very much.

Steve 3:17 am, 21-May-2013

When you die nobody will remember your name, your writing or opinions. And the Beatles will be rembered, studied, analysed, revisited, revived into the future, You WILL not.

Paul Fillingham 9:42 am, 23-May-2013

Mr Peterson clearly did not grow up in a working class home in the 1960's. Context is everything and the Beatles phenomenon ran far deeper than the music. I would agree that the narcissism of the aged Beatles is frankly embarrassing, but in their day the band supported by Brian Epstein, George Martin and others, crafted something rather special.

James 11:54 pm, 29-May-2013

You're joking,right? I hope you are,or you have no taste in music whatsoever.

jojo 1:37 pm, 1-Jun-2013

You are an arsehole, and a moron.

Kathleen_Brown 6:04 pm, 3-Jun-2013

I agree with all of this. They were inflated but not with talent. Maybe inflated by many fans and air. The best musicians don't always sing or get the credit they deserve.

Joe Auger 4:06 am, 9-Jun-2013

PSHHH! Bitter much? When we are talking about your incisive writing in 50 years then you might have an argument...otherwise piss orf you lonely old wank!

SM 10:30 pm, 13-Jun-2013

Yes you are totally right, the Beatles are totally overrated.

Chaz 6:07 pm, 16-Jun-2013

Where did this notion some people have that The Beatles were a "boy band" even come from? Seriously, I hear this more and more often and don't understand how anyone can say this (unless, of course, the entire point is to rile up the fans). "Boy bands" are vocal groups - not musicians. They are often prefabricated by management teams. Boy bands often have their songs, written by outsiders, selected from them. Whether one feels The Beatles are overrated or not - they actually do not meet any of the criteria of "boy bands." Can we just stop with this nonsense? Criticize their music if you must, but don't blatantly mis-categorize them (it nullifies any further argument you may have).

johnathan paul 3:53 am, 22-Jun-2013

Your entitled to your opinion of course, it's not the beatles fault that you got a shitty taste in music. They maybe not be one of the brightest musicians but they had talent. The beatles had succeeded in creating music in many different genres. Have you ever heard "because"? Now tell me how can 3 people with no background in learning music create a song like that. Ever heard "strawberry fields forever" or "eleanor rigby"? You give me any name of any band that had successfully experimented with different kinds of music? No? Your hate towards the beatles doesn't make you look original or different, it just make you look stupid and ignorant

Raj 8:11 pm, 29-Jun-2013

writers like you bring a bad name to media worldwide. shitheads like you have to just say anything that you think will create controversy just to get a little attention. And rightly titled, yes they truly are the fab four and after reading the article you are the new fab shithead.

Miss Sue 7:23 pm, 5-Jul-2013

Finally someone said it! Kudos, Harry for posting such a great article! I share your point of view. Of course, the Beatles seem a lot better now in a time when Justin Bieber and One Direction have millions and millions of fans and sells millions as well... But honestly, they are the most overrated band to have ever existed. It's funny to see the arguments the Beatles fans are exposing (all weak or just non-existant)... Someone even said "without the Beatles, there would be no Eminem, Tupac or Nicki Minaj"... Sometimes it hurts to read the truth. I rest my case. LOL.

Rich 4:45 am, 16-Jul-2013

Do you even have a musical background? I stopped reading after you listed Brian Wilson, Paul Weller and Ray Davies as better songwriters than the Lennon-Macca juggernaut. Pet sounds is good, uh what else....certainly nothing the Jam has ever done comes close. It's funny that all the artists you snobbishly claim to tower above them, all tremendously respect them. "Black Sabbath?" hahahah. Ozzy has stated the Beatles were the reason he even wanted to be a musician. Let's see what other drivel was in the first four paragraphs. George Harrison not a good guitarist? Ever musician who isn't a snob knows that shredding and pompous virtuosity pales in comparison to melodic playing, and yet Harrison was indeed a virtuoso. Couldn't read the rest of the article because I knew this article was pure biased attention seeking.

E.Morneau 2:06 am, 24-Jul-2013

I love the Beatles and could make a better argument about hating them that you. Almost every point you make has more vitriol than substance. You know nothing about the blues, which would have died in ignominy if the British invasion didn't make American's aware of its slave heritage and its unforgiving exploitation of Black music. The Beatles wrote permanent music--music that will exist in the souls of those who can recognize joy, harmony, lyricism, mystery, melody, and those artists who pay homage to traditional forms and take chances with those forms to inspire others to take up music. Apparently your soul is buried in a catalogue of ill-conceived opinions that make you feel special and exceptional...but you are not. Your are more to be pitied than trusted.

Marantz 10:37 pm, 25-Jul-2013

Who is eminem, tupac and nicki minaj?

drew 12:58 pm, 28-Jul-2013

The retard obviously has no soul and seriously knows nothing about music..hes all caught up in lyrics, like she loves you, yeah yeah yeah. You know how many freaking bands have used that phrase? Alice Cooper, genius and innovator of theater rock even had a song from one of the greatest albums of all time, "Yeah Yeah Yeah." The guy that wrote this, is your typical pion music critic armchair quarter back, that believes guitar gods, like Yngwie Malmsteen, are the real masters of rock n roll. Ya know, the guys they believe to be technically amazing on guitar because they can play a million notes a second, but in reality, it just sounds like these cats are just warming up playing scales. If a mental patient, such as this guy, claims that after listening to one of many spectacular Beatles songs, that he doesn't walk away humming it or cant get it out of his head. Then what you're really dealing with here, is nothing more than a white castle eating, comic book reading, nose picking, ass crack showing, psychopath that literally has no soul or feelings. You know nothing about the blues, melody, harmony. And what I find even more interesting. It's so easy to sit here, behind your computer and write this drivel and nonsense. I would love to see this psychopath, sit in a room, with all the other people from the bands that he has mentioned are the really great ones. Lets just say, Mick Jagger, Keith Richardss, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, Elvis Costello, Nick Cave, Ray Davies, Alice Cooper, Brian Wilson, Paul and Ringo and some well known music critics . And we get this guy in the room with them all and have him debate them as to why the Beatles really suck. You'd be the laughing stock, found guilty of taking up space on the planet earth, then all these cool Rock Stars would be allowed to Stone you to death. I wann be there for this and throwing the first Stone after cutting off your balls. But wait, you havent any balls, nor do you have a brain

Tom "Beatles Fan" Smith 3:17 pm, 31-Jul-2013

I'll kill you for that article!?!?!

The prisoner 3:03 am, 5-Aug-2013

Cultural icons yes... Overrated musically by far... They were great at hearing ideas from other artists and synthesizing their own British twist to it. Brian Wilson, Dylan , the Byrds and others originated ideas that the Beatles got credit for and many more examples. Check out the Kinks for a great band that was truly ignored for its time. If you expand your listening, you will find the Beatles were not the innovators they claim to be. God save the Kinks!

tony 1:25 am, 28-Aug-2013

You can talk to me. You can talk to me. If your lonely you can talk to me. They didn't try to please anybody with their music but them selves and the whole world loves it. They didn't say ok I don't think the fans will like this one or that one, they just composed from the hart, that's whats so amazing. Looking at the white album so many different styles who were they trying to please? THEMSELVES!

Emma 11:27 am, 1-Sep-2013

I don't agree with this article as such. They did innovate music, to a certain extent. But at the same time, they are overhyped, and I find it infuriating that you can't mention in passing 'Oh, I don't really like the Beatles' music that much' without people gasping in outrage. People can listen to whatever music they enjoy, be it Punk Rock, Teen Pop or classical.

Paul 10:50 pm, 2-Sep-2013

Yet another boring Beatles denier, I'm sick to death of them. Like whatever you like, but don't re-write history. I read this badly written, badly argued, factually inaccurate article expecting to feel angry. However I got about half way through it before being overcome by boredom, and realising that I DID actually feel a tiny bit sorry for this sad sap.

Justine. 5:01 am, 3-Sep-2013

The Beatles really are overrated. It is just so hypocritical. The band hasn't been together in so many years. When 13 year olds say The Beatles are their favorite band, it just irks me. I mean I'm 17 and I do like some 80s bands and what not, but is not sitting here acting as if I remember them and that they changed history. Yea, some of them may have, but I wasn't around for it, so ill just appreciate the music and like it. The Beatles were only big because they came around at the right time, when acid heads and anyone high was basically around. I'm a girl who loves rock music and I can honestly say that they are nowhere near rock in my opinion. A lot of their songs are so eerie and boring that is rather shoot myself. People say their amazing because of all the records they sold. Just because a band or a person sells a lot of their music doesn't mean their amazing.. I mean look at Justin bieber, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus. Their albums sell like crazy and they suck.

Paul 2:00 pm, 3-Sep-2013

The Beatles transcended musical genres. Nobody with any sense would say that they were boring 'rock' music. Whether people like it or not they changed musical history, certainly from 'Rubber Soul' onwards. The very fact that some balloon heads have their equanimity disturbed by the Beatles popularity, 43 years after they split up, is living proof of that. It's good to know that there are some intelligent 13 year olds about, hopefully they also know how to spell, punctuate and write discernible sentences. By the way, the Beatles were around for about four years before acid heads began to appear. I can vouch for the fact that they turned some people into acid heads. I actually agree with many of the other articles that this bloke has written. However if all you do is to take received wisdom about almost everything, and posit completely the opposite argument, then I'm afraid that all of the arguments lose much of their potency and power to persuade. What next, a discussion about whether Shakespeare could write plays?

John 4:12 pm, 4-Sep-2013

Robert Johnson "perfected" the I-IV-V progression. What twaddle! Ever heard of Mozart? It's a shame you self-destructed your credibility over such a ridiculous argument. The Beatles will live forever whereas your continued viability as a writer is somewhat questionable.

ondine 5:26 am, 8-Sep-2013

Thank you so much Harry for daring to raise your analysis on the most overrated band in history.

Jack L 9:20 pm, 10-Sep-2013

I was only 4 when my mother sat me in front of the TV on that February Sunday evening when Ed Sullivan introduced the Fab Four to the US and opened the door to the British Invasion that would dominate rock music for the next 30 years. The Kinks, Stones, Animals, Herman's Hermits, Hollies, Who, Moody Blues, Tull, Zep, Floyd, Donovan, etc. all enjoyed access to a market that appreciated music in a different way thanks to The Beatles. Of particular note on their influence, consider the Rolling Stones. Aside from giving them a single, The Beatles were so popular at the time the Stones were getting started, that their own manager decided to recast them as the anti-Beatles pushing them toward blues and getting them out of matching suits since The Beatles owned that look. I can't imagine a more fundamental influence than forcing an identity change. Oh, and to the suggestion that The Beatles ripped off the Byrds, Roger McGuinn was covering Beatles tunes before the Byrds were formed and even changed from acoustic to the 12-string electric after hearing A Hard Day's Night. A good critic should always look past popularity, but to be fair, should at least address the source of that popularity. Had The Beatles continued to milk their early formula into 1966 or 1967, then their appeal would have condensed and even faded as tastes matured or evolved. But they didn't do that. What they did, and it forms the nucleus of their staying power, was to innovate relentlessly. As their true talent is foreshadowed with some of their early musical achievements, by 1965, just 2 years after they became a household name, their sound changes with every successive album. They are credited by a broad range of critics and experts with birthing or popularizing new genres (psych, metal, prog-rock, world) that form the basis of much of today's music. Contrast them to Led Zeppelin, a band I truly love, but between 1969 and 1976 (a comparable 7-year period), there is very little progression. You could take their songs from all albums and play them in random order and the uninitiated listener would be hard-pressed to identify the temporal placement. Simply put, The Beatles are relevant today because they were driven to stay in front and push the envelope. Did they "borrow"? Absolutely. Did they take the best ideas and improve upon them? Certainly. Did others copy them? Obviously. Is it their fault that they captured the formula for longevity in the way of other classic composers/performers? No. So hate if you will, that's you're prerogative, but I find you're claims of "tongue-in-cheek" rather disingenuous since you defended yourself earnestly and then seemed to change your tune as the negative responses piled up. Nevertheless, had this article been designed to measure a response, you succeeded. I hope you take the data (pro/con) and factor it into your assessment of phenomenon that will have its place in history.

Cameron 4:38 am, 11-Sep-2013

Tall poppy syndrome. And the Beatles were, and are the Tallest Poppies, nearly half a century later still nothing gets close. I love the Stones, and Mick followed John Lennon around like a puppy dog. You don't have to like them, but the facts are there for the less ignorant. Most influential band in the last 100 years or more, like it or not. Better go and put your Matchbox 20 cd on Harry, and keep your eyes closed!

Sandra Salen Figli 10:24 pm, 14-Sep-2013

Ok, you copied Piero Scaruffi, in other words of course, and even copied his inconsistencies, because many of the things he wrote are false. He is a mathematician, you know, not even a musicologist. If I'm looking for someone to criticize the Beatles, I will look for Howard Goodhall, Leonard Bernstein, Christgau, Alan Pollack or Ian Macdonald (they really understand the subject). At least they can explain the magic of the Beatles, they can expose the pentatonic cadences in their songs. Downgrading the Beatles or say they are overrated will not make your idol better.

landl47 8:26 am, 20-Sep-2013

C'mon, people, look at the title of this publication. Harry no more believes this nonsense than any of you do. He wrote it to get a reaction. The best argument to counter this article is that Harry chose this subject. The fact is, and Harry knows it, that you can hardly go a day without hearing some reference to the Beatles or their music. So write an article with nothing to back it up saying The Beatles are overrated and you'll get a reaction. Unless, of course, you consider 'Behave' is a carefully contructed, logically based argument against The Beatles being the best songwriters of the 20th century.

azjaeger 5:55 am, 22-Sep-2013

Just like classical, jazz, swing, blues, and rockabilly, rock is dead as far as anything truly new in the form appearing. Has been since the end of the Nirvana era. And when the form of rock is viewed as complete, the masters of the form will be viewed as The Beatles.

Eggman 3:28 am, 28-Sep-2013

In a world wide web full of shite, this is the biggest load of shite I am sorry I ever read.

Revisionist 7:28 am, 3-Oct-2013

The Following May Very Well Be The Final Word On The Subject: The Beatles and the Aquarian Conspiracy [Editor's Note: People who are sentimental about the Beatles will find it hard to believe that they were pumped up and used by the Illuminati to introduce soft drugs among middle class American youth. They were also a vehicle for the introduction of mind control "trigger words" into everyday jargon. I recall very well when the Beatles made their debut on the American rock scene. Their sudden and explosive "popularity" in America made no sense to me at the time. I couldn't understand what was so great about the Beatles and why they were portrayed as 'threatening' to the crown of the then King of Rock & Roll, Elvis Presley. America, after all, was the birthplace of Rock & Roll, Allen Freed, and "do wop, do wop". America alone could boast of the greatest names and groups in Rock & Roll- not Europe or Asia, and certainly not England. American Rock & Roll performers were the envy of world and were emulated and copied down to the smallest mannerism and detail by European and Asian youth. How is it that a bar band from Liverpool doing almost all American rock cover tunes like Chuck Berry songs would suddenly be blitzed across American media as the "greatest sensation to ever hit the shores of America"? Huh? Musically speaking, there was nothing "fabulous" about the "Fab Four". They were a cover band; but that's it! Yes, they had some decent hits after they took American "by storm" but NOT before. So how is it that they got to the top of Rock & Roll Mountain here in America without really climbing it? Simple, they were helicoptered up there by the Committee of 300 and the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations and no one is in a better position to tell you how it was done than the author of this article, Dr John Coleman...Ken Adachi] By Dr. John Coleman March 1, 2007 The Beatles and the Aquarian Conspiracy by Dr. John Coleman (Mar. 1, 2007) An outstanding example of social conditioning to accept change, even when it is recognized as unwelcome change by the large population group in the sights of Stanford Research Institute, was the "advent" of the BEATLES. The Beatles were brought to the United States as part of a social experiment which would subject large population groups to brainwashing of which they were not even aware. When Tavistock brought the Beatles to the United States nobody could have imagined the cultural disaster that was to follow in their wake. The Beatles were an integral part of "THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY," a living organism which sprang From "THE CHANGING IMAGES OF MAN," URH (489)-2150-Policy Research Report No. 4/4/74. Policy Report pre-pared by SRI Center for the study of Social Policy, Director, Professor Willis Harmon. The phenomenon of the Beatles was not a spontaneous rebellion by youth against the old social system. Instead it was a carefully crafted plot to introduce by a conspiratorial body which could not be identified, a highly destructive and divisive element into a large population group targeted for change against its will. New words and new phrases--prepared by Tavistock(1)-- were introduced to America along with the Beatles. Words such as "rock" in relation to music sounds, "teenager," "cool," "discovered" and "pop music" were a lexicon of disguised code words signifying the acceptance of drugs and arrived with and accompanied the Beatles wherever they went, to be "discovered" by "teenagers." Incidentally, the word "teenagers" was never used until just before the Beatles arrived on the scene, courtesy of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. As in the case of gang wars, nothing could or would have been accomplished without the cooperation of the media, especially the electronic media and, in particular, the scurrilous Ed Sullivan who had been coached by the conspirators as to the role he was to play. Nobody would have paid much attention to the motley crew from Liverpool and the 12-atonal system of "music" that was to follow had it not been for an overabundance of press exposure. The 12-atonal system consisted of heavy, repetitive sounds, taken from the music of the cult of Dionysus and the Baal priesthood by Theo Adorno and given a "modern" flavor by this special friend of the Queen of England and hence the Committee of 300. Tavistock and its Stanford Research Center created trigger words which then came into general usage around "rock music" and its fans. Trigger words created a distinct new break-away largely young population group which was persuaded by social engineering and conditioning to believe that the Beatles really were their favorite group. All trigger words devised in the context of "rock music" were designed for mass control of the new targeted group, the youth of America. The Beatles did a perfect job, or perhaps it would be more correct to say that Tavistock and Stanford did a perfect job, the Beatles merely reacting like trained robots "with a little help from their friends"--code words for using drugs and making it "cool." The Beatles became a highly visible "new type"-- more Tavistock jargon--and as such it was not long before the group made new styles (fads in clothing, hairstyles and language usage) which upset the older generation, as was intended. This was part of the"fragmentation-maladaptation" process worked out by Willis Harmon and his team of social scientists and genetic engineering tinkerers and put into action. The role of the print and electronic media in our society is crucial to the success of brainwashing large population groups. Gang wars ended in Los Angeles in 1966 as the media withdrew its coverage. The same thing will happen with the current wave of gang wars in Los Angeles. Street gangs will wither on the vine once media saturation coverage is toned down and then completely withdrawn. As in 1966, the issue would become "burned out." Street gangs will have served their purpose of creating turbulence and insecurity. Exactly the same pattern will be followed in the case of "rock" music. Deprived of media attention, it will eventually take its place in history. Following the Beatles, who incidentally were put together by the Tavistock Institute, came other "Made in England" rock groups, who, like the Beatles, had Theo Adorno write their cult lyrics and compose all the "music." I hate to use these beautiful words in the context of "Beatlemania"; it reminds me of how wrongly the word "lover" is used when referring to the filthy interaction between two homosexuals writhing in pigswill. To call "rock" music, is an insult, likewise the language used in "rock lyrics." Tavistock and Stanford Research then embarked on the second phase of the work commissioned by the Committee of 300. This new phase turned up the heat for social change in America. As quickly as the Beatles had appeared on the American scene, so too did the "beat generation," trigger words designed to separate and fragment society. The media now focused its attention on the"beat generation." Other Tavistock-coined words came seemingly out of nowhere: "beatniks," "hippies," "flower children" became part of the vocabulary of America. It became popular to "drop out" and wear dirty jeans, go about with long unwashed hair. The "beat generation" cut itself off from main-stream America. They became just as infamous as the cleaner Beatles before them. The newly-created group and its "lifestyle" swept millions of young Americans into the cult. American youth underwent a radical revolution without ever being aware of it, while the older generation stood by helplessly, unable to identify the source of the crisis, and thus reacting in a maladaptive manner against its manifestation, which were drugs of all types, marijuana, and later Lysergic acid, "LSD," so conveniently provided for them by the Swiss pharmaceutical company, SANDOZ, following the discovery by one of its chemists, Albert Hoffman, how to make synthetic ergotamine, a powerful mind-altering drug. The Committee of 300 financed the project through one of their banks, S. C. Warburg, and the drug was carried to America by the philosopher, Aldous Huxley. The new "wonder drug" was promptly distributed in "sample" size packages, handed out free of charge on college campuses across the United States and at "rock" concerts, which became the leading vehicle for proliferating the use of drugs. The question that cries out for an answer is, what was the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) doing at the time? There is compelling circumstantial evidence that would appear to indicate that the DEA knew what was going on but was ordered not to take any action. With very substantial numbers of new British "rock" bands arriving in the U.S., rock concerts began to become a fixture on the social calendar of American youth. In tandem with these "concerts," the use of drugs among the youth rose in proportion. The devilish bedlam of discordant heavy beat sounds numbed the minds of listeners so that they were easily persuaded to try the new drug on the basis that "everybody is doing it." Peer pressure is a very strong weapon. The "new culture" received maximum coverage from the jackal media, which cost the conspirators not one single thin dime. Great anger was felt by a number of civic leaders and churchmen over the new cult but their energies were misdirected against the RESULT of what was going on and not against the CAUSE. Critics of the rock cult made the same mistakes that had been made in the prohibition era, they criticized law enforcement agencies, teachers, parents anybody but the conspirators. Alan Ginsberg Because of the anger and resentment I feel toward the great drug plague, I make no apology for using language which is not customary for me to use. One of the worst drug slobs ever to walk the streets of America was Alan Ginsberg. This Ginsberg pushed the use of LSD through advertising which cost him nothing, although under normal circumstances it would have cost millions of dollars in TV advertising revenues. This free advertising for drugs, and LSD in particular, reached a new high in the late 1960's, thanks to the ever-willing cooperation of the media. The effect of Ginsberg's mass advertising campaign was devastating; the American public was subjected to one cultural future shock after another in rapid succession. We became over-exposed and over stimulated and, again, may I remind you that this is Tavistock jargon, lifted from the Tavistock training manual, overwhelmed by its new development and, when we reached that point, our minds began to lapse into apathy; it was just too much to cope with, that is to say, "long range penetration had taken hold of us." Ginsberg claimed to be a poet but no greater rubbish was ever written by anyone who ever aspired to becoming a poet. Ginsberg's designated task had little to do with poetry; his main function was to push the new subculture and force acceptance of it upon the large targeted population group. To assist him in his task, Ginsberg cooped the services of Norman Mailer, a writer of sorts who had spent some time in a mental institution. Mailer was a favorite of the left wing Hollywood crowd and so had no problem with getting maximum television time for Ginsberg. Naturally Mailer had to have a pretext-- not even he could blatantly come out with the true nature of Ginsberg's television appearances. So a charade was adopted: Mailer would talk "seriously" on camera with Ginsberg about poetry and literature. This method of getting wide television coverage at no cost to themselves was followed by every rock group and concert promoter who followed the example set by Ginsberg. The electronic media moguls had big hearts when it came to giving free time to these dirty venomous creatures and their even dirtier products and filthy ideas. Their promotion of horrible garbage spoke volumes and, without abundant help from the print and electronic media, the drug trade could not have spread as rapidly as it did in the late 1960's-early 197O's, and probably would have been confined to a few small local areas. Ginsberg was able to give several nationally televised performances extolling the virtues of LSD and marijuana, under the guise of "new ideas" and "new cultures" developing in the art and music world. Not to be outdone by the electronic media, Ginsberg's admirers wrote glowing articles about"this colorful man" in the art and social columns of all of America's largest newspapers and magazines. There had never been such an across-the-media-board free advertising campaign in the history of newspaper, radio and television and it cost the promoters of the Aquarian conspiracy, NATO and the Club of Rome not one red cent. It was all absolutely free advertising for LSD, only thinly disguised as "art" and "culture." One of Ginsberg's closest friends, Kenny Love, published a Five-page report in the New York Times. This is in accordance with the methodology used by Tavistock and Stanford Research: If something is to be promoted which the public has not yet been fully brainwashed to accept, then have someone write an article, covering all sides of the subject matter. The other method is to have live television talk shows in which a panel of experts promotes the product and or idea under the pretext of "discussing", it. There are point and counter-point, both pro and con participants airing their support or opposition. When it is all over, the subject to be promoted has been dinned into the public mind. While this was new in the early 1970's, today it is standard practice on which talk shows thrive. Love's Five-page pro LSD pro Ginsberg article was duly printed by the New York Times. Had Ginsberg tried to buy the same amount of space in an advertisement, it would have cost him at least $50,000. But Ginsberg didn't have to worry; thanks to his Friend Kenny Love, Ginsberg got the massive advertising all for free. With newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post under the control of the Committee of 300, this kind of free advertising is given to any subject matter, and more especially to those promoting decadent life styles--drugs-hedonism-- anything that will confuse the American people. After the trial run with Ginsberg and LSD, it became standard Club of Rome practice to call upon major newspapers in America to give free advertising on demand to people and ideas they were promoting. Worse yet--or better yet, depending upon the viewpoint-- United Press (UP) picked up Kenny Love's free advertising for Ginsberg and LSD and telexed it to HUNDREDS of newspapers- and magazines around the country under the guise of a "news" story. Even such highly respectable establishment magazines as "Harpers Bazaar" and "TIME" made Mr. Ginsberg respectable. If a nation-wide campaign of this magnitude were presented to Ginsberg and the promoters of LSD by an advertising agency, the price tag would have run into at least $1 million in terms of 1970 dollars. Today the price tag would be nothing less than $15-$16 million dollars. It is no wonder that I refer to the news media as "jackals." I suggest that we try to find any media outlet to do an expose on the Federal Reserve Board, which is what I did. I took my article, which was a good expose of the greatest swindle on earth, to every major newspaper, radio and television station, magazine house and several talk-show hosts. A few made promises that sounded good--they would definitely air the article and have me discuss it--give them about a week and they would get back to me. Not one of them ever did, nor did my article ever appear in the pages of their newspapers and journals. It was as if a blanket of silence had been thrown over me and the subject I was endeavoring to promote, and indeed that was precisely what had happened. Without massive media hype, and without almost around the clock coverage, the hippie-beatnik rock, drug cult would never have gotten off the ground; it would have remained a localized oddity. The Beatles, with their twanging guitars, silly expressions, drug language and weird clothes, would not have amounted to a hill of beans. Instead, because the Beatles were given saturation coverage by the media, the United States has suffered one cultural shock after another. The men buried in the think tanks and research institutions, whose names and faces are still not known to but a few people, made sure that the press played its part. Conversely, the media's important role in not exposing the power behind the future cultural shocks made certain that the source of the crisis was never identified. Thus was our society driven mad through psychological shocks and stress. "Driven mad" is taken from Tavistock's training manual. From its modest beginnings in 1921, Tavistock was ready in 1966 to launch a major irreversible cultural revolution in America, which has not yet ended. The Aquarian Conspiracy is part of it. Thus softened up, our nation was now deemed ripe for the introduction of drugs which was to rival the prohibition era in scope and the huge amounts of money to be made. This too was an integral part of the Aquarian Conspiracy. The proliferation of drug usage was one of the subjects under study at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Tavistock's Sussex University facility. It was known as the "future shocks" center, a title given to so-called future oriented psychology designed to manipulate whole population groups to induce "future shocks." It was the first of several such institutions set up by Tavistock. "Future shocks" is described as a series of events which come so fast that the human brain cannot absorb the information. As I said earlier, science has shown that there are clearly marked limits to the amount of changes and the nature of them that the mind can deal with. After continuous shocks, the large targeted population group discovers that it does not want to make choices any more. Apathy takes over, often preceded by mindless violence such as is characteristic of the Los Angeles street gangs, serial killers, rapists and child kidnapers. Such a group becomes easy to control and will docilely follow orders without rebelling, which is the object of the exercise. "Future shocks," says SPRU,"is defined as physical and psychological distress arising from the excess load on the decision-making mechanism of the human mind." That is Tavistock jargon lifted straight from Tavistock manuals--which they don't know I have. Just as an overloaded electrical circuit will activate a trip switch, so do humans "trip out," which is a syndrome that medical science is only now beginning to understand, although John Rawlings Reese conducted experiments in this field as far back as the 1920's. As can be appreciated, such a targeted group is ready to "trip out" and take to drugs as a means of escape from the pressures of so many choices having to be made. This is how Drug usage was spread so rapidly through America's "beat generation." What started with the Beatles and sample packages of LSD has grown into a flood-tide of drug usage which is swamping America. The drug trade is controlled by the Committee of 300 from the Top down. The drug trade started with the British East India Company and was closely followed by the Dutch East India Company. Both were controlled by a "Council of 300." The list of names of members and stockholders of the BEIC read like something out of Debretts Peerage. BEIC established the "China Inland Mission," whose job it was to get The Chinese peasants, or coolies, as they were called, addicted to opium. This created the market for opium which the BEIC then filled. In much the same way the Committee of 300 used "The "Beatles" to popularize"social drugs" with the youth of America and The Hollywood "in-crowd." Ed Sullivan was sent to England To become acquainted with The first Tavistock Institute "rock group" to hit the shores of the United States. Sullivan then returned to the United States to draft the strategy for the electronic media on how to package and sell the group. Without the full cooperation of the electronic media and Ed Sullivan, in particular, "The Beatles" and their"music" would have died on the vine. Instead, our national life and the character of the United States was forever changed. Now that we know, it is all too clear how successful the "Beatles" campaign to proliferate the use of drugs became. The fact that "The Beatles" had their music and lyrics written for them by Theo Adorno was concealed from public view. The prime function to "The Beatles" was to be discovered by teenagers, who where then subjected to a non-stop barrage of "Beatle music," until they became convinced that they liked the sound and adopted it, along with all that accompanied it. The Liverpool group performed up to expectations, and with "a little help from their friends," i.e., illegal substances we call drugs created a whole new class to young Americans in the precise mold ordained by the Tavistock Institute. Dr. John Coleman.

Dr. Curtis 9:09 pm, 6-Oct-2013

Is this article supposed to be comedy? You can choose to not like the Beatles - that's cool, not everyone will or should. Your puked up write up is a blatant hatchet job though and at times reeks of hipster jealousy - in my opinion. I see you are a musician. The Beatles story is really a great Rock and Roll story. Even if you don't like the music - the story can still be appreciated. An unlikely band from an unlikely city, fall under the spell of early Rock music make there way at trying to replicate it. And they worked hard on the dance hall/club/theatre circuit in the UK and the seamy clubs in Hamburg developing their sound. After initially being laughed at and being on the bottom of the bill - this band becomes a headliner in Hamburg and a crowd fave. They also become a crowd favorite around Liverpool clubs and at the Cavern. So all this early success - are we to assume this was a con game and the fans were being duped by a band of phonies? No musical skill or charisma just the surging fans of the The Beatles being conned. Who had the puppet strings at this stage? This certainly had nothing to do with George Martin or Epstein. They may have compromised themselves at times to be successful - but they wanted to be successful and they probably became too famous/successful for their own good. The rest of the story is history. Other points - so, you name drop Robert Johnson, Stones, Kinks and yet look at the Beatles discography and find "yesterday" as a song you think is less crappy than their other crap? What a joke. They have a wide variety of music in their canon and many styles. Yesterday is probably one of the least representative songs of the band. May I off yer blues, Tomorrow never knows, or Helter Skelter. (based on your name dropping tastes) I'll leave it to you. Dropping "Robert Johnson" as the most influential artist of the century - reeks of musical hipster. I would argue Chuck Berry but to each their own. (but only chucks early, extremely rare hard to find Mono vinyl 45's) - (in true hipster fashion hehehe) Saddest part of this article is your generalizing beatle fans on why you think they are liked, which really is over stepping your opinions. Precursor to the Osmonds/Boybands? What a joke.

fowlintent 1:10 am, 9-Oct-2013

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion, but it is pretty obvious that this rant is nothing more than an attempt to provoke a response from those who appreciate the impact the Beatles had on the world music scene. Commercial success? Sure. And when they started out they were little more than a cover band. But they evolved, they matured and they produced an amazing catalogue of music in their relatively short existence. I am reminded about the adage about opinions and rectums. Everybody has one, and some really stink.

Avabeth 3:02 am, 11-Oct-2013


Kevin McDade 2:01 am, 16-Oct-2013

Ha ha ha ha ha . That you felt the need to write this at all says it all...And you have completely missed the point. You cannot judge a band of the 60s by everything that has happened since. They wrote the soundtrack to the lives of millions. |End of discussion.

nas 11:33 am, 23-Oct-2013

the beatles are in my opinion overated.the monkeys and stones were by far better.i would think also alot of people would agree gary barlow writes better songs.although i have to say john lennon was brilliant on his own.

YokoNoNO 6:14 pm, 25-Oct-2013

Nice music-journalist troll by Harry Paterson.

Warlord 3:15 pm, 29-Oct-2013

I'm with you all the way on this one Harry. You and me, love a bit of the old heavy metal, a much maligned and misunderstood genre (stop sniggering at the back). Why bother with the Beatles and Lennon when you can have the mighty Saxon and Biff 'The Big Teaser' Byford...altogether now "we've got a 747 coming down in the night...." Awesome.

Dave 12:07 am, 16-Nov-2013

So you like heavy metal, and you are slagging the Beatles off........dear me!!!

Jim 10:09 pm, 22-Nov-2013

Easily the most flowery, poorly-argued bunch of horse shit I've ever read (well, I merely scanned the last half upon realizing that each line was like a fresh turd hitting me in the eye). Your insecurities at not appreciating a band you know you should are as evident as your excruciating writing style. Find another hobby, buddy.

E. Steele 9:19 pm, 29-Nov-2013

I was enjoying the article until he brought up Robert Johnson. RJ was just one of many, MANY blues guitarists who didn't really do anything particularly innovative. In fact, this narrative going around that ALL of blues, rhythm and blues, soul, funk and rock n roll is somehow indebted to ONE run-of-the-mill blues guitarist that most people had never heard of prior to Clapton name-dropping him is a farce. And its a farce far more absurd than the one the author is attacking.

Beatle Crusher 10:51 am, 1-Dec-2013

I think all Beatles fans should be taken to the vets and given the big needle. They are self-absorbed vermin, so far up themselves that their heads are hanging out of their mouths. I think Paul should be kicked to death as the ultimate traitor to rock and roll, and I laugh every time I remember how his evil, evil, evil bitch of a wife died of the cancer she deserved.

Haha Ohwow 5:33 pm, 10-Dec-2013

HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THE BEATLES THEY DID THINGS 50 YEARS AGO SO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO JUDGE THEIR NOW-LAME MUSIC IN ANY WAY. - every Beatles fanboy's argument ever. They're nothing special. Things might have been different BACK THEN but music has come a long way. Just like we moved from caves to drafty stables to modern houses, so have we with music. The beatles are a drafty stable. To claim it's the best place to sleep in nowadays is ridiculous. Sure, we still have crap Beatles-tier music like Justin Bieber, but the good music is as good as it never was before. Ultimately they're like every other band in existence: a handful good songs in a bucket full of crap.

Beatle Crusher 6:32 pm, 12-Dec-2013

One of my happiest memories is of when John got what he deserved. I was at school, started laughing when I heard and didn't stop all day. The band I was part of had an enormous party and jam session to celebrate, with stacks of beer and weed, and we tried to record a celebration anthem with the chorus line "John is dead" sung over the sound of a flushing toilet. However, the bass player dropped the mike in the toilet and jamming got hopeless, so we simply kept on shouting "John is dead" "Yeeees!!!" until we all passed out. Happy, happy day.

Beatle Crusher 12:43 pm, 13-Dec-2013

So, rant over, let's be reasonable about why I hate the Beatles so much. First, when they started they were fun and had some (only some) not-bad songs, but they were Music Hall with no message. Then, when they started worshipping themselves and thinking they had to have some message, all they could come out with was "It's OK to sexually abuse your kids and beat your woman, as long as you do it with LOVE". I really don't want to have anything to do with people who believe that, so telling everyone I hate the Beatles offends Beatles fans and filters them out of my life. Second, they paved the way for the domination of utter crap, unbelievably shitty up-ourselves pomp rock banks in the mid 70s, pond life like Slade, T Rex (with Marc Bolan the Tree Hugger), Queen, Pink Floyd (Stink Flood), none of them with anything to say except "look at us". It took punk to come along and put things right for a while. Third, the Beatles were never much good musically. Listening to Sergeant Pepper (I did it the once) is like drowning in a cloud of nebulised urine.

Warlord 3:39 pm, 13-Dec-2013

I know where you're coming from Beatle Crusher. When Saxon came along they blew everything else out of the water. Before them it was Joy Division,Dooleys, Costello, City Boy, Jam,Clash,Liquid Gold,Stiff,Bowie,Lizzy,...but when they toured on the Bomber tour ever seen Biff in action..? Harry will vouch for him.

jjones 11:11 pm, 13-Dec-2013

Harry, I'll be waiting for your soon to be published articles: " Why the Invention of the wheel was not such a big deal" And "Fire after 10,000 years. Who needs it?"

Beatle Crusher 11:18 am, 19-Dec-2013

Yes, Saxon has usually been one of the best tho I thought their Innocence Is No Excuse album was dead dog. Basic point: Rock music is something you and me do, not something to be consumed from a PRIESTHOOD collecting money for the record companies. In England Punk had to re-invent the wheel for rock, after a decade of Worshipmes proclaiming that progress was on a gas cushion of their own farts. It was worse in the USA, when going on a promo tour meant having to suck up not only to record company executives, but also to their goddam families: "And this is Sharleen my daughter" "Hello Sharleen, do you f***?" Record exec joke: A record executive and his teenage daughter are at home when a gang breaks in, overpowers them and starts raping the daughter in front of her father. Daughter: "Shriek, sob sob sob, no no no, groan, why are you doing this to me, shriek shriek (pause) Daddy, am I making all the right noises?" Exec: "Yes darling, I'm proud of you." Anyway, I think that the idea that the Beatles were musical pioneers is a myth, and the same goes for that colostomy bag Bob Dylan.

Florrie cole 12:23 am, 22-Dec-2013

Reading this was a waste of my time, my advice to the writer of this stupid post is get your iPod and listen to revolver or abbey road. Pure genius. Nothing else makes me feel as happy than listening to the beautiful melodies so don't ever compare the later days which we're astounding to the albums such as meet the beatles which although catchy and enjoyed by the beatlemaniacs are a whole new world to the works of the later beatles. Never will we see a band like them! GO LEARN SOME FACTS!!imfuriates me! I'm 14 and feel as if they're UNDERATED! Children my age need to be listening to their music instead of being brainwashed by one direction and all this chart shit.

vasco de Gama 5:06 pm, 26-Dec-2013

Harry, do you really like Saxon????.....we need to know now!!!!

Tom Selleck 11:27 pm, 11-Jan-2014

Listen, my moustache hairs bristle at the thought of anyone hating the beatles but desptie this i can understand the sentiment. But srsly guys can we not just love the fun scousers for their outragously fun and addictive tunes without looking for nits to picking? Haters gone hate but the Beatles ARE great.

linda pasquariello 7:26 am, 27-Jan-2014

After waching the grammys, it got me wondering why the beatles were so famous. Come on people, the best band ever. I find them so boring and dull. Thanks for a great article, happy im not alone! Keep up the writing!

Vrinda Rao 5:24 pm, 7-Feb-2014

Linda Pasquariello, if you thought the Beatles were boring from watching the Grammy's, then you weren't watching them at all. There are documentaries, books, and articles that explain it, and the music. The music scenes was not full of bands doing splashy stage shows when the Beatles first started performing. That would happen later. The Grammy's made you wonder all of a sudden and come up with that opinion? Boring and dull? Come on people. Yes, there are a lot of people who don't like them, but they're nothing unique.

Ali 11:48 pm, 21-Feb-2014

What's wrong with liking Saxon?

Henry Stew 7:17 pm, 10-Mar-2014

-A whole article about hating something speaks for itself. -I think you protest too much. What's the real story here? -Deep Purple? Hard to stop laughing after that. -I don't hate you a bit. It takes all kinds.

The Beatles Are Indeed Overrated 11:59 pm, 11-Mar-2014

Wow....The beatles fans once again prove their absurd amount of whiny butt hurt when someone openly admits they dislike the beatles and lists why. Always resort to insults and staying the offender has below normal intelligence...yet not once providing reasonable or sound arguments. My parents grew up in the sixties and seventies, inner city, and NOBODY listened to the beatles. Once again, suburban white people ( I am white, before you say anything) are dictating what is best. Maybe if more people could afford to buy records in the 40's-70's the recrod sales would be slightly different.

Josh 2:58 am, 12-Mar-2014

Actually on the point of the Beatles having no significance in other bands is incorrect, in the 50's there were such things called Race records, record companies specifically targeting ethnic minorities, "White americans" completely ignored these records but they were a massive hit in England which the beatles picked up on and turned it into "White people music" who then reached prominence in england inspiring bands. The beatles went on to become the catalysts of the british invasion, who all came over because of the beatles massive success in america. In the U.S. without the beatles we would have compleatly ignored these black blues artists and much of modern rock today would not have existed.

BurntBrummie 1:56 pm, 14-Mar-2014

Look, it's simple, The Beatles were great in their day and many modern bands/singers list them as an influence, whether or not it's true. But, the model T ford was great in its day and influenced all future car design and production, so why are we all driving Mondeos and Focus'? Easy, things move on and get better; the Beatles were good and relevant in their day, but today are historical interest only. I can't abide to see Macca warbling on about Jude one more time!!

Rob 10:53 pm, 18-Mar-2014

The Strawberry fields forever and penny lane double a side single in 1966, is enough to make this article total bullshit. People who love music but don't appreciate the beatles influence on all music are crying out for attention. 'Look at me I don't like them I'm special' no you're not you're just ignorant.

Michael Benson 11:04 pm, 1-Apr-2014

Oh, by the way, Brian Wilson who you say is better than Lennon and McCartney actually was inspired to write Pet Sounds after hearing Rubber Soul. Leonard Berstein the renound conductor/composer lauded the Beatles as the pinicle of the pop music format in the 60's. Oh , and on the heavy metal front, Ozzy Osbourne cites the Beatles as inspiring him to go into music. So... While they may have started out as a cliche pop act, they grew into something much more and have commanded respect from musics best and brightest.

Linda Rhymus 9:02 am, 10-Apr-2014

To be honest, this article just made me realize that there is absolutely no reason why anyone should hate the Beatles. they are a band who made music, either you like them or not, but there is no reason to hate any band at all because they haven't done anything to you. Second, the only thing I read here was "I hate the Beatles because they coudln't play their instruments as well as others and their songs are not as brilliant as others." That pretty much sums it up, right? Well who are you to say what song is good and what song isn't? I think a song does what it should when it brings pleasure to it's listeners and that is no doubt that the Beatles did that with their songs, so what is the problem. To me it sounds as if you are just ranting here because you might be a fan of a few artists that you love, but that didn't get the recognition you think they deserve and that's why you're pissed off, and that's just petty. But to be honest, if you randomly pick a band to hate on, then you would probably pick a band that was big to get a lot of answers, right? So thank you for showing that the Beatles were indeed great! and notice how I didn't once use the words "I love/like the Beatles"? it's because it doesn't matter. If someone doesn't enjoy their music that is perfectly fine. I don't like Madonna or Michael Jackson, but I can still recognize that both of them are great artists and deserve their fame. It's the same with the Beatles. There is no doubt that they were the greatest Band the world has seen so far, whether you like them or not.

harliquin 7:37 pm, 19-Apr-2014

What makes me laugh is that this oafus rants about how The Beatles are 'overrated" yet, in the same essay, praises JIMMY HENDRIX!!! .. . Talk about a fucker who's overated!! "Ohhhhhhhhhh Hendrix was a GENIOUS!!!! Hendrix was GOD!!!!! Hendrix is the best guitarist past, present and future!!! He has NEVER been surpassed!!! . .. nor will he EVER BE!!!! No other guitarist as good, if not even better, has come along in his wake ( like namely Eddy Van Halen, Randy Rhoads or Joe Satriani )!!!!" . .. same kind of bullshit!

harliquin 7:43 pm, 19-Apr-2014

What made me laugh is that this guy rants so much about The Beatles being "overrated" ( which I wouldn't entirely dispute ), yet prasises JIMMY HENDRIX in the same essay!! . .. talk about someone who's OVERRATED as hell!!! "Ohhhhhhhhh Hendrix is a GENIOUS!!! Hendrix is GOD!!!!! Hendrix has NEVER been surpassed!!! . .. nor will he EVER BE!!!! NO other guitarist as good, if not even better, has EVER come along in Hendrix'x wake ( like namely Eddy Van Hallen, Randy Rhoads or Joe Satriani )!!!! That Hendrix could play that guitar with his PENIS while jungling simultaniously!!!!" . .. same kind of bull!

wooden floor installation 3:51 am, 24-Apr-2014

great put up, very informative. I wonder why the other experts of this sector don't notice this. You must continue your writing. I'm confident, you've a huge readers' base already!

Paul Ramon 4:10 pm, 5-May-2014

Beatles are shit - says non-entity writing a blog on the internet.

Robert Gallegos 8:25 pm, 5-Jun-2014

I read this article and through it was only hate. I absolutely love the Beatles. I'm not saying you have to love them, I'm not even saying you have to like or listen to them. But have the decency to respect others. At the beginning you called the Beatles fan's "snobs and drones," you obviously don't respect our taste in music. What gives you the right to say any of this. If you don't like the Beatles, keep it to yourself. At this point I'm not ranting about the article but the person who wrote this. See that, I could have called you anything to disrespect you. Did I? No I didn't. Because I respect your opinion about the Beatles. You're completely right, they didn't shape every band after them. But you cannot denie that many artists will refer to them as an inspiration. Not the only inspiration, but still an inspiration. I don't see why you think of us as Lower than you because of our taste in music. The Beatles were here, they made music and many people like it. They will still like it for years to come. They are immortalized forever. And just because you don't like them doesn't mean everyone has to hate them. So please, respect other people opinion. I have to talk to you like a small child. Maybe that's because you are acting like one. I hope someone plays "I'm only sleeping" at your funeral. And also, what did the Beatles ever do to you? Have a nice day. Again, that's how normal human beings talk to other people. Even people who are so far into there own regime of Beatle hate, they still deserve respect. You still deserve respect. You disrespected me. Doesn't mean I have to put you down, it won't make me feel better. I hope you feel good about yourself. Because no matter how many irrelevant articles you write, no matter how many opinions you throw at me, I will still be a huge Beatles fan.

JOSEPH 7:39 am, 18-Jun-2014


Hummingbird 9:59 am, 30-Jun-2014

56 years since I first heard the Beatles. It was in a cinema during the interval. The track was From Me To You. Didn't know who it was by, but it woke me up instantly. Had not heard anything quite like it. Soon everyone knew about the Beatles. I bought a guitar and still play it. Life was never the same after.

BertBoyWonder 8:40 am, 29-Jul-2014

The Beatles are one of the most respected musical acts ever, especially by other musicians. They were the pioneers of creating music in abstract art form, not typical to standard and common rhythmic structures. Pop music essentially, almost like a blank canvas with paint splattered all over it, no boundaries. Don't let their softer sounding songs fool you though, these guys were rockers at heart. The Beatles are untouchable and even Hendrix and Clapton would tell you the same.

Jim Bray 10:29 pm, 6-Aug-2014

Many of you either don't play or comparing the Beatles with modern players only. I was learning to play guitar when they were huge. No one used chord patterns like them in that day. Almost ever song on almost every album was unique and still good to hear. It is true they weren't great technical musicians but they were fresh, original and it was a magical time. Imagine never hearing the blues at all and then someone plays Clapton. You'd be blown away. Yeah, like that!!

Robert 3:47 pm, 7-Aug-2014


xercises to burn belly fat 5:31 am, 8-Aug-2014

After exploring a few of the articles on your web site, I honestly like your technique of writing a blog. I book-marked it to my bookmark webpage list and will be checking back in the near future. Please visit my website as well and let me know what you think.

Neptunus 12:36 am, 22-Aug-2014

Haha Troll alert!? The Beatles have always been hit and miss for me but how in the hell can you compare The Beatles to the Spice Girls? Jesus! get a grip man especially when they wrote songs such as "A Day in the life" "Something" "The Long and Winding Road" "I Am the Walrus" or proto metal classic "Helter Skelter". They were a huge influence on countless bands from Pink Floyd to Bowie. And then the whole Robert Johnson influence on modern rock case brought up again for the millionth time. Your whole argument is generic in every way and mostly wrong to boot.

Andy Gold 7:53 am, 24-Aug-2014

Lazy piece of writing. Fair enough you think they are overrated. To say Lennon, Harrison and Starr were poor musicians is lazy and not based on fact. It's about the context of the music.Being able to play 5 million notes and whizz up and down the fretboard doesn't equate to good musicianship or a listenable piece of music. I like The Who but, Keith Moon wasn't particularly effective outside the group as a musician.You need to remember, or more likely be aware, that when the Beatles were recording there were no computers in the studio or fancy digital effects. Splicing pieces of music involved physically cutting and pasting tape rather than clicking a mouse. They were literally at the cutting edge of music as all the effects, noises edits were made up as they went along. If they wanted a sound the technology didn't exist at the time. They had to literally make it up as they went along and develop studio techniques which later became accepted practice throughout the world.You are ignorant and your piece is unbalanced.

jimbob 5:29 pm, 8-Sep-2014

i just dont think your listening with your heart, brian wilson, bacharach and davies were their rivals and they all hang togther equally. Having said that besdies the kinks the beatles were able to sustain a standard of quality longer than their contemporary's. Normaly when people dismiss them it's because they have never neutrally listened. You rpobably only lsitened to the albums to say you had to further prove the point you hated them, but all the time your heart was caged shut to the chance you'd feel the love all their fans do. Ignore the myth and enjoy a beatiful bands with lovely melodies, harmonies and songwrtiing. They don't have to be your favourite, but rarley has someone come out the other end not loving them intensley if they allow themself to listen without hangups, I'm sure you'll find somehting you love if you give it time. :)

David 5:44 am, 10-Sep-2014

Nothing like a "I Hate The Beatles" article to goose-up those Google Analytics page views stats.

Brian 3:59 pm, 22-Sep-2014

Oh Harry, c'mon, be serious. They were, and still are the greatest pop group the world has ever seen. Hugely influential. Never mind bands, The whole Power Pop genre is based on the Beatles' sound. Next time, please write an article...'The Beatles, The Best Pop Group Ever'.

Google 6:14 pm, 2-Oct-2014

1- Find a product to promote, something you feel passionate about and that you know people will want to buy it. In addition, the observing surgeons could transmit their comments to the operating surgeon, who could read them on the Google Glass monitor. Reputation Defense Online an around the world Cyber Investigation along with Litigation Assistance Agency for Net Defamation, often receives inquiries from attorneys along with law enforcement agencies on the way to subpoena Google's Legal Division.

Nervousnutter 10:27 am, 4-Oct-2014

Whilst I really like the article, you can't ignore the many detractors who rightly point out the far-reaching appreciation and impact of The Beatles. However, to my mind this is precisely their weakness. The Ford Model-T was immensely influential to the development of the motor vehicle industry, affecting both commerce, industry and the lives of millions of individuals; it deserves its place in history. I will not be driving one to work tomorrow though, as by today's standards it's shit. Same with The Beatles, they had their time and influenced the music industry for the greater good, but by today's writing and musical standards (Spice girls et al notwithstanding), they are utter rubbish.

Noah M 10:41 pm, 7-Oct-2014

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, so if you don't like The Beatles, that's cool. But this writer thinks he's hotshit because he knows Robert Johnson extensively, and thus has assumed an air of pretentious know-it-all-ism with regards to music tastes. That's why he cynically comments on The Beatles lyrics, which exposes ignorance on his part due to the fact that he assumes every Beatles lyric is on the more juvenile level of "She Loves You." He shouldn't be writing articles on the Beatles if this is his idea of a typical song of theirs, because as any fan knows, it really is not. Also, why put Brian Wilson or the Rolling Stones above them in creativity? If we're gonna overgeneralize here, then lyrics like "She loves you yeah yeah yeah" are no worse then lyrics like "I can't get satisfaction, cuz I try, and I try," or "Everybody's gone surfin, surfin USA." In short, if it wasn't for this writer's clearly displayed lack of knowledge on the subject, or his use of terrible examples of better rock lyricists and composers(who groups Deep Purple with those other bands anyway), then I would respect his opinion. But since he just seems like someone who thinks he's smart because he rips on the most acclaimed entertainment act in the history of the world for reasons that he doesn't back up with sufficient research or evidence, his entire point is null and void, and I suggest you non-Beatles fans who are agreeing with him find better reasons for it then the ones he outlines

Gavrick 4:46 pm, 30-Oct-2014

The girls all wanted to f* the Beatles. We all wanted to f* the girls. Ergo, we wanted to follow in the Beatles footsteps. You know, youthful hormones, huge demographics, etc, right place and right time. BTW, I see nothing particularly great about Robert Johnson, so f* you.

silence-is-best 7:17 am, 2-Nov-2014

Having read this article and a good deal of the comments that follow, I'm reminded of how much I hate musicians. I have played for more than forty years, studied classical music, been in countless bands, worked with countless musicians of various genres and I have learned one thing in all that time. Musicians are infantile, egotistical assholes that don't deserve to be listened to. No exceptions. The entire world of mass-produced, marketed sonic events is nothing but a vast pile of toxic sludge, all with a tidy, uniform, predictable snare beat on two and four. And to purport to hold a discussion on which brand of toxic sludge is superior to another is a discussion so pointless and vacuous that it serves, more than anything else, to lay bare just how vapid and egotistical are both the producers and consumers of this garbage. But you could never tell a musician or the ardent music enthusiast. They truly believe that there is something important going on. There's not. It's all garbage.

Ken 9:31 am, 13-Nov-2014

JB of course kids and teenagers are crying at McCartney's shows, they're crying because their parents drug them there and are making them listen to that crap! And ABBA also appeals to many groups! I grew up in that era and still don't like the Beattles! Unfortunately know all the damned songs because it was rammed down my throat by commercialism and my asshole brothers played them 24/7! I am a huge Beach Boys fan instead!

Nicky K 7:44 am, 16-Nov-2014

I actually really appreciate this piece as a satirical look at one man's attempts at coming to terms with the fact the Bea*les were actually pretty okay. [the late] MJ even found their s*ite enough of an asset to own. Can't understand anyone getting more than a slight giggle here... The B*atles were what they were. There are comparisons aplenty. Your kink may not be my kink, but I'll take B*atles junk 90% of the time.

Vincent 12:51 pm, 6-Dec-2014

I frankly think Purple Cream an aussie artist band are the greatest innovators currently in the 21st century world of music but who gives a damn about them if your talking about sheer brilliance and attempting sounds and quirks never heard before check them out

Harry 5:18 pm, 16-Dec-2014

I think my work here is most certainly done ;-)

Mike 4:51 am, 20-Dec-2014

I agree that the Beatles are over-rated but I also believe they are the greatest band of all time.. no group has soo many great songs with so few stinkers.. not even close

Chuck I 9:09 pm, 20-Dec-2014

The Beatles DID start the rock music industry. One minute before they were aged on US radio the music industry was bland and NOT taking chances. The Beach Boys and the Four Seasons along with syrupy folkies were as "challenging" as it got. The Beatles being dressed up and made to look presentable to the mainstream by Brian Epstein broke the ground for the rest of Rock and roll. No one would have had them appear back in those days urs their long hair was perfect and they dressed in suits. Four funny, pretty yet talented lads started round two of rock. Everyone appearing on TV in 1964 were in suits and clean. Gradually the went away and by 1967 the hippe bands started taking over where the British Invasion ended. Only a handful of that original British Invasion made it past that year. The Kinks, Rollong Stones, The Who, The Hollies to name some for you. Once them Beatles appeared music moguls flocked the England. After the Monterey Pop Festival they turned more towards San Francisco and L.A. Just like when Nirvana came out Seattle was the spot. If it weren't for the Fab Four you'd be listening to Neil Diamond, Michael Bolton and Celine Dion today...MAYBE.

mikew 6:26 am, 27-Dec-2014

Rush came thru just fine with out one ounce of credit given to the beatles.... If the beatles opened the door then Rush didnt get the memo and the door slammed shut on them and they still probably have millions upon millions more fans than the beatles and they did it thru phenomenal lyrics and unmatched musicianship and just honest hard work some 47 years later and still gaining popularity and creating new ground breaking music topping the charts. I guess the way of integrity and not selling out to mainstream pressure is the long way to success. I have always thought the beatles music was catchy but their lyrics were pure nonsense to me and they had a big zero for musical chops. I honestly think by today's standards the beatles are very very weak....I know they were amazing and ground breaking pioneers and all that fan boy stuff but they also were just puppets to a power they could not deny because their weakest attributes were low integrity and no self control. They were all quite evil, it is well documented, also a very disrespectful bunch of hooligans to say the least. It's hard for me to respect them when you study them in depth without prejudice. I've studied them out of curiosity not by loathing them. It seems there are just as many detractors as there are attractors and that's not a good thing. No offense to the fans because they have found happiness in their music. I can appreciate their time but it most certainly is not now. "Living in their pools, they soon forget about the sea"

dr. turntable 6:49 am, 12-Jan-2015

I disagree with most of your opinion, mostly because it is ill informed with a goal to be inflammatory. I really take exception with 2 points that frankly piss me off: 1. The Beatles were a boy band. My definition of "boy band" is very negative. Defined as a talentless band basically put together by a music industry hack/insider purposely based on looks, gimicks, with no regard for talent or actual musical acumen, and with a goal of quick commercial appeal. I don't see how The Beatles meet this definition. Your "boy band" opinion REALLY disregards all the hard work the band put in from 1960-63. Consider how hard they worked as a live band: Hamburg from 1960-62 1100 hours of live stage performances. Do i need to remind you of the long hours, squalor and their living conditions on their 1960 trip to Hamburg??? Surely you know this stuff!! Just the fact these guys at ages 17-19 had the balls to go over to a foreign country and play their asses off - shows me how committed and serious they were about becoming professional rock musicians. They steadily worked their way up in Hamburg to better venues and more pay, because of their LIVE playing, and their ability to put on a show. Other live gigs around the North of England 1960-63 - would be another 400+ shows, approx another 1000 hours. Again little money being made, not the best of conditions, sometimes having to run from thugs after shows, etc. You can easily look this stuff up! They developed onstage during their live performing. Once they started to tighten up as a band - say from late 1961 on, they were successful - AS A LIVE BAND. Is this progression and work how you would define a "boy band"???? Finally, the music industry didn't create them or want them - like you would think of a thrown together "boy band". In fact they were turned down by 3 labels, and most music industry types would roll their eyes and protest when considering them as being to rough. After Decca turned them down in 1962 the band thought they were done. They presevered, continued working their asses off - LIVE and eventually caught a break. 2. Lennon couldn't play guitar. I don't get into the "I think Fred is better than Barney on Drums" type of arguments - they are pointless. I will say Lennon's aggressive rhythm playing was a prominent staple of the Beatles LIVE sound. The sound that made them successful and loved as a LIVE band in Hamburg and around Liverpool. That's good enough for me - your critique of his playing is retarded. What have you done? I guess you could say Phil Keaggy is better to be a hipster twit. Who cares? Lennon had the chops, rock attitude, and the guts. The rest of your article is just a sour opinion. But, I'll tell you what i hate. Musical hipsters taking a piss on someone elses music/band when they clearly have no flippin idea what they are talking about. That definition fits your bitter article. Enjoy your vagisil as you sit and listen to "yesterday" and come to the conclusion that you hate the beatles. You just don't get it, you might as well say you hate rock and roll. It's not the masses that are wrong when it comes to this group. We are lucky they were able to punch through the music industry that didn't want them. "The Osmonds, Westlife, Boyzone and JL bloody S are their natural heirs!" - get back on your meds and listen to Helter Skelter. If anything its the music industry that sucks. This guy has a more sensible take - the Beatles succeeded through talent, ambition and arrogance - if you don't like it, tough.

Stoya 10:45 am, 20-Jan-2015

Yeah, right. Shakespeare was an ignoramus, with little Latin and less Greek. And Beethoven’s fifth symphony is child’s play - ta-ta-ta-taaaaaa. Sour grapes.

Joe Jones 8:49 pm, 28-Jan-2015

I don't hate them as passionately as the writer, just never really understood why they are so revered.

Alex 11:43 pm, 4-Feb-2015

Sadly, poor old Ringo lacked sufficient talent to even polish John Bonham’s cymbals. One of the best things I've had the pleasure of reading.

Ryan Corvese 12:57 pm, 18-Feb-2015

Yes, finally someone agrees with me! This band is totally over rated and to be considered a rock band? Please. Great piece Harry!

Corey Stewart 4:00 pm, 29-Mar-2015

"Fact 4. They *are* massively overrated..." This is hardly a "fact". This is subjective, unless you have evidence that millions of people only pretend to like the Beatles. The word "overrated" is a crutch used by pretentious, smug a-holes whose first instinct is to distance themselves from anything that receives universal acclaim because by doing so they feel intellectually superior to the witless hoi polloi.

Leave a comment

Music image description SABOTAGE