DanVerlaine

Then I didn’t say I hate the album, quite the opposite. It's just that reading that the Beatles are among the great innovators of rock left me stunned. I believe that if one were a bit more familiar with the music of the '60s, certain things wouldn't be said. Moreover, I think one can be great even without having invented anything.

They had an impact on fashion and habits of the time, just as tronisti unfortunately have on today's teenagers. Impact on fashion and habits, but the music of the Beatles contributed very marginally to the culture of the 20th century.

Frankly, this is an attitude I don't understand. You use Scaruffi to discredit what someone writes. Everyone, to varying degrees, in one way or another, is influenced by ideas, opinions, theories, and analyses of others regarding everything we think, so I don't see where the problem lies if I share some things that Scaruffi says about the Beatles. I’ve been fighting against the dominant opinion that the Beatles are the "greatest of all time" long before I read Scaruffi.
Why should someone who idolizes the Beatles express a clearer opinion than mine about their records?? Uhm... I have the vague impression that there are infinitely more people who uncritically praise the Beatles than those who uncritically let themselves be swayed by Scaruffi’s rhetoric. I don't believe that Scaruffi is the oracle of truth, and it's obvious that if I took everything he writes at face value, I would be an idiot.
However, it seems rather frivolous to either take everything Scaruffi says at face value or to dismiss him outright. I speak based on my critical spirit, my tastes, and my knowledge. I find Piero Scaruffi interesting; I read him with pleasure even if sometimes I strongly disagree with him, and I don't fully agree with him even on the Beatles. I didn't paraphrase Scaruffi; I expressed ideas that I believe (going by memory) coincide with what he thinks, along with other things that I don't think he has ever said.

Sorry, I lost an "h".

Good collection of songs even if it’s obviously an overrated album with very little that’s innovative. There are some of the best Beatles tracks alongside decidedly forgettable episodes from their career. Let’s avoid attributing a cultural weight to the Beatles that they never had. The importance of the Beatles for twentieth-century culture has been quite negligible, practically none. Their songs don’t narrate anything about the world they lived in. They had some “social” impulses, but their language was always so suspended and metaphorical that it never really disturbed anyone. They wrote just a couple of bolder lyrics about sex when the Rolling Stones had been talking about libido for years. The Beatles were one of the bands that worst represented the youth of the '60s; perhaps the Beatles represented more the fathers than the sons. Considering the strongly social and protest characterization of true rock at the end of the '60s, the Beatles were certainly not a rock band; in fact, they were the denial of rock. They were a good pop band. The Doors were rock, the Grateful Dead, not the Beatles. That doesn’t take away from the fact that this album has several good songs, but let’s avoid blaspheming.

Child's disk. Inaccurate receipt.

Music for children.

Disc for Beatles fetishists.

But how the hell can you say that the Beatles were innovative compared to Dylan and the Velvet Underground?? Anyone who says such things cannot possibly know the music of the '60s. Then you say that Lou Reed only made one interesting album? Why is Transformer so terrible? And anyway, the point is that I feel sorry for the Beatles fans, but The Velvet Underground And Nico alone is more innovative than 3-5 of the entire Beatles discography.

Discreet album. Overrated by most people.
They taught you to think it's a masterpiece, so you do, which comes easily to you because it's a super catchy album.
Well-crafted little songs that don’t say much.
When the Beatles were still writing banalities, there was a certain Jim Morrison writing lyrics about the Oedipus complex. The Beatles were always an institutional band, not really willing to take risks; rock is about courage and the Beatles were never a courageous band.