Comment

Hey now, the Beatles were very good. They had interesting chord structures, strong rhythms, and well written lyrics. They also put out a huge amount of highly varied music in a very short time. Their contribution to modern music is absolutely undeniable. You may not like them, but if you know anything at all about music you cannot say in good faith that they weren’t any good.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Grail@multiverse.soulism.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Nah. Queen is ten times better.

source
- Manticore@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Shit take.
  
  You can draw a direct line from Queen’s songwriting and four-part harmonies through the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Four Freshmen. Add Led Zeppelin to that list and you have the entire foundation of Queen.
  
  Honestly, fans like you ruined Queen for me. I was completely obsessed with Queen through my teens and early twenties, but everywhere they’re discussed online, it’s always this superiority nonsense. Queen being great doesn’t make the Beatles suck. Those are different ideas. I really think the fans are a big part if the reason I eventually burned out on them.
  
  source
- Pat_Riot@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Apples and oranges. Queen was very good and their music influenced multiple genres too. That does not discount the value the Beatles added to music as a whole.
  
  source
- 0ops@piefed.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Queen probably disagrees with you, they were huge Beatles fans
  
  source
- hansolo@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I’ll stand with you on this. Queen was 10 times better than a silly boy band.
  
  source
  - Pat_Riot@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Calling the Beatles a boy band makes it sound like you only ever listened to For Sale and Please Please Me. Even by Help and Hard Day’s Night they had begun to develop some depth, by Rubber Soul they had broken that mold entirely and everything forward was breaking new ground.
    
    Queen was thematic theatrical rock from the beginning building on work that the Beatles pioneered before Queen was ever even thought of.
    
    Both are equally important in music history.
    
    source
    hansolo@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    It’s a joke. A friend in college pretty much only liked the Beatles and the Traveling Wilburys. The quickest way to send her into a spiral was to suggest the Beatles were just a mediocre boy band until they started using drugs.
    
    Chill. And they’re just not for me, just accept that.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Manticore@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Every wannabe edgelord loves to trot out their “Beatles suck” opinion to get people riled up. Really, it just fits the “Hamlet sucks” trope of people who are unaware of historical context. “What’s so great about Hamlet? It’s just a predictable plot tied together with cliches.” In reality, the plot is predictable and the writing cliched because it was so revolutionary for its time everything that has come since has been imitating it.

Same with “Citizen Kane is boring” and “Seinfeld isn’t funny.” There is so much of modern filmmaking that originated from Citizen Kane, and Seinfeld set the bar for every sitcom that came after.

Likewise, the Beatles completely revolutionized pop music. You don’t have to enjoy their music personally, but it’s beyond ignorant to say they sucked.

source
- Pat_Riot@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Not to mention that every one of them was a multi-instrumentalist. I’ve never met another actual musician that failed to at least recognize what they accomplished and contributed.
  
  Besides, Queen as a comparison? Really? Similar level of musicality, just as much a pop band, and I personally find Queen to be far more predictable and less interesting across the breadth of their work.
  
  I personally find calling one band better than another to be cringe especially highly dissimilar artists. Unfortunately I am susceptible to the bait when I should give a shit less what they think.
  
  source