When pop music is compositionally complex and musically forward-thinking

>>51331833
You are completely ignorant retarded, catchy music is the lowest kind

Looking for complex? Looking for forward-thinking? In pop?

What a joke.

File: hm.png (315KB, 556x674px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 556x674px

>>51331902
>You are completely ignorant retarded

>>51331902
*ignorant and retarded

Seriously, how dense do you have to be to actually think the Beatles are the peak in music of any kind

>>51331918
Quote me where I said that.

>patrician pop
top b8 m9

>>51331936
>could it be argued that it's the best kind of music
>I have a hard time viewing them as anything less than the most talented kind of musician
>Picture attached is the Beatles as an example of this
What are you backpedaling now?

>>51331961
Did I ever say the Beatles were the peak of music in any of those two lines?

>pop
No. If something is popular, that means it has wider appeal, which means it cannot be superior, because it isn't as refined.

>influence
Who gives a shit.

By the way, the Beatles won't be remembered in another 50 years. Their success is mainly based on the uprise of novelty music during the late 50's and their continued success is because of baby boomers. There was a musician who influenced pretty much all modern pop, including the beatles, elvis, etc, who came just less than 10 years before them, and you probably have no idea who she is, despite being 100 times more important to modern music. Not to mention there is an entire 50+ year old generation of music before them who most people are oblivious to.

>>51331951
Good argument.

>>51331975
>No. If something is popular, that means it has wider appeal, which means it cannot be superior, because it isn't as refined.

Why?

>Who gives a shit.

Who wouldn't? Why don't you?

>By the way, the Beatles won't be remembered in another 50 years. Their success is mainly based on the uprise of novelty music during the late 50's and their continued success is because of baby boomers. There was a musician who influenced pretty much all modern pop, including the beatles, elvis, etc, who came just less than 10 years before them, and you probably have no idea who she is, despite being 100 times more important to modern music. Not to mention there is an entire 50+ year old generation of music before them who most people are oblivious to.

Those aren't really convincing arguments and you have no real way of knowing if the Beatles will be remembered 50 years from now.

>>51331970
Why did you post the picture of the Beatles then? What is this "influential" and "complex" pop band you are talking about then?

File: JohnCaleParis1919.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

Can't we agree that pop music is different than rock music and there exists good stuff regardless of commercial intent or appeal?
Pic very related.

>>51332014
The Beatles are an example of a good pop-oriented band that had the qualities I listed in the OP, which is what I believe to be criteria for the most talented kind of musician. I never said anything about the "peak of music".

>>51332030
>Can't we agree that pop music is different than rock music
Uh, no shit, dumbass? Maybe that's why they are named differently

>and there exists good stuff regardless of commercial intent or appeal?
Listen to whatever you want man, nobody is stopping you, you don't need people's approval

>>51332030
Been meaning to listen to this album, is it good?

>>51332031
>could it be argued that it's the best kind of music
Best does equal peak

>>51332073
no

>>51332077
I never explicitly stated that any single band was the peak of music.

>>51332073
It's great imo.
It's really everything you want in a good pop album.
Catchy,Detailed and good vocals.
>>51332051
>Uh no shit dumbass that's why they're named differently
Really if you get down to it the term "Pop" Means Popular.
I'm referring to it as a different music style than traditional rock music while still being related to it.
In my mind pop music is more focused on Details and production than rock and is more likely to use standard rock tropes (I.e Solos) as embellishment than as core elements of a song.
>Listen to whatever you want man, nobody is stopping you, you don't need people's approval
I know that thank you very much.

>>51331975

The beatles massive success happened at the same when recorded music was becoming huge and pop music was becoming important to teenagers. They will be remembered for much more than another 50 years. They have historical significance, they're tied to a very specific and significant place in time.

It's not as much about quality or innovation or whatnot, it's about doing the right thing at the right time.

>>51332096
You are not smart

>>51332252
Says the guy who's done nothing but attempt to misrepresent my argument for the entire thread.

Also your original post didn't actually make any arguments. You just called me "completely ignorant retarded [sic] and said that catchy music is the lowest kind [sic]." I don't see any stable arguments there.

>>51332299
Oops, messed up my quotations.

You just called me "completely ignorant retarded [sic]" and said that "catchy music is the lowest kind [sic]"

>>51332004
Who? Ella fitzgerald?

>>51331833
if music is complex/forward-thinking AKA not accessible to wide masses it's not pop anymore

it's the very reason for pop music to exist, creating simple music that everyone can grasp and everyone can love

complex =/= pop
got it?

>>51332678
>if music is complex/forward-thinking AKA not accessible to wide masses it's not pop anymore

Then why did the Beatles reach the audience that they did? The Beach Boys? Bowie?

>>51332678
>complex/forward-thinking AKA not accessible to wide masses
You're acting like those two things are mutually exclusive.

>>51331918
name a single band in history with more patrician chord and harmony usage.

If you say the beach boys you don't know what you are talking about

>>51332771
The Beach Boys clearly have superior usage of harmony.

Why do the Beatles have more "patrician" chord "usage" though?

interesting thread derailed by someone from r/lewronggeneration

my heart goes out to you OP

>>51332516
answer this you plep

Adding more sounds = complexity by pop's standards. So why isn't modern electropop more praised for its compositional complexity when Katy Perry and Lady Gaga have such a wider array of sounds than The Beatles ever had access to?

>>51332806
I don't even understand what you're asking me to answer. "Ella Fitzgerald?" is not a complete question.

>>51332794
It's been a real struggle. I made this thread to draw in arguments but I just haven't gotten any. "Catchy = bad" and "pop can't be patrician, stop baiting" just aren't worthwhile posts.

>>51332842
>Adding more sounds = complexity by pop's standards.

According to whom?

>>51331833
There is no patrician pop. It's a contradiction.

>>51332914
Why?

>>51332926
I knew you were an idiot the moment I saw the OP. Why I bothered to post anyway I will never know.

>>51332945
How am I the idiot when I presented an argument in the OP and you didn't present one in your response?

A lack of an argument and an ad hominem are two things on the list of things that no person who wants to be taken seriously does.

You can argue, but you wouldn't be right.

>>51334639
Well I can and I did (in the OP actually). Why am I wrong?

>>51334701
Because there is no patrician music, only patrician listeners.
>>51332771
>f you say the beach boys you don't know what you are talking about
If you are able to understand the harmonic complexity of The Beatles, you'd be able to do the same for The Beach Boys.

>>51334701
You derive the quality of the music from factors such as chart positions, influence, and the catchiness of the melodies. None of these save for maybe the melody part have anything to say about the general quality of the music.

>>51334775
>Because there is no patrician music, only patrician listeners.

Ah. I would agree with that. I put "patrician pop" in quotes for a reason. I don't personally think it's a reasonable term but I thought it conveyed what I was trying to say in the simplest terms.

Just remove the "(aka 'patrician pop')" part from my OP. Do you still disagree?

File: 1379883978373.png (235KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 500x342px

>implying pop can't be forward-thinking
>implying there's anything inherently wrong with pop
>implying anyone actually believes in the "plebeian/patrician" bullshit

I wish I were still banned

>>51334800
>Do you still disagree?
Are you asking if I agree that complex pop music is the best kind of music?

No.

>>51334846
Yeah, that's what I was asking.

Why do you not feel that way then?

>>51331833
Silverchair - Diorama
There's your genius, but you won't accept it because
>Not American or British
>Wrote 2 3/10 really derivative albums when he was ~14

>>51331833
Also yes OP I agree/ You're right.
Realised this a few months ago and its really changed everything.

people who think the beatles did nothing to music and that they weren't foward thinking are just too dumb to discuss with. except scaruffi, he's pretty legit most times

>>51334885
Well what criteria are you using to even determine what the best music in existence is? It's a bit presumptuous to think you'd be able to know, let alone that it is conveniently complex pop music.

>>51331833
OP if you're serious check this plzzzz

Silverchair -- Diorama (2002) Full album: http://youtu.be/WrRk1sf0ft0

>>51332073
No, Cale can't do anything by himself

>>51335026
Yeah, it's bold to proclaim something as the best music, but my criteria are basically:

1) Forward-thinking
2) Influential
3) Musically complex [mostly in comparison to other pop because little to no pop music, even the Beatles, is as musically complex as classical]
4) Adheres to basic pop structures: usually <4 minutes in length, often <3 minutes in length, and follows a typical verse -> chorus -> verse -> chorus

My basic idea is that we have great stuff like prog and kraut which is experimental, influential, often musically complex (especially prog) etc etc, but they often melodically fall short and songs very rarely tend to just be a few minutes long.

How I see it, pop that encapsulates what makes me enjoy prog and kraut (experimentation, progressiveness, musical complexity) is something I hold above anything else because it fuses pop sensibilities such as great melodies and a brief, easy-to-swallow length with the kind of forward thinking experimentation that music enthusiasts tend to have.

Perhaps just proclaiming music like this as the best kind of music is too far reaching and puts me up against a wall but I think there are some decent arguments for it.

>>51335186
>1) Forward-thinking
>2) Influential
>3) Musically complex
Many other genres encompass this.
>4) Adheres to basic pop structures
Why is this a criteria? Do you judge art by the picture frame?

>>51335186
So you're judging how good any piece of music is by comparing it to your idealized version of pop music, and through that you come to the conclusion that the best music is your idealized pop music?
Seems unbiased.

>>51335229
>Many other genres encompass this.

I know. I even gave kraut and prog as two examples. See below.

>Why is this a criteria? Do you judge art by the picture frame?

Basically, the ability to condense all of those ideas without going over just a few minutes and while maintaining the ability to appeal to a wide audience with good to fantastic melodies.

>>51335277
Well, yeah. I explained why this kind of pop music is what I believe to be the best kind of music in that post though. Do you disagree with that criteria? Do you think I left anything out of that list that should be taken into consideration, like atmosphere or something?

I didn't start this thread to tell everyone what the best kind of music is. I started this thread because I believe there's pop that, due to the time and place of creation and its sheer quality, rises above every other type of music and I'm just looking for counterpoints.

>>51335366
>Basically, the ability to condense all of those ideas without going over just a few minutes and while maintaining the ability to appeal to a wide audience with good to fantastic melodies.

I did not finish this thought at all. Continued from "fantastic melodies"

... places pop of this quality above everything else to me. It's a matter of brevity. To me, it's much more impressive if a song can accomplish in a mere 3 minutes or less what another song took 10+ minutes to accomplish. Additionally, if that 3 minute pop song blew the minds of masses and influenced them just as much as it blew the minds of fellow musicians, that's substantially more impressive than a song blowing the minds of only a small number of people due to a lack of accessibility.

>>51335366
>I know.
No, I don't think you do. Just because you like something more doesn't make it better.
>Basically, the ability to condense all of those ideas without going over just a few minutes
Why is that a quality making something "the best"?
>and while maintaining the ability to appeal to a wide audience with good to fantastic melodies.
Why is popularity relevant?
>rises above every other type of music and I'm just looking for counterpoints.
Only if you ignore it in other genres.

>>51335447
>To me, it's much more impressive if a song can accomplish in a mere 3 minutes or less what another song took 10+ minutes to accomplish
How do you know it did accomplish that though?

>>51335186
I agree on all fronts except length, I actually think thw opposite in regards ri length.
Melodies, hooks, complexity etc are all marks of a good composer, but pop songs short length is due solely to labels making things easy to shill on the radio, if there are enough musical concepts for a song to be longer and it's good enough to not get stale, that's far more commendable than shorter length.
Also, I think within the genre thing we're defining, there's room for experimentation with song structure, a song like www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cPq78av2Ow still works really well in my opinion.

For anyone here who doesn't realise it, the music we're discussing is basically baroque pop with more experimental elements and eclectic influences.

>>51335452
>No, I don't think you do. Just because you like something more doesn't make it better.

What are you talking about? You told me that other genres encompass forward-thinking, musically complex music that's influential and I told you I'm aware of that. Prog is one of those genres and I mentioned it.

>Why is that a quality making something "the best"?

Why wouldn't brevity matter? Is it not more impressive, in your opinion, for song A to encompass the first 3 things on that list in only 3 minutes than it is for song B to do so in, say, 10+ minutes?

>Why is popularity relevant?

Indicates that they didn't have to sacrifice accessibility to create complex, forward thinking music. Much like classical, pop of this quality can sound fantastic to both to people who know nothing of music and people who know a lot about it.

>Only if you ignore it in other genres.

I don't ignore it in other genres though. I just think it's done more eloquently in very very good pop.

>>51335471
What are you asking exactly? I'm speaking pretty generally. I guess I'll be more specific.

Tomorrow Never Knows is considered one of the most influential and mind blowing songs of the 60s. Think of how many musicians and listeners alike it influenced in its 2 minute and 58 second length. That's incredibly impressive. I'm sure songs like Miss Fortune from Faust blew minds as well, and likely influenced many musicians, but it took 17 minutes.

>>51335499
I can see where you're coming from here, but I just don't consider a song being short due to the need to fulfill an arbitrary time restriction a bad thing. I look at it as a perfect indicator of a good musician/group of musicians if they can create incredibly forward-thinking music under the handicap of a time restraint.

But yes, pop that messes with song structure is generally more engaging to listen to, but the more room and time an artist has to experiment, the less impressed I am when they do experiment, honestly.

>>51335229
shit analogy, judging a painting by the frame is more like judging a song by the album art

>>51335366
>>51335186
You're holding on a bit too tightly to the shilled pop sensibilities and should reallt focus more on the artistic qualities.
Public perception of the work is largely irrelevant, since that's nearly all marketing, think in terms of, had this been given the best possible marketing and the artist was attractive and young, how would it have been recieved differently, if you're even going to consider the consumer reception of an album.
I think you're a little misguided OP, but you've got the right idea.
Your dismissal of the beach boys was dissappointing though, Van Dyke Parks did some great work there.

>>51335724
>Your dismissal of the beach boys was dissappointing though, Van Dyke Parks did some great work there.

Wait, when the hell did I do that? I think you confused me for some other anon. The Beach Boys are my favorite band of all time and Song Cycle is a rad as fuck album.

>>51335665
if this is OP, i agree with you. basically POP is a distillation of only the best. one frustrates me about classical or a lot of ethnic music is how fucking bloated it is with every possible "inversion" or "variation" on a theme. but this isn't the point of art. art is about reduction. design is about simplicity. i respect pop musicians because they are able to craft something completely "in and of itself" that is complete and becomes well known not as a part but an entity itself. some classical like vivaldi for example is famously mocked for its repetition despite the pieces being "different". same thing with mozart. pop is about straining everything and arriving at the gold at the bottom, its like a strong drug that is purified beyond the slag from which it came

>>51335665
>What are you talking about? You told me that other genres encompass forward-thinking, musically complex music that's influential and I told you I'm aware of that. Prog is one of those genres and I mentioned it.
Because if you would have considered this, you wouldn't have ignored it and came to the conclusion that the genre you enjoy is the best. You are using selective reasoning
>Why wouldn't brevity matter?
Because the length is up to the artist, and saying brevity matters is implying the appropriate length should be up to the listener.
>In your opinion, for song A to encompass the first 3 things on that list in only 3 minutes than it is for song B to do so in, say, 10+ minutes?
It is unlikely that it would include everything in 3 minutes that a 10 minute song has. Otherwise all songs would be 3 minutes.
>Indicates that they didn't have to sacrifice accessibility to create complex, forward thinking music.
OK so "Poker face" by lady gaga is complex forward thinking music? That's popular.
>What are you asking exactly? I'm speaking pretty generally. I guess I'll be more specific.
Read above.
>Tomorrow Never Knows is considered one of the most influential and mind blowing songs of the 60s. Think of how many musicians and listeners alike it influenced in its 2 minute and 58 second length
But yet that's because it had more exposure than something else that is even more mind blowing like Sister Ray, which was in fact longer. So now we have a case where both popularity and brevity are not relevant.
>>51335677
Not really; song structure is a framework to melodically move in. Let me know when you start writing your own songs.

>>51335665
Of course I'm not asking for 10 minute opuses, though I love them when done right, I just think a time frame should be more natural. If the artist has moulded a song well to fit a time of say 5 minutes at the most, and it doesn't leave me wanting more, than that is obviously commendable, but rarely do I not need more, short songs often don't resolve the musical ideas presented as far as I'm concernes, and in my opinion that's like painting a head and leaving the face black because you couldn't think of a good enough face to suit the head.
(To continue the stupid painting analogy, if the face is left blank/musical concept left open ended intentionally, that's obviously a different case)
Regardless of whatever we disagree on I'm really surprised anyone on /mu/ has come to roughly the same conclusion as me

>>51335783
Wait are you OP?

>>51335826
Lady Gaga's quite a decent musician mate.
Art Pop atleast is quite good, and probably not the generic pop album you think it is.
She had a stab at pretty much exactly what we're talking about here.

>>51335793
>art is about reduction

Plebs in charge of defining art.

>>51335909
lol

>>51335783
Well then, if this interests you, Johns collaborated with Parks on Silverchair's Diorama, and wrote/cowrote arrangements on nearly every song.

>>51335972
He couldn't do it himself?

>>51335793
Just for the record, yeah, I'm OP. I think you phrased things better than I have so far in this topic, so thank you.

>>51335826
>Because if you would have considered this, you wouldn't have ignored it and came to the conclusion that the genre you enjoy is the best. You are using selective reasoning

I do happen to enjoy pop of this quality more than any other genre, but that's not why I consider it the best. I consider it the best for reasons I've stated multiple times in this thread, and I made it primarily to open my mind a bit to qualities in music that I may be overlooking that "good" pop music can't encapsulate at all, or perhaps just can't encapsulate as well as other genres.

>Because the length is up to the artist, and saying brevity matters is implying the appropriate length should be up to the listener.

Length is certainly not up to the artist nowadays. Labels used to impose song length, but that didn't stop Lennon, McCartney, or Wilson from making progressive, timeless music. That is incredibly impressive to me.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I follow your train of thought, unfortunately.

>It is unlikely that it would include everything in 3 minutes that a 10 minute song has. Otherwise all songs would be 3 minutes.

That's untrue. All songs wouldn't be 3 minutes because, as you said, length is (generally) up to the artist.

Anyway, are you saying that Tomorrow Never Knows doesn't have the following qualities:

1) Forward-thinking
2) Influential
3) Musically complex

despite its 2 minute and 58 second length?

>OK so "Poker face" by lady gaga is complex forward thinking music? That's popular.

Popular doesn't indicate complexity. I never said that, and I don't think I implied it. I was just saying that a musician who can create complex, forward thinking music without sacrificing accessibility impresses me/is more talented than one who chooses to/has to sacrifice accessibility to make an artistic statement.

>>51335939
has this not been the trend in society? not in the sense of complexity regarding structure, but in the way of human nature coming to a forefront, desires being made known?

im saying that's what rock and pop were about. what did you have before then? music hall? burlesque? big band? bebop? piano composers? theres a reason things became simpler, because its what people want. nothing extraneous exists in nature, its about the most direct path

>>51335988
He wrote the entire album himself while isolated in his house with arthritis actually, then Parks arranged orchestral pieces for already written music.
For Van Dyke Park's himself to have such high acclaim for the guy is pretty impressive too.
Are you trying to say Collaboration is a bad thing? Try to find me one recent album by a pop artist you like that didn't feature collaboration.

>>51335826
>But yet that's because it had more exposure than something else that is even more mind blowing like Sister Ray, which was in fact longer.

>So now we have a case where both popularity and brevity are not relevant.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

>>51335843
Well I definitely see where you're coming from. I guess if I had to sum up my own thoughts on it, I'd say that a song with qualities that most people would consider "good" in a song being made under a time constraint is more impressive than a song with those same qualities being made with no constraints whatsoever. However I'd likely enjoy the latter much more, as you have said. For sure.

I think there are a good amount of people who feel like I do for sure. Lately, the Beatles have gotten a lot of love. I'm not sure why. It's been refreshing to see, so I figured now was a decent enough time to present my thoughts on this matter.

>>51335865
Yes.

>>51335972
I'll look into it. Thanks.

Guys, can you please recommend some albums in line with what we're talking about here, because I've literally been unable to sleep for months thinking about this, this is the first time I've discussed it properly and I need more albums. I thought I was crazy

>>51336009
>nowadays
>Labels
lol Opinion discarded
>Anyway, are you saying that Tomorrow Never Knows doesn't have the following qualities:
>3) Musically complex
It's just one chord. It's musically simple

But I am saying Sister Ray was more significant and it is a) longer and b) less popular, thus showing your criteria of brevity and popularity are flawed.
>>51336090
>I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
If a tree falls in the woods...

>>51336125
bump

>>51336146
>lol Opinion discarded

?

>It's just one chord. It's musically simple

Fair enough. How about Strawberry Fields Forever? Or Good Vibrations, for an example that's not the Beatles?

>But I am saying Sister Ray was more significant and it is a) longer and b) less popular, thus showing your criteria of brevity and popularity are flawed.

How is Sister Ray more significant than Tomorrow Never Knows? I don't think you can really measure significance in such a clear-cut way.

Anyway, I wasn't saying that long and unpopular songs are indicators of bad music or anything like that. Is that what you thought I was getting at? Because your arguments don't seem to be in line with what I'm saying. I'm not sure if that's poor wording my part or what.

>>51336146
Dude I'm not OP but don't be a fuckwit
>This song that I like was better but it was longer and not as successful, d-did I prove you wrong yet?

File: r plus seven.jpg (163KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1200x1200px

>>51331833
What is patrician pop music? I'd say R Plus Seven is one of the most artistically successful pop albums ever, but I'm not sure if it might cross over into art music territory, despite not being created by a trained composer.

>>51336228
>I don't think you can really measure significance in such a clear-cut way.
But that is what you are doing.
>>51336233
>Fair enough. How about Strawberry Fields Forever? Or Good Vibrations, for an example that's not the Beatles?
What about Toccata and Fugue in Dm?
>This song that I like was better but it was shorter and more successful, d-did I prove you wrong yet?
This is an 18+ board.

Why are people so butthurt about The Beatles' obvious superiority in music?

I'm surprised this hasn't devolved into a debate on aesthetics and objectivity.

>>51336345
I brought it up and OP ignored it. Because just by sheer coincidence, what he likes is objectively the best music. Amazing!

>>51336290
this artist needs a seriously reality check when it comes to people's attention spans. i'd say he falls into "mind numbing repetition" trance category. no one has the fucking time for his loops, ie, when he runs out of ideas after a 5 second segment of sound. these people are criminally dull and no one notices the difference. not a single fucking melodic invention to be found.

>>51336290
You sound like a huge tool lmao

R+7 is literally a man taking the piss. Having a giggle.

It's a pastiche. It's satire, it can't be art because it rejects the label by definition.

>>51336345
Please fuck off, it will of you post shit like that.
FYI Aesthetics are a shill and Objectivity is Subjective/Inexistent, not merely in music but in everything.
No time to explain because this isn't that thread.

>>51336316
>But that is what you are doing.

I never said that any song was more influential or significant than another. I've implied equal amounts of significance, and I've just been claiming that songs of equal significance to something like Sister Ray being literally like 1/6 of the length is impressive.

>What about Toccata and Fugue in Dm?

What? I just gave examples of some pop songs that are musically complex in addition to being influential and forward-thinking.

>>51336366
Where? I have a lot to respond to, so I must have missed it. I need to leave pretty soon though so my reply may not do justice.

>>51336316
>Toccata and Fugue in Dm?

Is fucking shit?

>>51336404
>I never said that any song was more influential or significant than another
You've stated numerous times that "patrician pop" is the best music.
>Sister Ray being literally like 1/6 of the length is impressive.
It also had 1/6 of the mass exposure than Tomorrow Never knows. More people heard The Beatles than Velvet Underground, and thus they were given a larger opportunity to be influential than VU. You need to accept, some day, that the "Beatles influence" is largely based on circumstance and not necessarily musical merit.
>What? I just gave examples of some pop songs that are musically complex in addition to being influential and forward-thinking.
And I just gave you the same in another genre.
>Where? I have a lot to respond to, so I must have missed it. I need to leave pretty soon though so my reply may not do justice.
You should just leave because I think you are an idiot.

>>51336473
How so?

File: 00sisterray.png (19KB, 530x750px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 530x750px

>>51336496
>sister ray

lol

>Sister Ray was more significant

sister ray is not significant at all to the history of anything. stop being a scaruffi drone you retarded manchild

The Velvet Underground never made anything as musically interesting as The Beatles.

Sister ray is 3 chords for 20 minutes. Hardly complex or good

>Sister ray
>mindblowing

stop anon. This is embarassing

so let me get this right

only music that is popular can be considered pop

so what if i make an album that sounds like a popular album but is isn't popular

what genre is it then

>>51336567
daily reminder lou reed a hack

>>51336585
pop

>>51336585
>what genre is it then
garbage. Popular music would be popular if it was good.

>>51336567
>deconstructionism and minimalism is not significant

>>51336585
>let me get this right
Okay, I'm waitinf

>>51336496
>You've stated numerous times that "patrician pop" is the best music.

Yeah but I never did that by saying it's more significant or influential than any other kind of music.

>It also had 1/6 of the mass exposure than Tomorrow Never knows. More people heard The Beatles than Velvet Underground, and thus they were given a larger opportunity to be influential than VU. You need to accept, some day, that the "Beatles influence" is largely based on circumstance and not necessarily musical merit.

Okay? That's completely irrelevant to my argument that song A being equally as influential as song B and accomplishing that in a fraction of the time is impressive. I wouldn't say the Beatles' influence is based "largely" on circumstance. I can't disagree that their circumstances come into play; nobody should disagree with that. But that's not a large reason for their influence; more a springboard for their incredible music to be heard by more people than most bands' music at the time.

>And I just gave you the same in another genre.

I think you're confused. You said that Tomorrow Never Knows isn't musically complex so it doesn't fulfill one of that list of three. I gave you two examples that fulfill all three.

I never denied that musically complex, influential, and forward-thinking music exists in other genres, so why did you give me examples of music in other genres that is musically complex, influential, and forward-thinking?

>You should just leave because I think you are an idiot.

You're fumbling everywhere and losing track of my actual arguments and bringing up shit that doesn't need to be brought up. I've been arguing with multiple anonymous people in this thread and it's going on 100 posts. Of course I'm going to lose track eventually.

Meanwhile here you are not only insulting me but also refusing to present your argument to me once again. Why?

>>51336625
Lack of exposure/shillability/pretty faces is probably 50% of success these days though.
Be honest, if you wrote a perfect pop album, who would care?

>>51336606
oh
>>51336625
oh
>>51336630
okay

>>51336633
>Yeah but I never did that by saying it's more significant or influential than any other kind of music.
If you are saying that something is the best, you are implying it's better than everything else. Do you not know what "best" means?
>influence is completely irrelevant
>to my argument that song A being equally as influential
Yikes
>You're fumbling everywhere and losing track of my actual arguments and bringing up shit that doesn't need to be brought up. I've been arguing with multiple anonymous people in this thread and it's going on 100 posts. Of course I'm going to lose track eventually.
>Meanwhile here you are not only insulting me but also refusing to present your argument to me once again. Why?
I'm sorry are you still here? Thought you were leaving. ;)

File: tomorrowneverknows1539.png (16KB, 530x750px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 530x750px

>>51335826
What exactly about Sister Ray is better than Tommorrow Never Knows?

Tomorrow Never Knows is more expirimental and forward thinking than sister ray.

The song is more complex despite only being like 2 chords.

Sister Ray sounds like generic rawk and roll that we've come to expect from VU

>>51336665
What don't you understand? Pop music = Pop sensibilities, not popular.

>>51336628
Weren't you the one that tried to say that TMN wasn't complex (not true btw) because it had only one chord?

>>51336146

>>51336694
>The song is more complex despite only being like 2 chords.
Ooops you mean one chord.

Also did Lennon write those words himself, or...?
>Sister Ray sounds like generic rawk and roll that we've come to expect from VU
It soudns like the opposite of the previous album. So this is false.

By the way, simplicity does not negate complexity, they are not mutually exclusive.

>>51336687
>If you are saying that something is the best, you are implying it's better than everything else. Do you not know what "best" means?

Do you not know how to read? I never said "patrician pop" or any single song is any more influential or significant than any other piece of music in this thread. Stop strawmanning.

>>influence is completely irrelevant

Quote me where I said that.

Spoilers: You can't because I never said that. You inferred it from me saying that Sister Ray's lack of exposure was irrelevant to the argument, which it is. Did you ever learn how to debate properly?

>I'm sorry are you still here? Thought you were leaving. ;)

No, you just told me to leave. I'm glad you're keeping with the pattern of insisting that I've said things that I never once said.

>>51336726
No that wasn't me. Please keep up.

>>51336707
i think i get it but i'm really high and english isn't my first language. but thank you for explaining it anon

i love you

you have a good day now

>>51336776
Yeah no worries friendo

>>51336743
>Ooops you mean one chord.

Pretty sure there are 2. But it doesn't really matter honestly it's still more complex than Sister ray.

What about this is more interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d69mDT11yI

Than this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spjcPS4ekOA

It's more forward thinking, complex, and expimental.

>It soudns like the opposite of the previous album. So this is false.

Wrong, it sounds a lot like European son, heroin and a couple other songs.

It has no real relevance to rock history and it's not that great of a song.

>>51336766
>I never said "patrician pop" or any single song is any more influential or significant than any other piece of music in this thread. Stop strawmanning.
See >>51331833
>No, you just told me to leave
See >>51336404

>>51331833
Literally how is it the best kind of music? You provide no compelling argument. Because it is catchy and popular? Please.

>>51336889
>Pretty sure there are 2
Incorrect. Chart it out.
>It's more forward thinking, complex, and expimental.
How so?

>>51336917
actually he provides an argument right here
>>51331833
fuck head

File: pennylane.png (18KB, 522x696px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 522x696px

>>51336889
And if you make the argument that "lol tomorrow never knows only one chord it not as complex as the velvet undergound"

The Beatles have loads of other songs that are more complex and interesting than Sister Ray

for example this

>>51336938
How can you be so retarded? The sheet music is ITT
C and a Bsharp

>>51336951
It's not a good one.

>>51336951
Based on criteria he simply made up.

>>51337005
That B# is literally Paul's bass note. The chord remains on C. The sheet music simplifies this, so you'd have to reference session tapes and John Lennon and George Martin's comments about the song. learn2research.

>>51337012
>he made up
Who else is supposed to decide the criteria for the type of artist that he personally believes to be the best? You? Fuck off

>>51331975

>By the way, the Beatles won't be remembered in another 50 years. Their success is mainly based on the uprise of novelty music during the late 50's and their continued success is because of baby boomers. There was a musician who influenced pretty much all modern pop, including the beatles, elvis, etc, who came just less than 10 years before them, and you probably have no idea who she is, despite being 100 times more important to modern music. Not to mention there is an entire 50+ year old generation of music before them who most people are oblivious to.

who are you talking about?

>>51337084
I think he's insinuating that rock music is a novelty.

>>51337042
For all you know the B was part of a pythagorean math equation the predicted 9/11, I don't care what you say, it's there and you're wrong

>>51337112
Then by that logic Sister Ray is more complex, if you want to chart out passing notes as separate chords in the progression.

This was interesting for a while but got really shit, I'm out, good luck OP
I was the guy who said shill a few times and mention Van Dyke Parks

>>51337084
he's talking about sister ray, duh

>>51337264
If you were the Silverchair guy then
>>>/reddit/ if you know what I mean

OP's point is that music which is both innovative and accessible is arguably the best kind of music. all of the fools in this thread arguing about the beatles have completely missed the point.

music that is experimental and forward thinking yet not enjoyable to to the layman is not going to have a large influence or be particularly remembered. the brilliance of the beatles' music (and of the music of many other famous artists usually trashed by /mu/) lies in the accessibility.

i don't even know why i come here honestly, let alone post

>>51337756
Accessibility is irrelevant.

>>51337005
>>51337042
>B#

the musical prowess of /mu/ everyone

>>51336382
L M A O @ through-composed nerds

>>51336916
I never said anything about that music being more influential or significant in that post. Please learn how to read.

>>51337756
goddamn, because what's really being discussed is the simple topic of MELODIC INVENTION. all you noise fags, ambient fags, metal fags, rap and hip hop fags (who call it a "hook") always fail to understand this. a melody is a fucking linear phrase over a chord sequence, and it is difficult as hell to be "original" melodically. because pop is a recycling bin. this is partly why the beatles are so famous, because they mined the shit out of all other musical forms before the genre "exploded" and thus are regarded as rightful innovators. really though, there is so much to music, sonic qualities, production, lyrics, style, and so on, but melody transcends all of these and all culture, all languages. its a goddamn phrase that contain rhythm and notes over a sequence of underlying harmony. thats why i claimed pop was a distillation of things like classical, because those composers refuse to "parry down" their ideas into a "memorable", instead creating on a "grand scale" and other bullshit.

>>51337009
Why not?

>>51337012
Do you disagree with it? Why? What do you think constitutes music and why?

Please be constructive.

>>51337902
Just a typo, no need top get upset

>>51337878
How so?

>>51337878
except accessibility is the entire basis for OP's question. music that is forward-thinking and aims to redefine its own presumptions, yet can still be enjoyed by the common person.

>>51337978
>Do you disagree with it?
Yes.
>Why?
His criteria is too subjective and self fulfilling.
>What do you think constitutes music and why?
Harmony, rhythm, origination and emotional and/or intellectual expression in the auditory form..
>Please be constructive.
I hope you can do the same.

>>51337993
my point is that B# isn't a note, it's just C

>>51338006
It's an artistic hindrance.
>>51338024
>except accessibility is the entire basis for OP's question
Which is why his question is flawed.
>yet can still be enjoyed by the common person.
Still not relevant.

>>51337940
people need to realize when things are empty, and are all mood and no substance

>>51338065
Clearly that anon made a typo, it should be Bb, the note being played by the bass guitar. Did you not know that that was the note being played or something?

>>51338079
ok i'm sorry but if accessibility isn't relevant, what exactly isn't it relevant to? seeing as how, like you yourself acknowledged, accessibility is the point of the OP

>>51338040
I should have clarified. I'm the OP.

Thanks for the response. I've been asking people to think of things they consider valuable in a piece of music that I didn't include in the OP and it took a solid 100+ posts to get one. I understand that my criteria are subjective, but my criteria are also what most people would consider elements of "good" music so I figured they'd be mostly agreeable. Guess that wasn't the case. Thanks for the response.

>>51338079
>It's an artistic hindrance.

How so? It didn't hinder artists like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, or Bowie.

>>51338182
>How so? It didn't hinder artists like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, or Bowie.
It did. They weren't allowed to release some of their more experimental things.
>but my criteria are also what most people would consider elements of "good" music so I figured they'd be mostly agreeable. Guess that wasn't the case. Thanks for the response.
Most people have a limited music knowledge, and their opinions should be discarded..

When I'm not listening to field recordings and natural soundscapes, I put on the White Album

If you dont think the White Album is the pinnacle of pop music, you are a fucking idiot.

>>51338102
define substance

>>51336996
these are just 6 2 5 1's with a shitty attempt at doing something interesting (Am - Cm7) and that sounds like shit

>>51338279
substance as in what remains after what doesn't make the song is taken away. (LIKE:plenty of songs have a 4/4 rhythm, so the rhythm, while supporting the song, isn't the "substance") I guess you could say substance is what justifies a copyright. just a lot of stuff is passed off as "music" when it sounds like background music for a melody they never came up with.

>>51338267
>It did. They weren't allowed to release some of their more experimental things.

Like? I know there's that avant grade piece that toyed with tape loops that was never released but I thought that was because everybody but Paul hated it. And SMiLE didn't go unfinished entirely due to its lack of accessibility. There were a lot of other things that killed it. Brian clearly didn't care about breaking the rules a little.

>>51338503
>Like?
The things you continued to list are examples. Why would you ask a question you alreday knew the answer to?

The artists you mentioned were too rooted in attempts to create commercial music and thus could not fully explore their unbridled creativity.

What is the purpose of this?

File: 1415567308929.jpg (18KB, 275x253px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 275x253px

>>51338497
>what remains after what doesn't make the song is taken away
>plenty of songs have a 4/4 rhythm
>so the rhythm isn't the "substance"
>substance is what justifies a copyright
>background music for a melody they never came up with
is this b8 or are you just genuinely this retarded

File: 1414564031036.png (182KB, 456x304px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 456x304px

>>51332771
> if you say the beach boys then you don't know what you're talking about
Someone doesn't understand harmonic and chromatic scale theory

>>51338497
>I guess you could say substance is what justifies a copyright.
>just a lot of stuff is passed off as "music" when it sounds like background music for a melody they never came up with.
But that music has been copyrighted. So thus it has substance, by your own criteria.

>>51338552
Those aren't examples though. George hated avant garde music and nobody but Paul wanted it released because they hated it, iirc. I don't recall it having anything to do with being afraid of not being accessible.

We're talking about the guys who put Revolution 9 out here. I don't think they cared much if all of their music was accessible or not.

SMiLE is kind of a better example but fear of inaccessibility was one of the 20 things that killed it so imo it's unfair to say that desire to remain accessible kills creative potential based on those examples alone.

>>51338668
>Those aren't examples though. George hated avant garde music and nobody but Paul wanted it released because they hated it, iirc. I don't recall it having anything to do with being afraid of not being accessible.
[citation needed]
>We're talking about the guys who put Revolution 9 out here
The rest of the band hated it as well. So now you are contradicting yourself.
>SMiLE is kind of a better example but fear of inaccessibility was one of the 20 things that killed it so
Name all 20.

>>51338643
Explain it in your own words.

>inb4 excuses you can't/won't

>>51336694
God you're retarded. Learn sound theory before you try explayinjnv it. Bitch.

>>51338553
substance is discernible musical ideas that can be translated to and from pretty much any instrument. substance is what you follow throughout the song, its what the "theme" would be in an extended jam for instance. the basis on which the rest of the song is structured, surrounds, or supports

>>51338754
Name a song which doesn't have that.

>>51338663
i meant that you can't copyright a chord progression but you can a melody, because one is clearly more "unique"

>>51338754
oh i see, you mean like the loops in this?
>>51336382 >>51336290

>>51338643
>>51338729
This plz. I wanna see you do an analysis of Heroes and Villains. Make sure to mention why you think all that chromatisism works so much.

>>51338796
>i meant that you can't copyright a chord progression
Of course you can.

>>51338729
Heroes and villains is a four chord progression and deconstruction through harmonic juxtaposition and builds chromatically through the same progression throughout the song. Beatles succeeded in making the same chorus verse chorus structure and never deviating from that besides a few songs. Not to say that kind of structure is bad, they were in genius at it, bug don't run around calling them advancers in theory when really they didn't know what the fuck they were doing half the time and let martin at orchestral layering.

>>51338829
No explain harmonic and chromatic scale theory in your words.

>>51332073
i love the title track but everything else is lackluster

>>51338829
>harmonic juxtaposition
Al most all of the Heroes and Villains fragments were in the same key you tard.

>>51338705
>[citation needed]

I'm on mobile. I guess I can dig up sources when I get home in like 30 minutes. Just look it up though, cuz I could be wrong and you could probably easily just link the wiki page for that song and prove me wrong. I'm going off of memory here.

>The rest of the band hated it as well.

Not because they wanted to maintain accessibility though.

>Name all 20.

Clearly an exaggeration, but
1) mentally stability dropping
2) drug use
3) daddy issues
4) fear of not living up to the Beatles
5) the straw that broke the camel's back was when a building burned down while they were recording the song for Fire

so.

ANNOUNCEMENT: I just copyrighted having two kickdrum notes spaced anywhere from exactly 0.50 to 0.52 seconds apart.

So if you are making music anywhere between 115.384615 and 120 bpm you owe me 65% royalties

>>51338895
>Clearly an exaggeration, but
>1) mentally stability dropping
>2) drug use
>3) daddy issues
>4) fear of not living up to the Beatles
>5) the straw that broke the camel's back was when a building burned down while they were recording the song for Fire
>so.
That's five, you need 15 more.
>Just look it up though, cuz I could be wrong
You are, and I implore you to research it yourself before making yourself look like an idiot. George released an album of experimental electronic music btw.
>Not because they wanted to maintain accessibility though.
[citation needed]

I'll ask again because you missed it: What's the point of this dialog? What is the point you are trying to make here?

>>51338774
>>51338806

yes i was orginally referring to things like this. also see "furniture music". more atmosphere then something that demands your attention, something that sticks in your head. its not so much a "tune" as it is a world you can be submersed in. to each his own i guess

>>51338851
Why'd you ask him that? How would you even manage know enough to know the term chromatic scale without knowing what it is? It's not exactly a difficult concept.

>>51339022
>more atmosphere then something that demands your attention, something that sticks in your head. its not so much a "tune" as it is a world you can be submersed in. to each his own i guess
Oh I see so
>substance = if I like it

>>51338851
The harmonies are repeating diatonic scales( or two eight note progressions that would typically have two half steps in there, but on heroes has them interplayed with the whole notes at once. Watch someone play it in a god damn piano and you can see
What's you're defense in their theory? All Beatles fans ever do is say beach boys are shit and never back it up and are never mature enough to leave someone to their fucking opinion. Cunt

>>51339044
If it's not a difficult concept you oops I mean he would have answered by now.

>>51338817
theres plenty of songs that share a progression, because only so many actually sound "good" to human ears. maybe some genius will come along and tweak our ears to like something different, if that happens, i hope he gets paid

>>51339053
Still not what I'm asking. I know you have trouble reading but please try harder if you want to discuss this.

>>51339082
OK But I can still copyright a chord progression as my original composition, so that anon misspoke

>>51338829
>deconstruction through harmonic juxtaposition
What does this mean?

>>51339007
>That's five, you need 15 more.

See: "clearly an exaggeration".

I shouldn't have exaggerated but hounding me to the point of ignoring the points that I DID list doesn't support your argument.

>You are, and I implore you to research it yourself before making yourself look like an idiot.

1) source
2) I generally do research but I'm on mobile and wasn't feeling it. Sorry teach.

Also George has been quoted saying he hates avant garde music. I'll happily provide a source when I get home.

>I'll ask again because you missed it: What's the point of this dialog? What is the point you are trying to make here?

That desire to remain accessible alone never held back either the Beatles or the Beach Boys. That desire was, at most, one element out of many, or not an element at all in the decision to not release a piece of music.

commercial wide audience chart shit doesn't matter, populist argument etc.

if you care about song length, you have narrow tastes. there are simply ideas that can't be expressed in 3 minutes. not all 10 minute+ songs are longwinded, some actually develop ideas with more subtlety and substance than almost any 3 minute song could.

>>51339129
just like i can copyright a tempo
im currently copyrighting every tempo
everyone trying to release music is going to have to go through me lmao

>>51339136
Shows how a simple chord progression can be multi layed through complex vocals an subtle changes

>>51339104
God you're a cunt. Worst part is you don't even know the theory. Jesus /my/ has turned to shit in the last 5 years

>>51336567
wow, you're literally so pleb that you haven't even digested the ideas of minimalism, or the reasons for repetition in music?

>>51339153
>See: "clearly an exaggeration".
If you are not going to take this seriously, then I'm not going to bother replying to you. Can you?
>1) source
You haven't listed a single source in your whole thread.
>2) I generally do research but I'm on mobile and wasn't feeling it. Sorry teach.
Not my problem. It is literally yours.
>Also George has been quoted saying he hates avant garde music
Why would he release an avant gaurde album then?
>That desire to remain accessible alone never held back either the Beatles or the Beach Boys
So? Who cares.

>>51339223
Mu.
Hasn't been a genuine talk of music in years.

>people trying to argue that The Velvet Underground's music is more complex and important than The Beatles's

Fucking christ, this is /mu/ alright
What a bunch of ignorants

>>51339223
[citation needed]

PS: What is the specific harmonic juxtaposition in Heroes and Villains? Since you just threw some random words together without knowing the actual meaning, I'm going to call you on it.

>>51339223
>how can you argue about religion if you don't know everything there is to know about buddhism/christianity/rastafarianism
theoryplens need to btfo

>>51339257
Literally no one said that. Are you retarded?

>>51339302
That guy doesn't really know theory, he's pretending. Don't get so upset.

>>51339302
I'm not saying you need to know it. I think its actually pretentious. But if he's gunna be a cunt and say I don't know the theory, I'm gunna defend myself.

>>51339361
>But if he's gunna be a cunt and say I don't know the theory, I'm gunna defend myself.
You don't.

>>51339328
Read the thread. People arguing shit like "Sister Ray" is the best song of all time and Tomorrow Never Knows is vapid pop.
It's like I'm on scaruffi.com

>>51339385
>People arguing shit like "Sister Ray" is the best song of all time
Show us where anyone said that.

>>51339051
no, imagine if you were with someone making a song. your friend starts playing a C chord then a G chord, 1-5-1-5-1-5 over and over. and then says, "what do you think?" your response would be:
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHAT DO I 'THINK'? ITS JUST A DAMN 1 and 5 MAJOR CHORD BACK AND FORTH"...you see? what's the "meat"?! where's the actual "shit"? the actual "song"? a G and C chord is not what a pop gem makes

>>51339302
Nah man it's more like:
>how can you argue about religion if you've never attended a religious service/ceremony, read a holy book or researched anything about religion

You can still do it, you're just not gonna be as informed.

>>51339516
>not what a pop gem makes
Not relevant. I can copyright an instrumental composition consisting of C and G.

>>51339519
nah, every discussion with theoryplens is more like
>how can you say for certaint that christianity isnt the religion for you when you don't know every single thing about it

>>51339620
Well we mostly use our knowledge as an argument you you say things like
>Christianity is evil
"Not for me" is never a part of it.

>>51339596
i'm sure you'll be lauded for your "highly original" and "groundbreaking" new work

>>51339691
Not relevant

>>51339652
>talking to a theoryman
>what you said: i dont think i need to know what a d major 4 augmentation diminsing is to make good music
>what they heard: OOGHHA BOOGHA URG UGGA URURG

>>51339737
My sides are a diminished 5th

>>51339715
i'm not sure how much more relevant I can get, the substance of a song is what defines it. it is the core that assures song 1 is different from song 2, i could make two different "songs" each only consisting of C and G, the difference being the melody overtop. R plus seven is "mood" music in the sense that people may appreciate the combination of elements but it never "comes out" front and center in the way of a discernible, memorable idea. the album cover says it all, there is structure, but the room is empty

File: folder.jpg (472KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1500x1500px

>>51331833
>tfw this will be a revered classic

>>51332014
>"When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again"

>"The Beatles achieve probably better than anyone the ability to make you tap your foot first time round, dig the words sixth time round, and get into the guitar slowly panning the twentieth time. [I wanted Crimson to] achieve entertainment on as many levels as that."

>" "In My Life": how could a young man write something this profoundly nostalgic & reflective? This is the song of an old man, reminiscing & recapitulating on what life & loves have meant to him."

>"This has much the same feeling resonance for me as The Beatles’ In My Life: young men sounding as if they are looking back from post-maturity and reflecting on who and what they were. Not nostalgia: something deeper."

>"Beatles' song are now staples of muzak around the world. It makes me angry that music of this power & authenticity should be trivialised..."

-Robert Fripp, King Crimson

>>51339892
>it is the core that assures song 1 is different from song 2
except if two songs sound exactly the same with the exception of one note then they are in fact different songs
>people may appreciate the combination of elements
>it never "comes out" front and center in the way of a discernible, memorable idea
the combination of elements IS the discernible memorable idea
>the album cover says it all, there is structure, but the room is empty
this post says it all: there is a wall of text but the conclusion is hamfisted and forced

lrn2formalism, my child

>>51332014
>"I grew up on the Beatles' music for one thing. After they sort of got out of the gate there from playing American roots music, basically, with an English taste to it, they started writing records that were different every time. If you go from Rubber Soul to Revolver... I grew up with that idea. That was really how you're supposed to make records. You're supposed to keep them interesting and fresh and new and don't stay too long in one place. At the end of the day you have a better longevity, I think. Creatively at least. When you look back at what you've done it's a bigger, nicer catalogue because it has so many different attitudes and so many things to offer. That's always been part of my artistic being and plays well to me being in King Crimson. It was also a part of the way King Crimson always was."

>"Revolver remains my favorite because that’s the first one where I felt that they stepped outside the normal four-piece band and started experimenting in the studio. That album introduces a lot of things that are firsts. Things like Indian music and orchestras playing with the band and backwards guitar, a lot of things that I still really love."

>"Yes, there is so much in their music that is very avant-garde. Experimental songs, which first began as 20-minute jams, that a prog-rock band might do. I’m thinking of “Helter Skelter”, which I just read was originally a 27-minute jam! They edited that down to a three-and-a-half minute song!"

-Adrian Belew, King Crimson

>>51339892
>the substance of a song is what defines it
I just demonstrated that if you mean "substance" is something beyond a simple chord sequence, then no, that is untrue.
>it is the core that assures song 1 is different from song 2
This is only relevant if a claim is put against it. You never specified that in your argument. Only that it wasn't copyrightable, which is untrue.
>but it never "comes out" front and center in the way of a discernible, memorable idea
In your opinion? Because then see >>51339051

>>51339246
>If you are not going to take this seriously, then I'm not going to bother replying to you. Can you?

I've been taking this seriously. You aren't taking it seriously if you honestly think a legitimate exit strategy to an argument is to hound me for making a playful exaggeration while simultaneously ignoring the five points I did bring up.

>You haven't listed a single source in your whole thread.

Just because I haven't sourced doesn't mean you don't have to source. Are you twelve?

>Not my problem. It is literally yours.

When did I ever say it was your problem? Your only problem is how you ignored the five points I brought up just because I didn't literally bring up twenty.

>Why would he release an avant gaurde album then?

Dunno. Ask him. Anyway, source on why Carnival of Light has remained unreleased (hint: it's not because they're afraid of being inaccessible):

"In 1996, McCartney tried to release the track on the compilation album The Beatles Anthology 2, but George Harrison voted to reject it. According to McCartney, the reason was that 'he didn't like avant garde music' and referred to avant garde as 'avant garde a clue' ("haven't got a clue")."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Light#Unreleased_status

So, why didn't YOU do your research?

>So? Who cares.

What. That was literally your original argument. Is this not you?

>>51338267
>It did. They weren't allowed to release some of their more experimental things.

If you can think of a piece of music by either band that went unreleased solely because they were afraid it would be inaccessible, then hit me. Until then, a band that put Revolution 9 on an album and a band who put out an album with weird experimental lofi pop are not bands that are afraid to release weird stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA0GKbt0r7Y

>>51332014
>"I always loved George's stuff. I think, to be quite honest, George's stuff, sometimes it's great sometimes it's not, but when it's great it's SO great. If nothing else, George Harrison is the man who turned us all onto Indian music which, as I said earlier, is one of my very favorites. I still think that no one has done what he did in finding a way to combine Western pop music with Indian music. You have those three songs that they did within the Beatles, "Within You Without You", "The Inner Light", and "Love You To" that are just awesome to me. I can't understand why there's not a band that sounds like THAT. It's a band I always wanted to be in."

-Adrian Belew, King Crimson

>"The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted."

-Bill Bruford, King Crimson

>>51340019
>You aren't taking it seriously if you honestly think a legitimate exit strategy to an argument is to hound me for making a playful exaggeration while simultaneously ignoring the five points I did bring up.
An even better exit strategy is not posting/replying.
>Your only problem is how you ignored the five points I brought up
I acknowledged them. See >>51339007
I of course forgot to mention two of them were still tied to commercial product, but I honestly didn't want to debate it with you.
>Dunno. Ask him.
Or rather , you are mistaken to begin with.
>Anyway, source on why Carnival of Light has remained unreleased (hint: it's not because they're afraid of being inaccessible):
>"In 1996,
No I mean the orignal release in 1967.
>That was literally your original argument.
It wasn't.
>If you can think of a piece of music by either band that went unreleased solely because they were afraid it would be inaccessible
If I did, you will try and twist the truth, then not provide a source while asking me for one.

I am tired of going on with you, you are not very interesting. We'll have to agree to disagree unless you can be more interesting.

File: 13478284953.jpg (25KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x334px

About The Beatles, I think their influence is undeniable, and even if you say "but they had more exposure", well, that's true of course, but they still used that exposure to produce innovative, creative music and that's all that we should care about IMO.
What I admire the most about them is their capacity to create amazing melodies and use all sorts of strange techniques in their records while maintaining a pop profile and still walk through some non-pop fields (see Helter Skelter, Yer Blues, I Want You, etc). Plus, they were gifted musicians and songwritters, and the first true rock band, the first example of the main aspect of rock music - the group of kids who get together and make music. And that's why they're still present, 50 years later.

The Beach Boys are another case, they were always the "surf group", the carefully crafted pop boys until Brian took action and made their best material, which is genius. Pet Sounds was great, but that was it. Smile wasn't released so it's unfair to compare it to stuff put out the 60s. A shame he became ill, he had amazing songwritting potential, as we could see by Smile Sessions.

About TVU, their influence and their existence was much more related to their attitude and "punk spirit" that they adopted not only in their visual style but also in their music and lifestyle. Their first two albums are pretty good, but I don't feel like their songwritting is as good as Lennon-McCartney's or Wilson's. Still, they were undeniably important.

There are still lots of precious rock music in the 60s and early 70s but these are the main ones I think, along with Bob Dylan, The Stooges, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Can, The Rolling Stones, etc. I think whatever we think about them, we should all be glad they did their thing and opened the path for everything we have nowadays.

>>51340137
Basically.

>>51340118
>An even better exit strategy is not posting/replying.

Okay.

>I acknowledged them.

That wasn't acknowledging them. That was hounding me for making a casual exaggeration.

>Or rather , you are mistaken to begin with.

What.

I literally provided a quote of him saying that he didn't like avant garde music.

>No I mean the orignal release in 1967.

Well nobody knows why that went unreleased, unless you somehow do and can provide a source. Otherwise, saying that they were afraid of it being inaccessible in '67 (despite sticking a musique concrete song on an album released a year later) is an assumption you can't safely make.

>It wasn't.

What was then?

>If I did, you will try and twist the truth, then not provide a source while asking me for one.

If that happens, then you win the argument. You've provided concrete proof and I'm sitting here in denial, making you the clear "winner". So do it.

>I am tired of going on with you, you are not very interesting. We'll have to agree to disagree unless you can be more interesting.

I love the old "I'm getting bored of you ;)" trope.

Just kidding. It's terrible and I hate seeing it.

>>51339981
>except if two songs sound exactly the same with the exception of one note then they are in fact different songs
technically yes, but if i flat the last note of anything recognizable and claim it as my own I wouldn't be fooling anybody. there needs to be significant variation on anything identical before it could earn the distinction of "original"

>>51340209
>I love the old "I'm getting bored of you ;)" trope.
I am honestly tired of you. We will have to agree to disagree, I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.

>>51340211
>claim it as my own
this is where you went wrong
you can't own music anymore than you can own the difference between 2 and 3 being 1

File: mmmm.png (312KB, 598x716px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 598x716px

>>51340247
Okay. I guess that's one of like four separate debates in this topic that died out.

File: 133415880165.png (47KB, 350x338px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 350x338px

>>51339976
>>how could a young man write something this profoundly nostalgic & reflective
He nailed it here. Many, many of their songs bring me this feeling and I sometimes forget they were pretty much teenagers at that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNAGAbi3G0
>this was made by a 24 year old

>>51340297
It's because you think you are right and don't want to entertain the notion that you'd be wrong.

>>51339981
>the combination of elements IS the discernible memorable idea
yes but its just bound to always be relegated to some level of obscurity because its more "abstract" then what a typical song could be considered. im not going to say what is or isn't an idea, only that an array of chords well produced amongst swirling organs and synthesizers will never be an adequate substitute for a proper "earworm" that seems so necessary to pop success

>>51340330
Honestly, I would be 100% wrong if you can name literally just one song that either band decided not to release because they thought it would be too weird, and then provide a quote or something like that. I'd look like a fucking retard if, in response to you providing an example of an unreleased Beatles or Beach Boys track that remained unreleased due to fear of it being too inaccessible, I just plugged my ears and said "nuh uh" but I'm not going to do that.

>>51340010
>I just demonstrated that if you mean "substance" is something beyond a simple chord sequence, then no, that is untrue.
Consider that you could recognize a song by someone singing its melody alone. that is substance

>>51340412
And then it just goes back to "what's the point of this"

Sounds like you just want an argument instead of a conversation. That's why I'm out.

>>51340412
Carnival of Light

>>51340454
Consider that that is not the argument.

>>51340459
What's the point of it!?

Okay, I'm guessing you aren't the guy who said that accessibility is an artistic hindrance and followed it up by saying that the Beatles and the Beach Boys weren't allowed to release some of their more experimental things, because if that is you, then it should be PLAINLY obvious what "the point" of giving me an example of material that remained unreleased due to either the band or their label not wanting to put it out for fear of being inaccessible.

>>51340467
Do you have a source for your claim that Carnival of Light wasn't released in '67 because the band members or their label were afraid to put it out for fear of being inaccessible?

>>51340335
>what a typical song could be considered
subjective
>im not going to say what is or isn't an idea ... never be an adequate substitute for a proper "earworm"
"earworm" is subjective

>>51340593
See the problem is you phrasing your question in that there is a catch-22 loophole.

For instance, if I said SMiLE because there is verified documentation that Mike Love did not like the lyrics and thought they were not commercial enough and even alienated Van Dyke Parks, or that Fire literally scared Brian so he didn't finish The Elements, you will ignore all that because it was eventually released as The Smile Sessions.

Or you'll do as you did above to the guy who mentioned Carnival of Light.

Again, you just want an argument, not a discussion.

>>51340487
if an objective conclusion about the subject of copyright could be reached then lawyers would be unnecessary. to say the area is grey is an understatement. all i know is that once a song becomes famous, its chorus is forever etched in the minds of the public and any would-be imitator who tries to pass off his "song" as theirs will be laughed off the stage. artists become famous because of their originality, they appropriate the past and reform it ingeniously.

>>51340812
>if an objective conclusion about the subject of copyright could be reached
It can. I can copyright a chord progression as an orignal work, right now. Period, end of discussion. I seriously doubt you've ever copyrighted anything in your life.

>>51340777
>For instance, if I said SMiLE because there is verified documentation that Mike Love did not like the lyrics and thought they were not commercial enough and even alienated Van Dyke Parks, or that Fire literally scared Brian so he didn't finish The Elements, you will ignore all that because it was eventually released as The Smile Sessions.

Actually I wouldn't ignore it. I would just say it's not a good example because Mike Love's dislike of the lyrics is one of five or more reasons why Brian didn't finish SMiLE. Also, Fire didn't just scare Brian. A building across the street burned down while they were recording it and he thought it was a haunted song and that the project was doomed because he was slowly going insane (which is one of the reasons why SMiLE wasn't finished). Attributing the cancellation of SMiLE entirely to Mike Love not liking the lyrics is just dumb. There are tons of documented reasons as to why the project wasn't finished. Mike Love protesting against the lyrics and driving Van Dyke Parks away certainly added to the problems but a fear of commercial success wasn't the one and only reason, and that's what I'm asking for: songs that weren't released solely because the band or the label were afraid that it wouldn't be accessible/commercially successful.

>Or you'll do as you did above to the guy who mentioned Carnival of Light.

What? Ask for a source? Sorry. I guess I should just take your word when you say that Carnival of Light wasn't released because the Beatles and/or their label were/was afraid of the song being inaccessible.

Nice trips btw.

>>51340593
It was made in the Sgt. Pepper's sessions and it was mainly Paul's idea although every member was present in the session. They recorded it entirely but when the time came to release the album they didn't put it anywhere so it's only accessible through the master tapes. It had some public showings though.
Pretty much member thought it was too weird, had no rhythm or melody, McCartney didn't insist. When their anthology was released it still didn't have it because George said it was rubbish.
It might be released someday since McCartney showed interest in this.

You can look all of this up.

>>51340940
>You can look all of this up.

I have. There is no evidence that they didn't release it for fear of it being inaccessible/a commercial failure. Find me a quote or some sign indicating that or you have no argument.

>>51340857
ok, i guess I'm approaching it from the wrong angle. you can copyright it, but to file a claim successfully when concerning a commonly used progression would rarely end in success.

>>51340961
if there is no evidence either way, then how can you have an argument yourself?

>>51340755
the entire idea of subjectivity is why there are successful and unsuccessful artists. imagine if anything any songwriter came up with he considered "subjective". no, the process is one of refinement and isolation of "the good bits" (yes, subjectively to him), but the fact that some individuals have had more than 10 top ten hits alone should tell you that there is something they're "onto" in the way of a mysterious formula leading to songs that will be embraced by many

>>51340920
Revolution 1 was not released as a single because it was not commercial enough.

There are you happy?

>>51341026
I don't need one.

This all started in this post:
>>51338079
>It's an artistic hindrance.

in response to why accessibility is irrelevant. He followed that up saying that the Beatles/the Beach Boys/both weren't allowed to release some of their more experimental things. I asked him for an example of a Beatles/Beach Boys song that initially wasn't released for fear of being inaccessible. He has not provided one.

If you could prove that Carnival of Light wasn't released for fear of being inaccessible via quotes from band members/the label or something like that, then his point is proven right and I lose. But nobody's done that yet because there's no proof that it was unreleased for that reason. On the contrary, the only Beatle who's spoken against it publicly regarding the question of whether to release it or not has been Harrison, who simply stated that he dislikes it and dislikes avant garde. No mention of inaccessibility there whatsoever.

The closest thing the proof that I can provide (not that I need to) is that the Beatles released Revolution 9 which is obviously avant garde and experimental and inaccessible. So why would they have been afraid to release Carnival of Light? It's more likely that they just didn't like it/didn't know what album it fit on.

Of course I can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. But again, I don't need to.

>>51341207
>I don't need one.
lol

Goodby anon.

>>51341219
Did you read the rest of the post?

He made a claim and failed to give and example backed by proof. It's up to him to provide proof, or I've won the argument.

Simple as that. You should learn how these things work.

>>51341288
OP made a claim as well and he thinks he doesn't have to prove it.

>>51341219
>what is burden of proof

he worded that post like a retard ("hurr i dont need an argument guys") but he's right

the burden of proof lies with the anon who said that accessibility held the beatles back and kept them from releasing carnival of light

if he can't prove that then he has no argument

>>51341355
He doesn't know either though. OP's making the assumption how George feels about it.