Lennon v Mothersbaugh

Whereas I really do loathe almost every single Beatles song that I have ever had the misfortune of hearing over and over again, I do think that Lennon was the least galling of the lot of them.

I think it is because you can see that he seemed to mean what he said on some level.

McCartney, however, seems like an insincere oaf.

The Beatles (or rather the combined writing duo of McCartney/Lennon) were pop song geniuses.
And therein lies their problem. They are over-hyped and played to death.
So I understand the critique against the hype and the ubiquity, but I will defend their output on its own merit any day.

On its own merit, I find those McCartney/Lennon songs to be mostly average rock songs, and those that I do not find utterly pedestrian, I find downright annoying.

I have, on rare occasions, found Lennon's solo material to be all right, and on even more rare occasions, found Harrison's solo material to be bearable.

McCartney, to me, is most diagreeable, both on a personal, and professional level.

elvis proved that cracker-fied verisons of negro classics could make southern gentlemen some spending money, but the beatles, they had plush dollies and launched AOR as a viable radio option!

all great artists plagiarise. mothersbaugh wins. and lennon was a notorious arsehole, so i am not sure what greg is getting at.

congrats everyone else on making the thread about the beatles and not devo. you are what you hate, as they say.

No that is where YOU are wrong.

You had the perfect opportunity to say "yeah sure the Beatles suck but HEY! what about DEVO?" and then go on about their awesomeness.

But you SPURNED it.

But DEVO are playing in my hometown sometime around now. I wish I was there, to see them, in their funny hats, seated, pressing little buttons on their keyboards.

(Anyway I like the Beatles. If you guys have a problem with their overexposure stop listening to commercial radio.)

As a devo-manis, I take issue to your characterization.