>>70687904Remember, when The Beatles first got big, they were widely derided as trash, which they were. Some examples of Beatles hate from that period:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-2Tcuzy0Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6jzdbp1ni8To be honest, the early Beatles hate/backlash is eerily remeniscent of the Justin Bieber backlash of the early 2010s. People made fun of their respective haircuts and their screaming tween girl fanbases, and accused them of pandering, as well as cynically cranking out songs that just use "love" a lot, but which didn't show much emotional depth or maturity. In both cases, I think the backlash was deserved.
The Illuminatus! trilogy, which is totally worth reading, was written a little afterward, when The Beatles had become a better band and became more respectable, and it pokes fun at this reversal in the opinions of critics. (A subplot involves a fictional band suddenly being regarded as the "best ever," simply because the Illuminati needs this to happen. This band is then compared by one of the characters directly to The Beatles.) The books were written by two authors who I would consider very authoritative on the subject of rock journalism, as they both wrote for at Playboy during that time.
I think this trend was also deserved, to some extent-- the beatles really did get better and start producing more interesting music. But there are people who, hearing about The Beatles' current positive reputation, end up unironically listening to the Justin Beiber of 50 years ago, and thinking themselves sophisticated for doing so. But from this trend, I extrapolate a bright future for Justin Bieber.
