what the god damn fuck is this shit? /mu/ explain yourselve

That's a magazine for old people, who think music died after 1968.

It's a fine list, errrr.
Trout Mask Replica #60
V.U & Nico #13

But it's killed by The Beatles.

It's certainly a good album
of all the albums RS could pick that also pander to their target fanbase, they did alright on number 1

>>51777071
is that to say they're validating their list by putting VU & Nico #13 and Captain Beefheart #60, but everything 59-1 is mediocre?
list your top 3.

>>51777074
>500 greatest albums
not the 500 most popular albums based off of our pleb fanbase.

>Born Into Trouble As the Sparks Fly Upward
>Drukqs
>Happy Songs for Happy People

nice to see lots of Beatles albums near the top

>>51777009
/thread

Abbey Road just isn't that good /mu

>>51777250
I'm thinking (knowing) the Beatles in general.

The list was made by a large number of editors and artists, so don't be surprised that your obscure post-progressive dark trip hop album didn't get to the first place.
Sgt. Pepper is wildly regarded as one of the best albums of all time, and from a historical context, it makes sense- Music has never seen such a thing before.
In addition, the title and the cover art are extremely iconic, which only makes the album more well known.
Is it necessarily everyone's favorite album? No. I probably won't put it in my top 10 myself. But, as a whole, Sgt. Pepper changed the world.

>/mu/ explain yourselves.
we had literally nothing to do with that list coming together the way it did

File: vivaldi.jpg (129KB, 511x639px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 511x639px

>>51777271
>changed the world
you're joking, right?

>>51777290
oh yeah you did.

>>51777358
>>you're joking, right?
Nope

>>51777271
>rating music by the impact it had on the music-world

>>51777367
I want a 5 page paper specifically detailing how Sgt. Peppers "changed the world"; due on my desk by 8am tomorrow or your ass is grass.

>>51777358
>oh yeah you did.
what

>>51777385
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-goldberg/sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band_b_1545932.html
https://is.muni.cz/th/108918/ff_b/The_Beatles_and_Their_Influence_on_Culture.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/4975066/We_Hope_You_Will_Enjoy_the_Show_An_Examination_of_the_Historical_Context_and_Cultural_Implications_of_Sgt._Peppers_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band

ayy lmao

File: alfez.png (22KB, 386x317px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 386x317px

>>51777464
F for plagiarism

point being: the progression of music would be only slightly different, if at all, compared to what it is today.

Buddy Holly exists. The Rolling Stones exist.

it's like saying "In the Court of the Crimson King" MUST BE a better album than "Lateralus" simply because it was listed as an influence.

makes sense if you don't think about it.

>>51777511
>it's like saying "In the Court of the Crimson King" MUST BE a better album than "Lateralus" simply because it was listed as an influence.

Here's my point- I didn't say Sgt. Pepper is the best album, there are a lot of albums I like better. I'm just trying to convince you that it's reasonable for Sgt. Pepper to appear at the top of the list- Since the list is big enough, the top album should be an absolute game changer. Besides maybe DSOTM or Revolver, I don't think any other album deserves it better.

>>51777554
>point being: the progression of music would be only slightly different, if at all, compared to what it is today.
Those essays made compelling arguments to the contrary.

>The Rolling Stones exist.
Considering that the Rolling Stones were often presented as being the anti-Beatles and generally worked with rock music quite distinct from the Beatles', that's not really a compelling thing to bring up.

>>51777261
The Beatles are a bastard, because some of their songs are amazing, but, loads of it is crap. I sort of tolerate the rubbish, for the good bits, but...there's something not right about them.

The Rolling Stones, they're a great laugh...boogie woogie, The Beatles keep wanting to change the world.

Bit like Radiohead, they're trying much too hard.


Pink Floyd however...

>>51776975
Holy clickwhoring, Batman!

>>51777561
>>51777695
Yet Sgt. Pepper is the Number One album of the RS 500 not just because of its firsts – it is simply the best of everything the Beatles ever did as musicians, pioneers and pop stars, all in one place.

>the best of everything the Beatles ever did
>the best of everything
>the best
>the Beatles

this list was obviously compiled by a Beatlophile (possibly the remaining surviving members of the Beatles) and is slanted as such.

earlier blues artists -> the Rolling Stones -> Led Zeppelin -> Black Sabbath

where in that progression does the Beatles play a "game changer"-type role?

you plebs are so indoctrinated that it's blowing my mind.

>>51777741
>The Beatles keep wanting to change the world
Not really. They just happened to end up a good position to be highly influential.

>>51777561
what game did Sgt Pepper change??????

what happened?

looks like a bunch of filthy hippies in a field to me.

New York Dolls / Ramones / Stooges they're just as much a big deal

>>51777786
ever thought that corporate media told everyone that the Beatles were "influential" and "unique" loud enough, long enough, and often enough that eventually people believed it?

>>51777765
>earlier blues artists -> the Rolling Stones -> Led Zeppelin -> Black Sabbath
That is a really stupid musical "progression" to pull out of your ass, and only really demonstrates how narrow your view of rock music actually is.

>>51777848
is it narrower than Sgt. Peppers being the best album ever?

let that settle in.

>>51777823
totally, and it's still reverberating so much that if Rolling Stone magazine goes "nah" they wouldn't sell their magazine

"we have to keep reinforcing this crap for them now"

"oh well, fuck 'em "

>>51777823
>can't come up with a proper response
>arbitrarily blames capitalism
lol

i dont get why /mu/ should have to explain themselves for the actions of rolling stone

>>51777857
>is it narrower than Sgt. Peppers being the best album ever?
1) I never supported the sentiment of Sgt. Pepper's (or any album) being the undisputed best album ever.
2) Actually, yes, that godawful overview of the history of rock music is narrower than simply stating that Sgt. Pepper's is the best music album.

>>51777872
>Not really. They just happened to end up a good position to be highly influential.

Suggesting that they couldn't just simply "end up" in that position haphazardly, or that they could have possibly forced their way into that position without wealthy businessmen bankrolling their publicity train, constitutes a pretty fucking proper response m8.

Also, it really isn't "blaming" capitalism, it's merely a logically simple A = A level type statement for anyone who understands how capitalism works.

This may be the worst fucking format in history. Is there a way to get to the end, I'm not really patient enough to figure it out?

>>51777958
it never ends, we just have half-assed arguments about The Beatles until we die.

>WELCOME TO HELL

>12. Miles Davis - Kind of Blue

kek please Rolling Stone you're embarrassing yourself enough already, don't try to present yourselves as some kind of authority of jazz too

this list should just be called 'your childhood guitar teacher's record collection'

>>51777941
>it really isn't "blaming" capitalism, it's merely a logically simple A = A level type statement for anyone who understands how capitalism works.
Except you totally haven't demonstrated an understanding of how capitalism works. You just randomly blamed corporations for the Beatles being so popular, even though it had much more to do with the cultural and societal changes going on during the 1960s and the Beatles managing to be at the forefront of the British Invasion. Of course there were exchanges of currency and products involved, but that doesn't really get at the heart of why the Beatles became a big, influential group.

>>51778029
not mine, he hated this stuff

>>51778036
in what way is being "at the forefront of the British Invasion" not a product of a record label taking an interest in promoting them to the world as a product? were there not, purely as a matter of statistics and probability, a minimum of several dozen bands doing similar enough things? it seems unlikely that they were at the forefront purely based on artistic merit. they were 4 pretty white Brits that young bitches would swoon over. and so they were packaged and sold to the world. BAM

the "cultural and societal changes" were what made them an incredibly profitable, exploitable commodity.

i understand capitalism well enough. just stop it, Tribune. my head hurts. D=

>>51778029
xDDDD

it's like when Jo Whiley on BBC radio keeps going on that Britpop was an important epoch of human endeavour, it makes you want to rip your face off

File: ub2xQD5.gif (1MB, 300x167px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x167px

>1. Beatles
>3. Beatles
>4. Dylan
>5. Beatles
>9. Dylan
>10. Beatles
>14. Beatles
>16. Dylan

>>51778230
mah nigga

>>51777009

then why is outkast #500?

>>51778111
>in what way is being "at the forefront of the British Invasion" not a product of a record label taking an interest in promoting them to the world as a product?
Where did I say it wasn't?

>were there not, purely as a matter of statistics and probability, a minimum of several dozen bands doing similar enough things?
Where did I say there weren't? In fact, many of those kind of bands made up many of the Beatles well-known contemporaries.

>it seems unlikely that they were at the forefront purely based on artistic merit. they were 4 pretty white Brits that young bitches would swoon over. and so they were packaged and sold to the world. BAM
Except this is a really shallow assessment of how things actually went down.

>the "cultural and societal changes" were what made them an incredibly profitable, exploitable commodity.
And?

>i understand capitalism well enough.
I doubt it. You seem to have a very elementary understanding of economics combined with even less knowledge regarding fields such as sociology and musicology.

>>51778304
Just scroll down a little further and you'll see it's one of the handful of token "new" artists.

File: ketchupsmoke.jpg (29KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 960x720px

>>51778321
>Of course there were exchanges of currency and products involved, but that doesn't really get at the heart of why the Beatles became a big, influential group.

>Where did I say there weren't? In fact, many of those kind of bands made up many of the Beatles well-known contemporaries.
therefore, any of those bands could've filled their spot in musical and cultural history given equal publicity.

>>51778512
>therefore, any of those bands could've filled their spot in musical and cultural history given equal publicity.
Except many of those groups (e.g. The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, etc.) frequently were given similar amounts of publicity and exposure.

>>51777009
really old people think music died after 1949

FOR THE SAKE OF COMPARISION

LETS COMPARE WITH OUR TOP 500
https://rateyourmusic.com/friendchart?user=mucore&user=mucore

File: 1406950825807.gif (793KB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 360x203px

>gotta show my friends at /mu/ how cool and special I am for disliking the Beatles just like they do!

>>51778693
>putting magical mystery tour there

>but no Rubber Soul

Literally fuck off

>the opinion of professionals in the music industry and loads of artists in the music business are wrong compared to the opinion of a cynical shitty imageboard that only likes dark indieshit

>>51777358
>Music has never seen such a thing before.
John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr all disagree.

Fun fact: Sgt Pepper's is Ringo's least favorite Beatles album.

File: faggots.jpg (57KB, 380x488px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 380x488px

>>51778630
>were given similar amounts of publicity and exposure.
but were they though?

>>51778728
Yes.

>>51778716
this is made by collective rym score of mutants, complain with everyone here

>>51777765
>earlier blues artists -> the Rolling Stones -> Led Zeppelin -> Black Sabbath
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but weren't Zeppelin and Sabbath formed around the same and already creating two distinctive (if similar) styles?

>>51778755
>Ringo
>the meme Beatle

>>51778746
Well said anon. Half of the top 20 greatest albums recorded in the history of music were either by The Beatles or Bob Dylan. Clearly we are all wrong and this magazine is the height of music criticism.

>>51778784
90% it was George's least favorite too, he was rarely around during recording sessions and thought John and Paul were just feeding their ego.

>>51778781
No, Zepplein were before Sabbath, and named by Ozzy as an early influence

>>51778791
>he actually thinks these rankings are made solely out of songs quality

No, you retard. They consider impact and influence as well. Not just if the songs were good

Christ, why is /mu/ so fucking stupid?

>>51778806
Led Zeppelin formed in 1968.
Black Sabbath formed in 1968.
>>51778808
That's why they included a compilation of Elvis singles that appealed to nostalgia and didn't include Harry Smith's Anthology of American Folk Music, right?

>>51778806
>No, Zepplein were before Sabbath
Wrong, they both formed in 1968, and all the members had been in groups before that.

>>51778746
>https://rateyourmusic.com/friendchart?user=mucore&user=mucore

this is our opinion ad surprisiling enought its a top 500 too

check it and compate

>>51778844
Led Zeppelin had already put out two albums when Sabbath released their debut

And again, Ozzy named them as an early influence

But you've spent 5 minutes on wikipidea so I'm sure you know better than the people who actually made the album

>>51778864
>unironically putting that memeshit ITAOTS album there

>>51778892
You sure know how to argue online, leaving sources out of your posts at all times.

File: 420.png (112KB, 800x435px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 800x435px

>>51778771
bottom line

The Beatles were an easily replaceable artist. Any number of other artists could've filled the gap (or not) and the "music continuum" would've gone along just the same.

bottom bottom line

The Beatles suck

>>51778892
you actually made the album? woah, I am such honored.

>>51778896
Get your rym account and rate it with a small score, if that is a problem.
To this chart work, people need to give small scores to stuff they think it deserve small scores

>>51778923
Amazing b8.

File: image.jpg (40KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x373px

>>51778892
>Ozzy named them as an early influence
Ozzy also considers the Beatles to be the greatest band of all time, so I don't even know what the fuck is going on now.

>>51778892
Y'know, given how many Beatles songs Ozzy mentions as his favorite, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't include The Beatles among his influences too:

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/james-hetfield-ozzy-osbourne-reveal-their-greatest-songs-of-all-time/

File: legend.jpg (82KB, 1080x665px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1080x665px

Number 46 is a best-of album. I can't take it anymore.

>>51778923
>can't effectively continue argument
>simply restates largely refuted main point
ebin

File: dafuq.jpg (26KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x450px

>>51778948
>>51778953

mfw you guys actually take what Ozzy Osbourne says serious.

>>51778975
you're doing the exact same thing, whatever man.

debate = over

>>51778976
I don't. That's the point I was trying to make. Ozzy considering LZ an "early influence" doesn't really mean shit because he was hardly a principle songwriter anyways.

>>51778976
>tells us that Ozzy said Led Zeppelin was a huge influence on him
>tells us that Ozzy's sayings shouldn't be taking seriously
So...Ozzy doesn't count as a source for Led Zeppelin being an influence on Black Sabbath?

>>51778991
>you're doing the exact same thing
Not really.

>debate = over
lol, this wasn't a debate.

>>51779006
got the wrong guy on that one.

File: howdyhowdy.jpg (31KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x600px

>>51779020
what was the point you were trying to make?
I've lost it among the loopholes in your logic and overall Beatles bandwagoning you've displayed.

>>51778968
Not only a Best Of but a Best Of of the most watered down pop-reggae made specifically for American pop charts. Legend is the worst Marley has to offer and arguably the worst the genre has to offer.

>>51778968
>>51779097

King Tubby has a remarkable career that is worth mentioning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTFheT9opM

>>51779064
>what was the point you were trying to make?
I wasn't aiming to make a definitive point. I was just responding to your supposed arguments for why the Beatles were unimportant with reasons why said arguments just don't work.

>I've lost it among the loopholes in your logic
Where? I believe I was being quite direct.

>overall Beatles bandwagoning you've displayed
(not true, by the way)

File: IMG_20141130_100248.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

Don't hate me pls :(

>>51779179
>I wasn't aiming to make a definitive point. I was just responding to your supposed arguments for why the Beatles were unimportant with reasons why said arguments just don't work.
same here.

>Where? I believe I was being quite direct.
>>51778512
The Beatles were an easily replaceable artist. Any number of other artists could've filled the gap (or not) and the "music continuum" would've gone along just the same.
>The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys

>(not true, by the way)
then why are you bothering, exactly?

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

>>51779286
>"We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio on, and eight of the Top 10 songs were Beatles songs...'I Wanna Hold Your Hand,' all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid... I knew they were pointing the direction of where music had to go."
A quote from Bob Dylan.

File: fuck.jpg (78KB, 811x711px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 811x711px

Fuck this.

File: you.jpg (165KB, 553x793px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 553x793px

>>51779358

>>51779358
no kidding.

"but it's home to me and I walk alone" - The Tribune of the Plebs !!wPT7mWoEj2f

>>51779218
Pretty expensive toilet paper you got there.

>>51779134
wow

>>51779358
it's good though

>>51779405
(fuck the Beatles)

>>51779286
>The Beatles were an easily replaceable artist. Any number of other artists could've filled the gap (or not) and the "music continuum" would've gone along just the same.
You've yet to prove this to be plausible, though.

>>The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys
All contemporaries who coexisted with the Beatles within their own niches in popular rock music.

>then why are you bothering, exactly?
Because you're cute.

>>51779339
"This land is your land and this land is my land, sure, but the world is run by those that never listen to music anyway." - Bob Dylan

>>51779376
what

Albums that are not as good as Green Day's American Idiot according to Rolling Stone:

>The Replacements - Let It Be
>The Velvet Underground – White Light/White Heat
>Ornette Coleman - The Shape of Jazz to Come
>Various Artists – Anthology of American Folk Music
>David Bowie - Low
>Bruce Springsteen - Nebraska
>Pixies - Doolittle
>Howlin' Wolf - 'Howlin' Wolf
>Black Sabbath - Black Sabbath
>Jay-Z - The Blueprint
>Otis Redding – Complete & Unbelievable: The Otis Redding Dictionary of Soul
>Kraftwerk – Trans-Europe Express
>The Kinks - Are the Village Green Preservation Society
>Ray Charles – The Genius of Ray Charles
>The Jesus and Mary Chain – Psychocandy
>Parliament – Mothership Connection
>Black Sabbath – Master of Reality
>The Velvet Underground – The Velvet Underground
>Pixies – Surfer Rosa
>Sonic Youth – Daydream Nation
>Neil Young Tonight's the Night
>Black Flag – Damaged
>Talking Heads – Stop Making Sense
>Kanye West – My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Dozens more but I got bored

>>51779436
>You've yet to prove this to be plausible, though.
I've proven that it's plausible, but I obviously can't turn back time and slay the Beatles to see what happens (no matter how much I wish I could).

it's a speculative topic we've been talking about that really has no definitive answer.

>All contemporaries who coexisted with the Beatles within their own niches in popular rock music.
I simply disagree that the Beatles are a mandatory condition of having the rock/pop music we have today (given this length of time).

>Because you're cute.
omg liek ur2, u watn sum fuk?

>>51777464
>philip goldberg

File: sailorinter.jpg (26KB, 330x604px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 330x604px

>>51779493
let's get a fucking repeal on this 500 list.

>>51779534
>I've proven that it's plausible
Not really.

>I simply disagree that the Beatles are a mandatory condition of having the rock/pop music we have today (given this length of time).
Well, you'd be wrong then. There's just no avoiding the influence if not just Beatles, but all the other major 60s rock and pop groups who mutually influenced each other and subsequent generations. You don't have to like the Beatles or what they influenced, and there's plenty of music and subcultures that's outside their influence, but denying it altogether and saying thing would have been the same without them is just irrational.

>>51779416
For some people it's really good, but it's not best-500-albums-of-all-time-good.

File: nirvunu.jpg (78KB, 1080x669px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1080x669px

>>51779419
"Fuck the Beatles, go Yoko, you know bro."

>>51779755
what?

>>51779653
>Not really.
but I have though, I'm guessing you just won't accept it.

>Well, you'd be wrong then. There's just no avoiding the influence if not just Beatles, but all the other major 60s rock and pop groups who mutually influenced each other and subsequent generations. You don't have to like the Beatles or what they influenced, and there's plenty of music and subcultures that's outside their influence, but denying it altogether and saying thing would have been the same without them is just irrational.
among the myriad of genres and artists that existed at the time, I find it hard to believe that the Beatles were so heavily influential that music couldn't have gone about it's way just the way it has.
more than likely if the Beatles didn't exist (hopefully I've slaughtered them and we're somehow still talking about them in a time paradox) a band much like the Beatles would have been influential and filled the gap more or less.

read this and respond to it as well as what I essentially rehashed for the sole purpose of solidifying my point.
>>51779305
>>51779305
>>51779305

File: 1400256191368.jpg (95KB, 936x781px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 936x781px

>>51779493

>>51779840
>but I have though
Where? Cite a specific post where you fundamentally refute the Beatles' importance.

>among the myriad of genres and artists that existed at the time, I find it hard to believe that the Beatles were so heavily influential that music couldn't have gone about it's way just the way it has.
I don't think you understand how thoroughly ingrained the existence of bands like the Beatles or the Rollings Stones are into popular music. You seem to treat these bands like cogs in a clock when they're really like organisms in an environment, all having adapted to specific roles in accordance to their nature and nurture. You can't just switch them out with similar creatures and expect the same ecosystem.

>more than likely if the Beatles didn't a band much like the Beatles would have been influential and filled the gap more or less.
Except there's the "more or less". How more or less? How do you know the gap would have been filled at all? Do you really understand the number of variables in work here?

>read this
are you really taking the scaruffi pasta seriously

>>51777741
100% agree

>>51779305
>Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane
wait what
no they haven't, Louis Armstrong occupies the top spot in terms of significance and anyone with entry-level Jazz knowledge knows this
not even reading the rest of your shit post tbh after that one

>>51780163
you're the most autismal and trolly fuck I've ever had the pleasure of thoroughly presenting my points and you "shitposting" over.

obviously it's a deal where we're going to have to agree to disagree, but I know where I stand. You believe what you're saying and I believe you believe it. I've given up on you Tribune.

The Plebles are not deserving of the 3/5 in the top 5 no matter how much you want to tell your mind to lie to your soul.

on with the main point of this entire thread:
>>51776975

File: image.jpg (43KB, 320x312px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 320x312px

>>51780299
>cries "autism"
>has an autistic hissy fit
you're a dumb shit

*puke*

said the faggot