When the world’s most beloved band threw shade, they didn’t mince words. From John’s bitter dismissal of Bob Dylan to George’s brutal words about Neil Young, here’s who made each Beatle see red

The Beatles preached love, peace, and universal harmony. They sang about coming together, giving peace a chance, and all you needing being love. They were, by most accounts, the nicest rock stars on the planet—polite Liverpool lads who changed the world with their infectious optimism and revolutionary music. 🎵

But what doesn’t get mentioned too often is the Beatles could be absolutely savage. And when they hated something—or someone—they didn’t just privately grimace and move on. They went public. They gave interviews. They named names. They threw shade with the precision of seasoned snipers. 💣

The funny part? Each Beatle had completely different taste in who deserved their scorn. John Lennon, the sharp-tongued revolutionary, took aim at folk singers and former heroes. Paul McCartney, Mr. Diplomatic himself, nursed grudges against pop stars who crossed him. George Harrison, the “Quiet Beatle,” turned out to have the sharpest tongue of all when discussing his musical contemporaries. And Ringo? Well, Ringo mostly just wanted everyone to get along, though even he had his limits. 🥁

This isn’t about petty feuds or manufactured beef for publicity. This is about genuine artistic contempt—musicians who rubbed the Beatles the wrong way, whose work they found offensive, whose success they resented, or whose artistic choices they fundamentally rejected. These weren’t casual dislikes. These were passionate, articulate hatreds that the Beatles were surprisingly willing to discuss in public. 😤Sometimes the most interesting thing about icons isn’t who they loved—it’s who they absolutely couldn’t stand. ⚡

John Lennon: The Revolutionary Who Turned on His Heroes

John Lennon never had a problem telling you exactly what he thought. He was brutally honest about his own work, dismissing some of his Beatles songs as “abysmal” and “bullshit.” So when it came to other artists, he was equally frank. 🎤

Bob Dylan: From Hero to Zero

This one stings because of how much John once worshiped Dylan. Bob Dylan wasn’t just an influence on Lennon—he was transformative. Dylan introduced John to marijuana, which altered his songwriting. The Beatles’ entire artistic evolution from “I Want to Hold Your Hand” to “Norwegian Wood” happened largely because Dylan showed them there was more to pop music than jelly-bean love songs. 🌿

But by 1979, Lennon had soured completely. When Dylan released his born-again Christian album “Slow Train Coming,” John recorded a long rambling monologue tearing into it. His assessment was devastating: “He wants to be a waiter for Christ. The backing is mediocre, the singing’s really pathetic, and the words were just embarrassing.”

This from a man who once considered Dylan his creative equal. The irony is thick—Lennon, who spent years exploring Eastern mysticism and radical politics, couldn’t stomach Dylan’s religious conversion. It felt like betrayal, like watching your revolutionary friend join the establishment. John, the strident atheist, had no patience for what he saw as Dylan selling out to Christianity. ✝️

Folk Music’s “Fruity” Stars

Likewise, Lennon had no patience for the folk revival of the 1960s. When Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner made the mistake of comparing Lennon’s “Working Class Hero” to Bob Dylan’s work, John went off on the entire folk scene. “I never liked the fruity Judy Collins and [Joan] Baez and all of that stuff,” he declared bluntly.

“Fruity” was John’s way of saying precious, overwrought, performatively sincere. He saw that era of folk music as pretentious middle-class people cosplaying as the working class—something that particularly irked him as someone who grew up in Liverpool (even though he was raised middle-class). Joan Baez and Judy Collins represented everything John hated: bourgeois guilt dressed up as authenticity, beautiful voices singing about struggles they’d never experienced. 🎻

The savage part? These were massively successful, critically acclaimed artists. Baez was a civil rights icon. Collins had hits. But to John, they were phonies playing dress-up with other people’s pain. His contempt was absolute. 👎

Blood, Sweat & Tears: The Anti-Avant-Garde

Here’s one that surprised people: John Lennon hated Blood, Sweat & Tears. This might have been because their self-titled album won the Grammy that “Abbey Road” was up for—an understandable gripe. But John’s dismissal went deeper than Grammy resentment.

He saw Blood, Sweat & Tears as the antithesis of everything rock and roll should be. They were slick, professional, technically proficient—and utterly soulless in his view. They represented the commercialization and sanitization of rock music, turning rebellion into easy listening for suburban parents. For John, who saw the Beatles as avant-garde revolutionaries, Blood, Sweat & Tears were the enemy: corporate rock dressed up with horns. 🎺

John despised phoniness, blatant commercialism, and anyone he felt had betrayed the revolutionary spirit of rock and roll. His targets weren’t random—they were calculated attacks on what he saw as artistic compromise and spiritual sellout. 🎯

Paul McCartney: Mr. Nice Guy’s Surprisingly Long Grudge List

Paul McCartney is a people-pleaser, the diplomatic Beatle. The charming one. The guy who still tours at 82 and says nice things about everyone. So when Paul actually admits he doesn’t like someone, you know it’s serious. Because Paul doesn’t do public feuds—except when he does. 😬

Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Betrayal

This is the big one. Paul and Michael Jackson were friends. Real friends. They collaborated on hits like “Say Say Say” and “The Girl Is Mine.” Paul trusted Michael. He even gave him advice about investing in music publishing, explaining how valuable song catalogs could be. 🎹

Then in 1985, Michael Jackson bought the ATV catalog—which included the publishing rights to most Beatles songs. Paul, who had been trying to buy back his own compositions for years, felt blindsided. His friend had bought the songs Paul wrote, outbidding him for his own work. 💰

Paul’s public response was measured but cutting:

“I think it’s dodgy to do something like that. To be someone’s friend, and then buy the rug they’re standing on. The trouble is I wrote those songs for nothing and buying them back at these phenomenal sums, I just can’t do it.”

“Dodgy” is British understatement for “backstabbing traitor.” Paul never forgave Jackson, the friendship ended. When Jackson died in 2009, Paul’s statement was brief and notably lacking in warmth. This wasn’t just business—it was personal betrayal at the highest level. 💔

Madonna: Goddess Complex

Paul’s take on Madonna is fascinating because it reveals his own insecurities about pop stardom. In the 2015 book “Conversations with McCartney,” he made his feelings known: he was resentful of her success and the way she’s treated like a “goddess” while everyone else is just the sorry people.

Perhaps this is pure jealousy dressed up as artistic critique. Madonna dominated the 1980s and 1990s the way the Beatles dominated the 1960s, and Paul—who was struggling with Wings and his solo career during Madonna’s peak—clearly resented her cultural dominance. She was getting the kind of worship he once received, and it stung. 👑

The irony: Paul McCartney, one of the most successful musicians in history, complaining about someone else getting too much adulation. But that’s the thing about being a Beatle—once you’ve experienced that level of fame, watching someone else get it feels like theft. 📸

Phil Collins: The Buckingham Palace Incident

This one is just cruel. Phil Collins told the story to The Sunday Times, and it still stings years later. At a 2002 Buckingham Palace event, Collins—himself a massive star—approached Paul with a first edition of Hunter Davies’ Beatles biography and asked him to sign it. 🏰

Paul’s response: “Oh, Heather, our little Phil’s a bit of a Beatles fan.”

“Little Phil.” To one of the most successful drummers in rock history. In front of his then-wife Heather Mills. The condescension drips from every word. Collins was devastated: “And I thought, ‘You fuck, you fuck’. Never forgot it.”

Collins went on:

“He has this thing when he’s talking to you, where he makes you feel [like], ‘I know this must be hard for you because I’m a Beatle. I’m Paul McCartney and it must be very hard for you to actually be holding a conversation with me.’”

Paul has spent decades being diplomatic, but underneath the nice guy exterior lurks someone who knows exactly how important he is and isn’t afraid to remind you. 🎩

Oasis: Derivative Bravado

The Gallagher brothers worshiped the Beatles. They named-dropped them constantly. Noel Gallagher’s entire songwriting aesthetic was Beatles pastiche. So Paul’s dismissal had to hurt: “They’re derivative,” Paul said, though he acknowledged some of their songs had merit.

“Derivative” is the kiss of death for any artist. It means you’re copying, not creating. Coming from Paul McCartney, whose band invented half the rules Oasis was following, it was brutal. The Gallaghers’ cocky comparisons to the Beatles rubbed Paul the wrong way—not because they were ambitious, but because they were right. The prevailing opinion is, Oasis was derivative. They were Beatles knockoffs, and Paul wasn’t about to pretend otherwise. 🎸

This essay continues below. Click on the title of this product to view on Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Anthology Collection (2025 Edition)

George Harrison: The “Quiet Beatle” With the Sharpest Tongue

George Harrison, famous for being quiet and spiritual, had the most savage dismissals of any Beatle. When George hated your work, he didn’t hold back. He didn’t soften the blow. He just told you your music was garbage and moved on with his day. 🙏

Neil Young: “I Hate It”

This is the most shocking one because Neil Young is beloved by basically everyone in rock music. His influence is undeniable. His guitar playing is iconic. Bob Dylan praised him. Pearl Jam idolizes him. Kurt Cobain quoted him in his suicide note. Everyone loves Neil Young. 🎵

Everyone except George Harrison. 😮

In footage from a 1992 recording session, Bob Geldof innocently asked George if he’d heard Neil Young’s “Around the World.” George’s response was immediate and brutal: “I’m not a Neil Young fan. I hate it, yeah I can’t stand it. It’s good for a laugh.” He then mimicked Young’s playing style mockingly, adding that he looked at Eric Clapton during one of Young’s shows, and they both silently agreed it was terrible. 🎭

Total contempt. No qualifications, no “it’s just not my thing.” Just pure hatred. George thought Neil Young’s singing was worse than his own (self-deprecating but still insulting), his guitar playing was laughable, and his entire artistic approach was nonsense. 🎹 Why such vitriol? Maybe George saw Young as getting credit for guitar innovation George felt he deserved. Maybe Young’s deliberately sloppy, emotional approach offended George’s more disciplined sensibility. Whatever the reason, George hated Neil Young’s work with a passion that surprises even hardcore Beatles fans. 😤

Elton John: Formula Music

Elton John—massive star, decades of hits, beloved worldwide. Again, George’s take was dismissive:

“Well, Elton John’s music is something I’ve never thought much of. It all sounds the same, though I think he’s written a good song once … His music is made to a formula: throw in lyrics, throw in four chords, shake well, and there it is, the new Elton John super-hit!”

“A formula” is devastating when you’re talking about an artist’s entire catalog. George was saying Elton John was a hack—competent, professional, successful, but ultimately empty. One good song in his entire career? That’s not criticism—that’s annihilation. 💥

The irony is that George’s own Beatles songs—”Something,” “Here Comes the Sun,” “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”—are a little formulaic themselves. But George saw himself as a spiritual seeker who happened to make music, while Elton John was a showman who made music for money. That distinction mattered to George. 🌟

John’s friendship with Elton didn’t matter much to George.

Oasis: “The Singer Is a Pain”

When George Harrison weighed in on Oasis in 1996, he didn’t pull punches: “The music lacks depth, and the singer Liam is a pain, the rest of the band don’t need him.”

Liam Gallagher’s response was pure Liam: “If any of them old farts have got a problem with me, then they should leave their Zimmer frames at home, and I’ll hold them up with a good right hook.”

Threatening to punch George Harrison? That’s how you know the insult landed. But George was right—Liam was the weak link in Oasis, a decent singer but a legendary ego and limited range. George saw through the swagger to the emptiness beneath. 👊

Sex Pistols and Punk: “Just Rubbish”

George’s dismissal of punk was generational warfare. After punk had imploded, he told Rolling Stone in 1979: “As far as musicianship goes, the punk bands were just rubbish – no finesse in the drumming, just a lot of noise and nothing.”

This was George, the craftsman, rejecting chaos. He’d spent years perfecting his guitar technique and studying Indian classical music, and had no patience for deliberate sloppiness disguised as rebellion. 🎸 Punk was noise, not art. George believed in mastery. Punk believed in destruction. Never the twain shall meet. 🔊

The Hollies: “Rubbish the Way They’ve Done It”

This one started a genuine feud. George wrote “If I Needed Someone” for the Beatles’ “Rubber Soul.” The Hollies covered it as a single. George hated their version, telling NME:

“Tell people that I didn’t write it for The Hollies … Their version is not my kind of music. I think it’s rubbish the way they’ve done it. They’ve spoilt it.” … They sound like session men who’ve just got together in a studio without ever seeing each other before. Technically good, yes. But that’s all.”

Ringo Starr: The Beatle Who Just Wanted Peace

Ringo is the fascinating exception to this whole exercise. Unlike his bandmates, Ringo doesn’t seem to have publicly hated any outside artists—not that he expressed publicly, anyway. In fact, Ringo most often complained about Beatles songs—particularly “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer,” which he called “the worst session ever” because Paul made them record it for weeks. But other musicians? Ringo was cool with everyone. 🥁

The closest Ringo came to public criticism was a family affair, dismissing Paul’s “Ram” album in 1971, telling Melody Maker he felt sad about it. But even that was framed as concern, not contempt. Ringo worried about his friend’s career, he didn’t trash his artistic vision. ❤️

Why was Ringo different? Maybe because he wasn’t a songwriter competing for respect. Maybe because he wasn’t a virtuoso needing to defend his technique. Maybe because Ringo was simply a more secure, less competitive person than his bandmates. Or maybe Ringo understood that being in the Beatles was a miracle, not an achievement to protect. 🌈

Whatever the reason, Ringo stands alone as the Beatle who didn’t tear anyone down. While John, Paul, and George were busy dismissing their contemporaries, Ringo was just happy to be there, playing drums and spreading peace and love.

Elvis: The Saddest Example of All

But perhaps no disappointment cut deeper than Elvis Presley—the original hero who showed four Liverpool kids that rock and roll could change your life. In the 1950s, Elvis was everything: dangerous, sexual, revolutionary, the template for every dream the Beatles would eventually chase. They worshipped him. When they finally met Elvis in 1965 at his Bel Air mansion, it should have been the ultimate validation of their success. Instead, it exposed an uncomfortable truth the Beatles had been avoiding: their idol had become schlock, making terrible movies. John was characteristically blunt about Elvis’s decline, saying in later interviews that Elvis “died when he went into the army” and that his film career was an embarrassing waste of talent. George was equally dismissive, reportedly saying Elvis had “become a joke” by the late 1960s. Even Paul couldn’t hide his disappointment, saying that Elvis had lost his edge and creative fire. 👑

The tragedy of Elvis’s artistic compromise hit the Beatles particularly hard because it represented everything they’d sworn never to become. Here was the man who’d invented their entire world, who’d shown them what rebellion looked like, what raw sexuality sounded like—and he’d sold out for Hollywood paychecks and formulaic soundtracks. For the Beatles, who fought their own management and risked their careers to maintain creative control, Elvis’s capitulation was unforgivable. The king had abdicated, and his former disciples never quite forgave him for it. 🎬

The Uncomfortable Truth About Icons

The Beatles weren’t saints. They were competitive, insecure, sometimes petty men who happened to make transcendent music. Their hatreds weren’t noble artistic stands—they were the same jealousies, resentments, and ego battles that plague every musician. The only difference is we care more because they’re Beatles. 🎵

But here’s what makes their hatreds valuable: they were honest about them. In an era where everyone is carefully media-trained and PR-managed, the Beatles just said what they thought. 💬

We live in a time where everyone pretends to respect everyone else’s art. Where criticism is framed as “personal preference” and genuine dislike is hidden behind diplomatic language. The Beatles didn’t do that. They told you exactly what they thought, and if that hurt your feelings, tough luck. 💪

Maybe that’s the real reason we still care about the Beatles sixty years later. Not just because their music was revolutionary, but because they were real. They loved passionately and hated honestly. They made enemies and didn’t apologize for it. They had opinions and shared them, consequences be damned. 🔥

Because being the Beatles meant never having to say you’re sorry for your opinions. And that, more than any song they wrote, might be their most revolutionary legacy. 🎸

What do you think? Were the Beatles justified in their hatreds, or were they just bitter ex-bandmates tearing down their competition? And which Beatle’s take surprises you most? Drop your thoughts in the comments. 💭