100 Reasons the Beatles Suck

[Raposo Loves You]

No one here is claiming that the Beatles were the greatest ever, or flawless. Quite the contrary. Rather than revisionist, I would personally characterize this thread as having a major chip on its shoulder. Really guys, regardless of perceived quality or talent or whatever, you can't expect Burt to be as publicly recognized as the Beatles when a lot of his work as writer, producer and arranger took place behind the scenes. The general public is not canny enough to know better!

[Blair N. Cummings]

As one old enough to remember the Fab Four arriving at Idlewild (!), my motive for the original post wasn`t to gripe that the lads were overshadowing Burt. Talk about apples and oranges! It was to counter the "meme" of their greatness that simply seems to be accepted by the general public as thoughtlessly as the idea that (of course!) Bob "Dylan" is a genius and even a poet. This is simply and demonstrably nonsense. The Stones were a better rock band - indeed, they pretty much defined rock and roll right up through Exile.... The Velvet Underground were infinitely more creative, and the sixties Pink Floyd (among many others) were a more credible and effective psychedelic band.
Maybe a better title for the thread would have been 100 Reasons Why Subsequent Generations of Pop Music Fans Who Can`t Listen and Discern For Themselves Suck. But that strikes me as being a trifle unwieldy.

[Raposo Loves You]

Opinions, opinions, opinions... everyone has them, and... well, I'll refrain from the old Zappa quote.

Pardon me if your refined treatise was undermined by the title of your thread.

[Blair N. Cummings]

Well, obviously it was not, nor intended to be, a treatise "refined" or otherwise. Everything on boards such as this is an exchange of opinions.
As I`ve pointed out before, with little (okay, no) new music from Burt to prompt discussion, sometimes it`s fun to take a scenic detour.
Not everyone thinks it`s fun.

[ron hertel]

These "scenic detours" ARE fun - and - I would encourage others to initiate similar discussions. ....... Provocative subject titles like "100 Reasons the Beatles Suck" encourage participation and expand the scope of the discussion and the variety of opinions presented ....... Thank you Blair!

Ron

[Blair N. Cummings]

And the ultimate reason the Beatles suck? They never made an album as enjoyable as this:

[Jan R.]

Try "The Rutles - All You Need Is Cash". You will love it.

[Blair N. Cummings]

Jan, I saw the Rutles "mockumentary" when it was done around `75 or so and loved it.
Todd Rundgren`s album was released in the fall of `80 and I saw the tour kick-off the night before Halloween in New York. As we all know, fewer than six weeks later, Lennon was shot. I always have wondered how Todd dealt with that. Did the tour continue (surely, for many reasons, it must have done). Was there a statement from Todd to audiences about how this was all an act of love, blah, blah, blah?
Are there any other old-timers out there who caught this performance post-Lennon who can fill in the blanks?

[Raposo Loves You]

It wasn't that pointed of a parody. I can't see why Todd couldn't have just gone on as before. There are some great tracks on that album btw; I like "All Smiles" in particular.

The ex- Beatles never took themselves too seriously. George was close with the Pythons (Eric Idle being the writer of the Rutles film) and he later bankrolled The Life of Brian.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that this thread shouldn't exist, btw, just disagreeing with the opinions (however stated) within.

[Blair N. Cummings]

Not "that pointed"? LOL! How young are you, Raposo? That was the entire enjoyable point. In fact, I just this moment remembered that Playboy (of all publications) called it the " perfect cynic`s party album."