EDIT: this is hilarious, and not unexpected. As soon as you say something against the Beatles, all the self-described "experts" come out to tell you "you're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong".
A fairly huge percentage of the people who really rock music and/or make rock music think the Beatles were great. (edit: but even within that group there's plenty of dissent and/or disinterest)
I guess I can identify with people who feel like they've had them shoved down their throat. I feel that way about a lot of Dylan and the Stones and a few other darlings.
Funny, though. I've never heard "you had to be there" about these acts. I certainly love the Beatles and was not there.
I do think that your experience with the Beatles, as with nearly all art, will be greatly enhanced by some contextual awareness on your behalf. If that's not your cup of tea that's completely OK though. There is no reason you need to like or care about any particular art. I'm sure you have other things in life that you enjoy.
I might think it's a bit of a shame, but I also think it's a shame that I don't like cauliflower.
I also hate cauliflower. What is a shame is how others will try to sneak cauliflower into your meals, despite your assertions that you have already explored the full breadth of cauliflower and still find nothing there for your liking.
"Oh, but you've never had it as a pizza crust!"
I assure you, I have. I still hated it. Stop trying to assume you know more about my lived experience than me.
So it is with The Beatles. I have listened to it. I do understand the cultural context. I still don't like it. So kindly please get off my front porch.
It certainly says something about your experiences, though. People must have been attempting to cram the Beatles into your life in some extremely obnoxious ways if you feel like this.
I'm sorry you dealt with that.
If people obnoxiously forced the Beatles on me, I'd probably feel the same as you. I mean that sincerely.
Have you tried it breaded (broken to smaller pieces) and deep fried, then after cutting, sprinkle salt on each piece? It's pretty good and popular here in Czechia, only other way I ate cauliflower I think it's boiled in vegetable soup.
When I see people dunking on the Beatles or Tolkien, I think wow, there is a person who's really dedicated to not giving a crap about those forms of art.
Which is... fine, but what a loss.
You can stroll around a museum and treat strictly as a picture gallery, devoid of all context, or you can really get into things on a whole other level. So many famous works really come to life that way.
Either choice is okay.
“You’re entitled to your opinion, but if you don’t agree with me you must not be capable of enjoying music”
In point of fact, all I really said was that "I don't get it". I specifically stayed completely away from making any kind of direct, critical judgement of the Beatles themselves.
Maybe you might be able to see how one might see such replies as overly-defensive.
I don't care for your assertion of only two sides:
"Beatles fans" and "those who don't put effort into
understanding art."
However, that's not the assertion I made. Not even close.
I specifically said "those forms of art", not "art" in totality. I'm sure there's a lot of art you enjoy.
I also referred specifically to those who feel the need to dunk on the Beatles, not merely people who don't care for them. It's absolutely incomprehensible to me when people go out of their way to click on an article about artist XYZ simply so they can tell the world how they don't understand or don't like that artist. What an odd impulse.
Anything about the Beatles seems to draw out this sort of reaction (and counter-reaction, and counter-counter-reaction...)
Also, the first album is basically enthusiastic teens manipulated by a record company. So try the more mature albums, starting at Rubber Soul as others said.
I think the true legacy of The Beatles is that they were the first band to understand that about themselves.
But to then assign unique artistic genius to that output--that's completely ignoring that competition existed at all. Like how some fanboys seem to think Apple invented the smartphone.
Well, at one point Dylan told Lennon that his lyrics were shit ... so you're not wrong ...
People forget that the Beatles rode a technology wave, as well. TV uptake meant that the they were in the right place and right time to be a cute Boy Band. Audio recording technology underwent a vast shift and improvement in less than 10 years. The Beatles also happened to actually have talent and be very good musicians. And managed to have a band that didn't implode until after they generated a solid catalog.
Maybe they weren't first at everything they did, but they were close enough to first and had a reach due to their Boy Band years that nobody else could possibly match. So, The Beatles doing something novel was invariably how anybody not directly in the "scene" would find out about it.
People also forget that The Hollies were arguably more popular than The Beatles back in the UK. However, America was the music market at that point.
Another example is "The times they are a-changing". The lyrics were amazing and really resonated with a huge segment of the young. But if you just listen to it as music, you realize that Dylan can't sing, and it's not a very good composition.
Of course a lot of people prefer the Byrds cover, which is great in its own way.