Friday, April 1, 2011

Bands That Suck Balls: THE BEATLES

Generally on this weekly feature I avoid shitting on bands that one would categorize as "classic rock." People will gladly accept criticism of some shitty modern band, but if you criticize a band that happens to be classified as "classic rock" people will really lose their cool. Look at what happened when I mocked Pink Floyd, making completely ridiculous and unfounded statements like "Most people who enjoy Pink Floyd take drugs." I was crucified by both people with attention deficit disorder, and people who felt not liking Pink Floyd indicated I had attention deficit disorder. This is because when it comes to classic rock, you have no choice but to respect and love these bands. You've been told over the years that they're "pioneers," and that they "changed the face of rock music forever" by historians and of course mom and dad. Because of this you are not allowed to express anything but admiration for these bands. One band in particular is the worst example of this syndrome. A band that is not allowed to finish number 2 on any list of the greatest bands, musicians, artists, whatever in rock history. A band tha,t according to music critics, created at least half of the top 10 greatest rock albums of ALL TIME. A band that, no matter what the discussion, is free from ridicule. I am talking of course, about this week's Band That Sucks Balls: THE BEATLES.

God these guys suck so many bowls of nuts. What the fuck is the big deal with The Beatles? They are SO overrated. First of all, lets examine their career, which can basically be split into two separate phases. The first phase of their career was their heartthrob phase when they made teenage girls across the world swoon with a bunch of retarded two and a half minute pop rock songs that I could have written in five minutes. Songs with brilliant lyrics that rhymed "I think you'll understand" with "I wanna hold your hand." Or about loving you "EIGHT days a week" (WTF). Basically a bunch of shitty generic pop songs for kids in the 60s to do the twist to at Spring formal while swinging their hips at least two feet apart from their partner. So nothing in this phase can be associated with rock & roll. During this phase the Beatles were basically N'Sync with bowl cuts and guitars they barely had to strum.

The second phase of their phase of course, was their "innovative" phase. As I've said before "innovative" is often just code for "weird." So it makes logical sense that the Beatles musical "innovation" came after they discovered LSD, expanded their mind and started recording a bunch of nonsensical songs while tripping balls in the studio 24/7. All of these albums are universally considered the most groundbreaking, and revolutionary rock albums ever. Even they often involved songs with stupid kiddie chorus' about walrus,' racoons, and yellow submarines. And their albums used weird production techniques, sound engineering and random instruments the band didn't play like royal trumpets and horns. Since at the time, nobody before them had ever recorded songs about talking animals, and brightly colored sea vessels, or recorded entire "albums" in the traditional sense (with 10 or more tracks on a record, rather than just a pop single with a B side) this was considered grand "innovation." Songs like this stupid jam straight out of a Disney cartoon written by Dr. Seuss were apparently "groundbreaking":

The Beatles are often referred to as "The Fab Four." As if to imply that each member brought something unique and amazing to the table, even though in actuality they all pretty much sucked as rock musicians. To the far and distant left we have George Harrison, the lead guitarist who is often known as "The Quiet Beatle." Which is a nice way of saying he was the biggest pussy in the band. George Harrison spent most of his time as a Beatle being the deep, introspective one who learned about Hinduism while meditating with Ravi Shankar, and writing boring songs like "Here comes the sun." His wife Patti spent most of her time fucking Eric Clapton. To the far right we have good old Ringo Starr who doesn't really have a nickname since "The Useless Beatle" or "The Ugly Beatle" aren't really great monikers to have. His only contribution to the band other than shitty drumming and occasional backup vocals was this retarded song straight out of Spongebob Squarepants:

The two most famous Beatles pictured in the center, were of course Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Outside of his gig as frontman for the most overrated band ever, John Lennon is mostly known for being a stupid whiney hippie accused by the US government of being a Communist party member, who married an ugly Japanese bitch who broke up the band. Seriously how the fuck were you head of the biggest band band in the world and you ended up marrying this disheveled looking beast from the Far East (rather than one of any number of hot Asian slampieces lining up at the docks of Okinawa)? Not to mention she had the voice of a dying ostritch:

Paul was the pretty boy of the bunch that all the chicks loved, and widely considered the mastermind of the Beatles since he was the only one that demonstrated ANY musical talent. I mean at least he went onto a fruitful solo career once The Beatles broke up, with his badass band "Wings" featuring his wife Linda (who wasn't an ugly Japanese woman who sounded like a banshee) and Rad hits like "Maybe I'm Amazed." He did however, write the single most annoying Christmas song ever:

Regardless, Paul at least wrote the few halfway decent Beatles songs, and the band broke up because he didn't get along with Hippie boy Lennon and his ugly ass wife, which I can get behind. So I'll give him some due, although he should have left The Beatles to shine on his own way earlier.

I'm sure I will get plenty of hate mail for this entry since I have never met a person in history that wasn't brainwashed into thinking The Beatles were awesome, or at the very least thought that "you have to respect them." People will probably say they liked my blog, but once I shit on the greatest band ever they lost respect for my writing. They will probably tell me I disrespected a group of rock pioneers and clearly only listen to loud, noisy rock music of no substance. They will also probably stop reading halfway through, ignore the fact that the whole point of my blog is to be funny, and not look at the date of this post and the tags at the end of it, to pick up on what was going on.


  1. Amen! Thank you for slamming the Beatles. So overrated, and yes too many of their songs were written for 5 year-olds. How rock and roll is that???? You did forget to mention the Hello Hello song as one of the most annoying piece of shit songs ever written, although Life Goes On was pretty gaytastic. To the contrary keep up the good work dissing some of these old guys. Next up... Bob Dylan. I insist! Being able to write lyrics and poetry for people high on LSD doesn't make you a musician. You have to be able to sing and play your instruments, which he sort of forgot to learn how to do. Also, amen on Pink Floyd. Overrated garbage.

  2. you guys are fucking dumb and dont know what music is. go back to listening to your screamo bullshit ya fags

    1. "Screamo bullshit". You can't be this retarded to say that, can't you?

      Just because someone says they don't like the Beatles.. chances are none of us listen to "hurr durr screamo".

      Get your head out of your ass, butthurt dick riding Beatles fan.

  3. Very clever, I love the beatles and I laughed the whole way through

  4. I mean you're so wrong on so many levels but I respect you for having the balls. Very well written. The Beatles are the greatest band of all time and I'm not someone who was forced to listen to them as a kid so I'm not the brainwashed type. Any band that can write a song like Michelle AND a song like Helter Skelter probably doesn't suck but to each his own.

  5. Some good points sir. The Beatles are perhaps the most overrated of the "classic rock" bands, though I daresay their influence on other bands is undeniable. I don't think they are the "greatest band of all time" as one person commented, but they were one of the first bands I listened to growing up. I do enjoy several songs in their catalog, in particular from the "weird" phase. But cheers for having what is certainly a unpopular opinion and standing your ground. I shall stay off thy lawn while jamming the Beatles.

  6. I'm sure you're so accomplished yourself.. Enjoy your lonely plunge to the bowels of society :)

  7. Can any of you fucking read? He said it was an April Fool's joke...

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. HAHAHA... this will never be old trash.

  10. There's some relevance here.
    REM is notorious for claiming the Beatles weren't all that good.
    OTOH, Stipe also claims his "personal [alternative] sexual identity" was one of the main things informing his version of alternative rock. Meaning, of course, sucking innumerable filthy shit-sticks is how he got "enlightened" as to what alternative music could/would/should be - for his queer (heavily abused) ass, that is. Obviously, time & again mouthing a filthy prick that just romped your own bleeding asshole is what makes for "great alternative inspiration," in the minds of mental midgets like Stipe - who, by the way, BELONG in the corner (not the spotlight.) But because he's one of the few to "confess" the literal truth about what he literally believes, it's best to put into literal truth what he actually does believe. Same as I've no problem proclaiming that fucking a literal cunt AKA vagina is the way to go (in my humble opinion). Just because it's both natural & normal and no need to preach it doesn't mean my "artistic vision," whatever it may be, amounts to anything more (or less). It's irrelevant is all. Until somebody (even me?) wants to make it so. In Stipe's case, it was HE that decided it'd become historical context for his "musical purposes." So it's he that's expert on how the other half - or rather 1 or 2% - actually lives. In raw numbers, with 7 billion on the planet, 1 or 2% of geeks and freaks, is a LOT of "alternative" viewpoints - and hence a ready-made audience.

    Something similar of the Beatles is true. The world was RIPE for a band that blended R&B (or "roots" Rock 'n' Roll) with especially British folk and even popular forms.

    As one magazine put it, EVERYBODY past infancy knows, in their initial incarnation, the Rolling Stones were the greatest white R&B outfit of all time. It's just a fact. The "other" fact - that the Stones would go on to become the greatest blues-based rock band in history - is never really disputed, except among schoolgirls and hardcore fans of a pedophile such as Michael Jackson (and/or other cocksmokers like Stipe).

    That's partly why REM never TRIED to compare themselves to the Stones (or Allman Bros. [cum Duane] or Little Feat or Led Zeppelin and/or &tc &tc &tc).

    Paul McCartney wrote one or two truly great songs such as "Let It Be" which was certainly no greater than the Stones' "Let It Bleed" even as caricature. "Wild Horses" is probably better than ANYTHING the Beatles ever conceived and Joe Cocker's rendition of "Little Help With My Friends" goes a great distance in showing why the Beatles were such a poor purveyor of blues and R&B. To say nothing of Gospel-blues, which likewise informs other all-time-great blues-based outfits like ZZ Top.

    The BEST example of why the Beatles really sucked the high hard one is to (TRY) and listen John Lennon cover(s) of Little Richard ("Slippin' & Slidin'" e.g.) beings it's slimey Limey screeching whimpers and moans make for the MOST UN-LISTENABLE musical experience in all of Rock (inc. Rock 'n' Roll) history; that's really saying something with among so many horribly bad records including the baleful existence of Lou Reeds' Metal Machine Music.

  11. When I was in Jr High, acts like Elton John (and eventually Billy Joel) were about as entertaining as the Beatles. They were actually no lesser talents than the Beatles - just a little less prolific is all. George Harrison was a pretty good slide guitar player but nowhere near as good as (Stones' session man) Ry Cooder. Anyhow, the Beatles had one or two good songwriters that managed to eek out two or three outstanding songs - and a ton of drivel - over the better part of a decade. But their best guitar work ever was due Eric Clapton, and virtually NOTHING they did musically (studio) compares favorably with the first half-dozen Zeppelin records. Van Morrison (not to mention Dylan) wrote umpteen "better songs than the Beatles," and even Jackson Browne or Warren Zevon have several compositions that put most every Beatles single to shame. The Beatles, were it for teenage girls? probably did more to RUIN the course of popular music (esp. in historical context) than every other act combined; they somehow lended legitimacy (due to the ubiquity of "seminal influence" on late 70's-80's bands with nothing better to do [and all of them become virtually completely ignorant of jazz and blues history]!) to whole hordes of extraordinarily sub-average music wannabees, who couldn't really master any instrument, with the most pusillanimous aspirations - geared towards millions of fans desperate for conspicuous consumption of ANYTHING resembling "cultural cool."

    Face it; much of popular music from the mid-70's onward is regurgitated R 'n R trainwreck and deviants much worse; derivative forms, watered-down schlock-rock where Aerosmith poses as "America's answer to the Stones," and legions of glue-sniffing morons slamming their angst-ridden gray matter against their own craniums, epileptic spasms synchronized to *pale imitations* of Black Sabbath and/or dogshit derivatives of Deep Purple.

    Grand Funk Railroad was ALMOST as good as the Beatles; and that's really SAYING something. But when Lennon took his clothes off for an album cover, and showed his ugly, spindly body next to that ugly gook Yoko, it proved once-and-for-all the "artistic merits" of the whole thing.

    Fuckin' "imagine" is RIGHT!!

    Imagine THOSE TWO - Lennon and his homely gook looking on - with John "performing" Little Richard numbers! Imagine! ... Oh, wait, we don't HAVE to. Disgusting.

    I can't quite figure, given the extraordinarily poor taste(s), which is actually worse: Stipe or Lennon?

  12. LBNL, it's a fairly well known fact Richard Penniman was queer as a two dollar bill and likely smoked a whole lot more than two dollars dick. Nonetheless, he had an UTTERLY FANTASTIC singing voice and wrote several really, really great numbers (a wicked piano player). So he didn't need excuses - his raw talent belied any raw sphincter - and anyhow maybe the drugs did it to him (turned him queer?). Drugs do WEIRD things to peoples' sexuality. Fact.
    Regardless, Little Richard is a musician we still listen to (with excitement - not necessarily the type inferred Lol!) beings he's such a phenomenal talent.

    Try Richard's (live) 1992 European Tour (highlight) "Slipping & Sliding" (e.g.) as an exemplar of a musical genius who consistently maintained his massive talent (unlike Kieth Richards) to the end - despite the superhuman drug intake.

    Paul McCartney? What a miserable little prick.
    It's a known fact "It was Dylan inspired The Beatles 'most innovative' lyrical songwriting period." Probably due to the greater Zimmy influence on John than Paul. McCartney resented Lennon to the bitter end - and it showed. Whatever (paltry) "depth" the Beatles evinced was obviously due to Lennon, and Paul obviously resented it, mainly because he was such a superficial little bitch. Harrison sided with (and teamed with) Zimmy, and that probably created the biggest (and best and most hilarious) of all resentments: Lennon's sheer, utter jealousy of Dylan. What a joke. Zimmy had songwriting talent galore; Lennon had none. Except what he'd "imagined."

  13. Once there was "religious enthusiasm" AKA Gospel fervor; now there's gay fervor - and while occasionally trendy, a little like David Bowie, particularly the overblown Stardust persona, its faddishness is passing. Gay fervor - to most - is little more than nuisance or annoyance. The overwhelmingly vast majority "get" that almost nobody likes an effeminate man. In a pinch, especially in the absence of biological child, the female will "adopt" the queer male companion out of sheer desperation. He might seem slightly more reliable than the cat-like bitches with which she senses "competition." Once engaged, betrothed, or "with child," the queer friend is almost instantly expendable. Non-threatening to begin with, the relation is about as lasting as the ephemeral chatter that formed the fragile bond to begin with. Easy come easy go. Same as gay fervor and just as fleeting.
    "I'm not at all homophobic; I never met a queer I couldn't stomp!" -Mike Tyson