I totally agree that what PS says about The Beatles not being innovative or creative is rubbish. I think The Beatles are head and shoulders the greatest band to have walked this earth. I don't think that at any point I said I agreed with what PS said (nor did I mean to imply that what you said was rubbish). I was playing devils advocate really, trying to think of some counter arguements that weren't based simply on personal taste.
Re Richard Buckle - all the bio's I read about him called him a ballet critic, so I took the plunge. The drunk thing was a joke (hence the smiley face) because they also mentioned his love of the drink. He was also a raging queen, and I was going to say he probably only liked the Beatles because of the "Epstein effect". And really, I don't see how composing music for a ballet ( a bit of a misnomer - it was only a brief instrumental) gives a rock and roll band any kudos. Kind of puts them in late Elton John territory.
I used the single Dylan quote to counter your own (that made it 1-1 and even stevens.) I totally agree that The Beatles had a huge influence on Dylan. Again, I was just arguing because it's fun, and to show it's easy to pull up individual facts and quotes that suit your own side.
But I stand by what I said about Mann. I think his little essay did more harm than good.
At the end of the day though we are very much on the same side. I think the difference is I welcome debates with people like Mr PS. It's why I joined a forum in the first place (how boring would it be if we just sat here all day agreeing with each other.)
All the power to you. Please don't take this too seriously. And welcome by the way.

Quoted from Kevin

I totally agree that what PS says about The Beatles not being innovative or creative is rubbish. I think The Beatles are head and shoulders the greatest band to have walked this earth. I don't think that at any point I said I agreed with what PS said (nor did I mean to imply that what you said was rubbish). I was playing devils advocate really, trying to think of some counter arguements that weren't based simply on personal taste.
Re Richard Buckle - all the bio's I read about him called him a ballet critic, so I took the plunge. The drunk thing was a joke (hence the smiley face) because they also mentioned his love of the drink. He was also a raging queen, and I was going to say he probably only liked the Beatles because of the "Epstein effect". And really, I don't see how composing music for a ballet ( a bit of a misnomer - it was only a brief instrumental) gives a rock and roll band any kudos. Kind of puts them in late Elton John territory.
I used the single Dylan quote to counter your own (that made it 1-1 and even stevens.) I totally agree that The Beatles had a huge influence on Dylan. Again, I was just arguing because it's fun, and to show it's easy to pull up individual facts and quotes that suit your own side.
But I stand by what I said about Mann. I think his little essay did more harm than good.
At the end of the day though we are very much on the same side. I think the difference is I welcome debates with people like Mr PS. It's why I joined a forum in the first place (how boring would it be if we just sat here all day agreeing with each other.)
All the power to you. Please don't take this too seriously. And welcome by the way.

But Kevin,I will say it again, what Scaruffi says are not  his "opinions" they are totally inaccurate and false!  Some things are just opinions but there is such a thing as facts  and  ignorant misperceptions and myths. I gave strong factual evidence that totally debunks the garbage he says. For example when he claims that no musicians of  The Beatles time praised them and couldn't understand why they were held in such high regard, it's totally untrue and I listed countless well known musicians and music artists that *have* prasied them and some even played on  their solo albums. Many as I wrote about in my orginal post have also praised them as musicians as well When Scaruffi says the stupid crap that The Beatles never did anything of creative depth and weren't  innovative, I gave an excellent source,The Beatles Recording Sesions by Mark Lewisohn that has many of their recording enginers and tape operators and they were *there*  describing in details how truly innovative,inventive and creative they  realy *were* !  So again,it's just not true what he says and  there isn't any other side here.  And the fact that John and Paul could write music for a ballet Mods and Rockers and also write great rock music just goes to show how diverse  and brilliantly  talented they were at *all* types of music. Scaruffi doesn't know what the he*  he's talking about!


On a web site Historic Lists The Greatest Rock Groups and Guitarists of All Time, many people are saying The Beatles were the greatest rock band of all time. But there were  some idiots on here too saying really ignorant negative things about them. So, many people who know the facts  tried to correct them. One guy John says to  one of these ignoramuses, after he went into a lot of details about how innovative The Beatles really were,that this guy is like Beatles hater Piero Scaruffi,he's clueless and that if he doesn't like The Beatles fine(it's never fine or understandable with me though!) but at least get your facts straight before you post!  There was a 24 year old guy from Australia who said The Beatles are the greatest band ever and that they wrote so many great songs! A 16 year old guy also said he's only 16 and he knows The Beatles are the greatest band ever and he said anyone who doesn't think so should listen to Rubber Soul,Abbey Road Magical Mystery Tour The white album and see what a mistake they are making! I just read a post from a total moron on there now, who gets quotes from some other online article that claims The Beatles couldn't  sing they could only shout,and they were the worst group and musicians ever,and that they just stole things from other people! A guy George on there who says his favorite group is Led Zeppelin,says to this guy are you a joke? He went  on to  give many examples of  how innovative The Beatles were and said he could go on about The Beatles musical merits but he doesn't have time to write a book! He also mentions that  wikipedia the online encyclopedia explains The Beatles are the most critically acclaimed and best selling music groups and artist of all time! He said the recent issue of Q magazine says they are the most  essential rock artists of all time! Take that Scaruffi and anyone who listens to him!


Also as I said there have been plenty of other serious music scholars that have written about and praised The Beatles.

If want to get huge publicity knock the biggest thing on the planet in music and away you go .If he was going to make a name for himself who would be better than the beatles.
Would any one care if his was decrediting the backstreet boys? no.
As ERIC CANTONA said "people who call you know you exsist".

Mr.kite, you are *so* right! I have said it's very obvious that  Scaruffi  really hates the fact that  *his* favorite groups  and music artists are not the most critically acclaimed and the most popular,and since The Beatles are he resents them and he has this irational thing against them! I'm sure that  he would say the same garbage about any other group that he wasn't a fan of if they  were the most popular and  critically acclaimed! You know he even says that The Beatles (he means early Beatles) haircuts were  a lot like comedian Ish Kabibble's!  To even mention such a thing is so ridiculous and irrelevant!

This was originally posted by fanofthefab4

On a site called ilXor.com,  they have a topic posted August 2006 ,Is There Anyone Here Who Genuinely  dislikes Or Hates The Beatles? And unfortunately someone  posts a highlighted link to that horrible  Piero Scaruffi's page and article he wrote about The Beatles!  There were quite a few agreeing with him and saying that he's right on the money about a lot of things. They quoted him saying that The Beatles "innovations" were just a watered down and coppied version of lesser known artists and Scaruffi's quotes that in Beatles songs there were no kids running in the streets,no politics,no drugs,no sex, and no violence.In the world of The Beatles the social order of the 40's and 50's still reigns,and he says at best they were influential on the secret deams of young girls and on the haircuts of young nerdy boys. Several posters pointed out Why Don't we Do it in The Road,and Happines is A Warm Gun for being Sex and drug songs.  But there are other Beatles sex and drugs songs, Day Tripper from late 1965 was about sex and drugs,Paul's Got To Get You Into My Life was an ode to pot, Dr.Robert was about a doctor who gave drugs to his patients, and A Day in The Life  with the verses I 'd Love To Turn You On were about LSD and Girl has John and Paul singing T*t over and over in the backround. John's Revolution was political too! A guy on this board this  Tim said Scaruffi's page about The Beatles is a horrah and he didn't want to read through this garbage again! He said they were a great rock group,and another guy said they were the most consistent pop/rock great writers ever.

Quoted from fanofthefab4

A poster Tim, on ilXor.com calls Piero Scaruffi's anti-Beatles page a horrah and said he doesn't want to read through that garbage again! And then he said I mean Wow. He said  The Beatles were a great rock group. But there were quite a few people agreeing with a poster on here who said everything he hates about The Beatles is their trite lyrics, their voices, drunken pub sing a long melodies,nasally singing and cluncky sound. He and the few who agrees with him must have them mixed up with some other singers and groups! Bob Dylan as many people have said over the years  has nver had a good singing voice, and Tom Petty's is a very nassaly annoying voice, and Bruce Springteen's voice is the worst I ever heard,he sounds like he's throwing up to a music backing. But John and Paul were as The All Music Guide and many others have said,among the best  and most expressive singers in rock! John Lennon especially had such a unique beautiful voice,just listen to him sing This Boy especially the middle part,Dear Prudence, If I Fell, In My Life etc etc and  he also had a great rock voice too,Revolution, Money, Happiness is A Warm Gun,etc etc. George Martin says John's is one of the best voices he ever heard. And recording engineers said they always were amazed by John's voice and wanted to hear it live,and when The Beatles recorded Baby You're A Rich Man in May 1967,they said  how great John's voice  was and they couldn't belive that anyone could sing that well! And of course Paul has always been a great singer with a very good sounding voice and  has both a great love song and great rock voice with a great range. I just can't understand some people!

Quoted from 197

Well whenever i hear someone who doesn't like the beatles for good reason, i just think 'hah, if only they knew what they're missing out on', so in other words, their the suckers really for not knowing how much pleasure (musical ) they can really get out of them..i'd give anything to re-discover the beatles again, knowing hardly any of their stuff. Thank god we've discovered them is what i say!

Not liking The Beatles for *good* reason? I hope you meant for no good reason! Because as we know there isn't any good reason not to like them except maybe a few songs. And otherwise it wouldn't make any sense with the rest of what you said. But everything else you said is so right on!  I have posted this on this site already but I'm going to tell you,that I have found  over 40  former Beatles haters on many different message  boards and web sites who are now big Beatles fans. I didn't communicate with them at all,but they wrote that they had a lot of misperceptions about them and  hadn't even heard most of their albums and  songs. Most people  of all ages love or at least like The Beatles worldwide,and most people don't hate them in the first place. But most people don't  go from hating a group to loving them and becoming big fans! This just really goes to show how great The Beatles really are!  If you type in quotes " I used to hate The Beatles" on the google.com search engine you will find these people.

I just read his Beatle review (well most of it, I got bored).
His arguement about The music isn't really that new. That there were bands producing experiamental or new music that were totally ignored by the public, and hence the mainstream media (or maybe it's vice versa) you can't really argue about. That The Beatles absorbed these influences like a sponge and reproduced them in a more commercially succesful way is also quite right. I've read a similar line in Q (which is VERY Beatle friendly). But they deemed it as a positive, not a negative. The Beatles were, after all, in the business of selling records, and by the bucket load. What's the point in being new and experimental, making one album that noone listens to and dissapearing? According to Q (and I have to go with them) their genius was their receptiveness to all things new and their ability to take all these disparate and fringe ideas and turn them into something that can get played on the radio. (wasn't the backwards guitar thing a result of Paul's infatuation with Stockhausen and the likes?) And before anyone yells at me that's no easy thing - noone else could do it. So Q turn into a positive and PS turns it into a negative. Everyones got an arguement, everyone can take the same facts and come to a different conclusion.
His socio-philosphical arguements are out of my league. He seems to accuse The Beatles of being part of a middle class conspiracy to take black music out of rock and roll and replace it with nice smiley commercial friendly white faces, to make the revolution less of a threat. But then he seems to be the kind of "free thinker" that thinks all middle classes are unwitting brainwashed sheep. Baaaa!

Kevin,

The Beatles did *hell* of a lot more than copy other people's music and thats not even what they did most of the time! Just because they were influenced by other music artists,a hell of lot more music artists copied *them* ! The Rolling Stones for example often copied The Beatles and their 1967 Their Satanic  Majesties Request was a blatant rip off of Sgt Pepper but idiots like Scaruffi are not going to mention this! Many people including music reviewers Wilson and Alroy  have said that Led Zeppelin often ripped off other music groups and artists guitar riffs and made it seem orginal! I just posted on here before that a guy on a site  ilXor.com said that Scaruffi's article about The Beatles is a horrah and he said I mean WOW and  he said he didn't want to read that garbage again!  I suggest you go to a library and read Mark Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions  and then maybe you will see I'm right!  Scaruffi  as I said claims that The Beatles had no creative depth and did nothing innovative, but he thinks The Fugs who I never heard of were and The Doors who many have said were pretntious crap and weren't good musicicans, they didn't even have a bass player let alone one as great as Paul who in addition was always a great singer and musical composer, and  claims that no musicians of The Beatles time praised them and couldn't understand why they were held in such high regard. I *already* gave *many* factual examples of how this is totally false!  I'm not going to list all of the examples and countless well known musicians  again who *have* praised them!


He also claims there were no drugs,sex or politics in Beatles songs I also listed many songs that *did* have sex and drugs in them and John's Revolution *was* a political song! Which is just *another* example of how he doesn't know what he's talking about! He also says The Beatles(he has to mean the early Beatles) haircuts were like comedien Ish Kibibble's that is ridiculous to even mention and irelevant! He claims that the reason The Beatles who he calls just 4 mediocre musicians are the most popular critically acclaimed group of all time is because they just made music with nice melodies that appeals to the masses and because of George Martin and Brian Epstein's marketing. Can he explain all of the one hit wonders and the other groups that had good marketing but really were artificial pop groups that didn't become the most popular and crtically acclaimed group even 37 years after they broke up and Brian Epstein has been dead 40 years now?  A named George on this site Historic Lists The Greatest Rock Bands and Guitarists of All time says the recent Q magazine calls The Beatles The Most Essential rock artists of all time. Q Magazine doesn't say The Beatles never did anything innovative or creative and doesn't call them mediocre musicians who just had nice melodies for the masses and were popular mostly because of George Martin and Brian Epstein's marketing! As I said the wikipedia online encylopedia says most rock critics around the world disagree with him about The Beatles! Look up The Beatles biography on The All Music Guide online and you will see that they say they were the single greatest rock act of all time and introcuced more innovations into music than anyone!  You know Beatles haters use Scaruffi as a reference source something to keep in mind when you say you are a Beatles fan on a Beatles fan site!

I also want to mention that I have found more than a few people on different message boards saying that they don't like Mick Jagger's or Rober Plant's voices. And  Frank Marino the guitarist from the hard rock group Mahogany Rush says on two online interviews that he has always hated The Rollling Stones  but he still likes and listens to  The Beatles,Jimi Hendrix etc. And Nick Navarro from Jane's Adiction is quoted on a Jane's Addiction web site from Guitar World in 1991 and 1996 saying he has always hated The Rolling Stones and he always will and he will  never play an album by them!

OK, lets get this straight. I'm not on this guys side, just trying to show how someone can look at something and come to a totally different conclusion.
I never said The Beatles did nothing but copy other peoples work. That's silly. What I said was "their genius was their receptiveness to all things new and their ability to take all these disparate and fringe ideas and turn them into something that can get played on the radio." . Totally different meaning. You lept to the wrong conclusion and started talking about people "ripping off" things. Totally off the mark.
Where would they have been without Dylan, The Byrds and Brian Wilson? And yes, I've read Lewishon's book. And I was trying to show how Q magazine had that same belief, but turned into a positive. It is no detriment that they went away and listened to music outside the mainstream and used these influences to create incredibly fantastic music that was of huge influence to others. I think it boils down to what you think "innovative" and "creative" mean. I don't agree with him, but I can see Mr PS's background (left wing academic) might mean that he places different meanings to these words than me.
I agree he's wrong about The Beatles not recieving contempary praise. We know they did.
The sex and drugs thing - to be honest I listened to all those songs for years without realising their "hidden" meanings.You must agree that they are exceptionally vague. Mr PS could well argue that what is the validity of having these references if noone knows they're there. He would argue that everyone knew what "Mothers Little Helper" and "Lets Spend The Night Together" were about. Then you would say their genius was their subtelty, their ability to insert  subversive meanings into otherwise harmless songs. And on it goes.
The haircut thing - you're both being silly.
And the popularity thing - I think he went to extrordinory lengths to say why he thought what he thought. I, like you, don't agree with him. But he's not an idiot, and as I said a lot of things were out of my league.
My friend - I agree with most of what you say about The Beatles. It's just that your fanatical zealousness makes Al-Queeda (sp) look like boyscouts. And do you really go around websites identifying former "Beatle Haters."

ps I'd be careful about using Hunter Davies as a reference (authorised should be replaced by "sanatised"), or for that matter Anthology. The Beatles openly said they were telling their side of the story. Great chunks are missing (Yoko and the breakup get nary a mention) and time can colour even the greatest of memories.

I am not fanatical I'm very knowledgeable about The Beatles and I'm trying correct the ignorant inaccurate garbage Scaruffi says about The Beatles and yes he is an idiot about them!  How am being silly about pointing out that Scaruffi is stupid to mention The Beatles haircuts were like comedien Ish Kibibbles?  You using The Rolling Stones songs as more blatant examples after I gave many Beatles song examples of sex and drugs, just sounds again like you are not a true fan! No matter what I point out you always try to discredit it!  Where would The Beatles have been without Bob Dylan,The Byrds and The Beach Boys? Well lets see it was Roger Mguin himself who admitted that after seeing The George Harrison playing his 12 string guitar,The Byrds started playing them! Brian Wilson said after he heard The Beatles Rubber Soul,he was blown away by it! He said all of the songs flowed together,and it was pop music but folk rock at the same time,and this is what he couldn't believe. He said this is what motivated him to make Pet Sounds!  And it's been said that Bob Dylan went electric because of The Beatles,so where would *they* all be without *them*!

I  said I found many former Beatles haters on web sites by searching on google.com whats wrong with that I'm glad I found out about them! And I really resent you calling me fantatical when I am tyring to debunk his inaccrate ignorant Beatle hating crap that he's putting out there! I have a good idea why don't you start to write with Scaruffi instead of being on this site!

People should realize that whenever a music critic writes something it's just the opinion of one individual person. A music critic's opinion is just as (un)important as anyone else's, the only difference is that music cricits have a platform.

I'm a music critic as well and whenever someone doesn't agree with one of my reviews I have a simple reply: your band sells 10/20/100 times as many records as my band, so why would you ever care?

1) I apologize that my using of the word fanatical has upset you.
2) Life's too short to argue about other people's haircuts.
3). If being a true fan means I can't praise The Stones then I don't want to be one.
4) What's wrong with googling " I hate The Beatles" in order to track down nonbelievers? Um, er, nothing I guess. Unless.....
"You know Beatles haters use Scaruffi as a reference source something to keep in mind when you say you are a Beatles fan on a Beatles fan site!"
Ah The Beatle Haters. They're everywhere you know, watching, waiting......

Quoted from Joost

People should realize that whenever a music critic writes something it's just the opinion of one individual person. A music critic's opinion is just as (un)important as anyone else's, the only difference is that music cricits have a platform.

I'm a music critic as well and whenever someone doesn't agree with one of my reviews I have a simple reply: your band sells 10/20/100 times as many records as my band, so why would you ever care?

Because in Saruffi's case as I already pointed out extensively it's not just an "opinion" he is really ignorant and misinformed and a biased Beatles hater! I have already pointed out the facts that show he's wrong!  If he said John Lennon had blonde hair and blue eyes would that be just an opinion or an incorrect statement?