Boring Boring Boring. I've got all their LPs. Never play them. Very overrated in my humble opinion.

And I'm glad Neal raised this as you can get into a lot of hot water slagging them off - its like slagging off the Queen Mum - they are a national instition, the holy of holies of Brit Rock, the founders, the godfathers, without whom we would be nothing etc....so you should leave your critical faculties at the door.

I've probably upset everyone at the Word and on this website (apart form Neal!)....

...don't try. Trying is against the spirit of pop music.

I fear you just don't like music

I love The Fabs and find it hard to understand why anyone who's into rock/pop music could possibly not love them too. (I also suspect most people who affect to hate them - that twat off The Auteurs springs to mind - are just striking a pose, being contrary.)

But it‘s not compulsory. And there's no need to make an effort to "try" and like Beatles music. (I hate that attitude Rock Snobs have that we have some kind of duty to "explore" avenues of music we're not familiar with or partial to.)
There are plenty of artists that any "right-thinking" music fan is "supposed" to like that I have absolutely no interest in whatsoever: Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Talking Heads, Iggy Pop, The Velvet Underground, The Doors, Roxy Music, Steely Dan, Led Zepellin, Patti Smith, REM, 90% of both Punk Rock and Psychedelia, Tom Waits, Nirvana, Franz Ferdinand, Arcade Fire.
I could go on and on ...

It's pretty obvious isn't it. Listen to what you enjoy and sod the rest.

If you don't like The Beatles, that's fine. If you want to like them, fair enough. I would say to the casual fan that Ian MacDonald's Revolution In the Head is a great way to become obsessed; but that's for someone who's already interested. Starting from cold could be a bit tricky. My favourite album personally is Rubber Soul, followed by Abbey Road. I've got a lot of time for Let It Be...Naked, which is a huge improvement on Phil Spector's original version. Everyone goes on about Revolver - it's good, but Rubber Soul is better. Sergeant Pepper is good for the first two songs, She's Leaving Home and A Day In The Life: otherwise it's largely hollow, for my money. I'd recommend A Hard Day's Night as their best early record, and probably throw in The White Album as well. And some sort of singles collection, obviously. I can't see a cheap way of buying these and guaranteeing that you'll like them. I'd borrow them or something if I were you.

..interest in converting you to The Beatles as I have in converting a muslim to christianity.
..but all I can say is that you are obviously filling in this massive hole in your life with copious amounts of drink and drugs.

Well, that's about as varied a bunch of responses as I could have hoped for. I take Sir Hepworth's point but I think, having been converted to The Smiths at one point yeas ago (from hating them to loving them) and having similar experiences with other music, when I just 'got it' that I've always waited for that to happen with the fabs. I guess I just think there's something I'm missing.

Lucas - I'm so glad you said that about Sgt Peppers because I just never understood the hype but I will check out Rubber Soul and see if that does anything for me.

I have no problem with 'exploring' avenues of music - how the hell else are we meant to find the music we do enjoy. It's all an exploration but should certainly be approached from the point of view of fun. I'm a Rock Dad, not a Rock Snob.

And Shane, the copious amount of drink and drugs ended years ago, thankfully enough :) But your comment the kind of one that makes me think I'm definetly missing something.

Rubber Soul, here I come. I promise I won't 'try' to like it. If I do, I do. If I don't, I don't

I will happily let you know the outcome!!

Reminds me a bit of the story about the old English tutor who hated Dickens, Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence and T.S. Eliot. This was tolerated and considered to be a matter of mere preference and taste. However, when he said he 'didn't get' Shakespeare he was politely asked to leave.

As one who grew up in the sixties its impossible to imagine how anybody couldn't like them.

However I realize that I rarely play a Beatles record without a spur (like this thread or the recent re release of Help).

Old Stones and Beach Boys are often on the playlist on merit. Motown is almost a constant companion. The Beatles rarely feature.

I count myself however as a huge Beatles fan but is that just nostalgia?.

Have they just not aged as well as the others?

Cant be over familiarity since they hardly ever turn up on the radio anymore.

Any thoughts?

I remember at school everyone used to get so excited when a release date for a new Beatles single was announced. There was definite kudos in being the first person to hear the new single. Sadly I never was. There was never the same degree of anticipation for a new Stones record. But it was such a universal thing. The Beatles weren't just there for the music, they were part of everyday life. For years they were regularly part of the news; getting mobbed on tours; going to and coming back from the US and the scenes at Heathrow; the Jesus controversy; the Maharishi; the marriages; the films; the bed in etc ...
Then when you heard the albums, especially from Revolver on, there was the genuine astonishment at what what you were hearing. The first time you heard A Day In The Life or Tomorrow Never Knows you new you'd just heard something like nothing you'd ever heard before.
And its also thanks to Revolution In The Head that I found out that for instance I'd never heard anything like the openening chord of Hard Day's Night before (a G eleventh suspended fourth according to I Mac).
However all the Beatles did has been learned and absorbed into the vocabulary of popular music and if you're hearing it for the first time now I can understand how it doesn't sound in the least bit remarkable.

It's not a question of whether you like the Beatles or not...The Beatles just ARE...so therefore they must BE ( I think I understand that!)
The Beatles are icons, they capture a period in musical and social history.You don't have to like them to feel the power of the 60's but it certainly helps. You don't have to have been on the journey from The Cavern Club to the rooftop of the Apple building, but it helps. If you like them the chances are you love them. They are nostalgically very evocative, musically stunning and surely it is impossible to think of the sixties without thinking of The Beatles?
For some 'it's just not their bag'. There has been music before them and since that has been better, of course there has. But nothing, in my opinion, comes close to this 'total package'
Brilliant ? Quite Possibly....Boring ? Never
Fabulous...Certainly!!

Growing up on the drearier edge of Liverpool during the seventies, where Radio Merseyside and Radio City (the only stations that appeared to exist as far as my parents where concerned) played a constant stream of those loveable moptops, I think I actually made a conscious decision not to like them on principle.

It was only about twenty years later I realised how wrong I'd been.

I noticed that the 'cred' of The Beatles changed after 'The Stone Roses' album came out. Prior to that they were regarded as a band from our parents' era, which had been followed by a very patchy McCartney career and a tragic-hero in John Lennon.

Then came the Roses. They were the first major, trend-setting band to emerge that pronounced the greatness of The Beatles since they had split in 1970. Ever since that point in '89, Revolver has replaced Sgt Pepper as the 'best' Beatles album and every major band since the Roses have 'bigged up' The Beatles. Both Lennon's and especially Paul McCartney's reputations have also grown enormously (think of Macca in the 80s - almost Cliff Richard-level-naff).

Interesting point kb but when people look back in a hundred years time I'm tempted to suggest most forcefully that they will say ( with immense justification in my humble op ) 'The Stone Who?'

I neither love nor hate them. Sort of like the opposite of love being indifference, I have always accepted the the Beatles are ingrained in our music DNA, and are pleasant enough, but equally I feel like I have heard everything I ever need to hear of them and I have absolutely no need to ever hear them again.

trying to see it from all angles and yet never solving it (though some people do it with their feet i hear)

i understand people who hate the beatles, i assume it is something more related to the iconic status than to the music per se. once you hate, it is easy to justify (pick obladi oblada as a typical song etc...)
i understand people who are indifferent, because there is so much music out there, and again, most of you guys being in britain have been raised with their music ingrained in your environment, so that it has become as familiar and therefore as unworthy of attention as your mum's wallpaper.
i understand people who love them, though feel terribly disconnected from people who are more interested in the individuals than in the music. they wear the worst T-shirts ever, and will obsessively endure the worst songs because they have some anecdotes attached to them.
i recently had the chance of interviewing paul mccartney, trying to steer clear from the anecdotal interview he so likes doing. i actually tried to understand why i thought the beatles were so brilliant... and failed. but then i realised i didn't care.

Hi kp, thanks for a very enjoyable debate, it's livened up my afternoon no end. To recommence in a friendly and respectful manner...whilst appreciating that The Roses had one or two snappy little tunes I would argue that The Beatles ( with more than six great albums to their name...not to mention the singles ) did very well without their assistance from 1962 through to the present day and will continue to do so for many years to come. The Roses may well turn out to be the Velvets of their day. But I suspect that the Velvets will still be the Velvets of the future.

...but there are worse places to start:

And I liked it!!

You know, I think it was the first time I just heard a batch of pretty straight Beatles tunes. Nothing too clever...

It's a bit like Salvador Dali - you can think his paintings of melting clocks etc are great, or crap or whatever. But when you see his 'straight' portraits and realise that he was clearly very talented it puts a different slant on his more innovative work. That's kinda what I'm feeling about the Beatles now. I caught a glimpse of their musical, song writing talent that I'd never really caught before...

But yes, ObladiOblada...seriously?!! :)

I haven't listened to them much lately. I played the Vinyl to death when I was 15 & 16 in my bedroom and like other albums and bands that I played over and over when I was younger I don't go back to them that often.

But last night at a gig, She Said, She Said came on the PA and it sounded fantastic and you are reminded by this one song (that is 'just an album track' and not seen as being in their 'top 20' or even top 50') of their greatness.

Boring boring and boring...the most overrated band in the history of music (even more than The Eagles).Have all their LP's on Cd and can't even sell them on E-bay as no-one want them.Paul MCc can release any old crap and it's hailed as genius ,are music critics scared of telling it as it is..I think we are expected to like the Beatles and if anyone dares to say anything derogatory they are derided as being nuts and knowing nothing about music.I don't like them and i don't care who knows it..bring it on

first time entry on word website - saw this forum straight away as I'm a long-time beatles fan. Can't get my head round that folk think the fab 4's tunes are boring?! U might hate/love them but no way does 'boring' come into the equation - helter skelter, rain, don't let me down (even the crap ones - as noted in this months edition) do people honestly think these tracks are boring? life never ceases to amaze me...............

Without offering any advancement on my one-word critique:

BORING!