Well, at least your opinion is educated and not just a blind hate. Although I completely disagree with you

Album Rating: 4.5

haha, I like how you pretend to sound smart in this review. Somebody needs to read George Orwell's Politics of the English Language... and also learn how to avoid using passive language. I don't even care about the opinion, it's a joke anyways.

Album Rating: 4.5

It would be awesome if we didn't draw any more attention to this and derek's review....

Album Rating: 4.5

lol, I thought I'd bring it back up.

Album Rating: 4.0

experience Brahms, experience Tchaikovsky, experience Bach.

Album Rating: 5.0

In my opinion... I say": experience the beatles

Album Rating: 5.0

Reviewer clearly isn't an elitist wankpot

Album Rating: 3.5

This review made my day. However, the only thing worse than Beatles elitists, is classical elitists...

Review is awful for a lot of reasons, Nick addressed most of them though. Still one of the greatest albums I've ever heard.

rofl what a great thread

Album Rating: 3.0

lmao

Album Rating: 4.5

tomorrow never knows still sounds like it's from the future



fucking genius song

Album Rating: 4.0

forgot how awesome this review/user is

Album Rating: 3.0

Oh, I absolutely love this rating.



Never mind the fact that I'm not a huge Beatles fan (hell I haven't listened to enough of their songs to rate the album - I had enough listening to the terrible lyrics and relatively simple guitarring while playing Rock Band: Beatles with some friends). I admire the Beatles for revolutionizing music worldwide. (How many bands can say that?)



What I do love is how he goes against the "established" - so to speak - notion that the Beatles are the greatest band ever and actually supports his argument with a handful of examples.



But the biggest thing is his advice of listening to "Tchaikovsky" (I've played piano many, many years longer than guitar so I respect the classics)... The irony with the outrage here is nearly tangible.



Let me explain: It's accepted here to basically dismantle all of simple/mainstream bands for their flaws and to listen, in place of, "better" music (in the eyes of a critic and in many objective tests, as well).

That's all fine and good, BUT: When this same scenario occurs to this community - they take a widely accepted view (that the Beatles have great music, which I'm not denying or supporting) and crush it, using comparisons to "better" music (If you don't think that music is "better" than the Beatles, learn to play piano) - then look what happens.

Outrage. But more importantly, look at the feedback, 23 negs to just 7 pos? Ahh hypocrisy in its fullest.

Album Rating: 3.0

Reading these comments is a joke, too.

Someone said that music doesn't have to be technical to be good - Please, oh please, look at the reviews of popular bands (It can be mainstream rock, metal. Hell it doesn't even have to be non-progressive, just look at any review of a band that is simplistic).



Again the hypocrisy in the community is hilarious.

(By the way, I don't agree with the rating, for what it's worth.)

Album Rating: 5.0

sorry man, in this review you really do come across as a snobbish tosser. You're argument is based on the fact that for a song to be good, it has to be either complex or intsrumentally difficult. I found your quote about the strings on elanor rigby particularly amusing: i'm a classical cellist and pianist, and i think it's brilliantly arranged backing to a beautiful song. just because it doesnt use and 7th flattened 5th chords etc, doesnt make it bad, you fool. And if you think the beatles are responsible for 'the degredation of western society' then youre even more of an idiot than it appears. The beatles revolutionized music in a period of revolution and progression in general society.

tell me, do you like any popular music?

Album Rating: 4.5

Someone said that music doesn't have to be technical to be good - Please, oh please, look at the reviews of popular bands (It can be mainstream rock, metal. Hell it doesn't even have to be non-progressive, just look at any review of a band that is simplistic).

Album Rating: 3.0

There are at least half a dozen reasons why mainstream rock sucks besides being non-technical.



----

I'm not trying to defend my or anyone else's taste (or attack for that matter).

I'm making a point.



To state simply what everyone is trying to say, music doesn't have to be technical to be good.



The purpose of music is for enjoyment right? At the end of the day who cares exactly how technical it is --- if it's enjoyable than listen.



BUT you never addressed my premise. Why is this review, which is well-written and defended well, getting so many negative votes? This person is treating Beatles as "modern-day" (relatively) trash... and proves it isn't as "skilled" as past music. Thus giving it a one. Similarly, people will say ________ band is also trash because it isn't skilled today.



It's the same thing, so can you see the hypocrisy?



As for your "half a dozen reasons why mainstream rock sucks," I already can guarantee that they're all opinion, which is why I could care less.

Album Rating: 5.0

no, in my opinion it isnt well written. it comes across as arrogant and elistist, and many of the the best songs ('and your bird can sing') he just dismisses with unsubstantiated criticism. he obviously doesnt really like much popular music, judging from this review, so why bother review it?

Album Rating: 5.0

Eleanor Rigby is one of the best lyrics ever written