How the fuck was Tomorrow Never Knows made over 50 years ago?

that's the song that convinced me that Scaruffi was wrong about the Beatles

fuck I recently watched a clip from the documentary about how they made Tomorrow Never Knows and it was pretty cool, but it's not on youtube. I think it was a facebook video but I can't find it :(

Probably barely close to their reactions to Strawberry Fields Forever. That song made Brian Wilson cry bc he couldn'f top it.

>>68241873
Mrs. O'leary's Cow might not be as emotionally enticing but all versions of it I've heard are as out there as Tomorrow Never Knows.

She said she said is probably the pinnacle of Ringo's drumming. He does that song with only a 4 piece kit. What the fuck?

>>68241964
revolution 9 is the superior bad trip pop song

>>68241873
Surf's up hmmm hmmm hmmm aboard a tidal wave

>>68241520
I remember this playing on Mad Men. That show gives you a good sense of how people saw the song and the band as a whole.

>>68242621
>revolution 9
>pop song

>>68242796
>revolution 9
>song

>>68242621
>revolution 9
>

>>68243117
>revolution
>9

>>68243264
>9
>revolution

>>68242796
its experimental and avant garde for the beatles but its not stochuasen or anything, its a pop song

Anyone remembers the part in The Cry of Lot 49 where Stockhausen plays at a pub? It was pretty cool to get a 60's 'casual' perspective of his music.

>>68243259
>
revolution 9

>>68243318
>autism has entered the chat

>>68243290
>revo
>9
>lution

>>68243318
kek

You say like until the 60s there hasen't been quality work in music. I like Beatles and this song is from its decade and it totally shows. It's a great pop song.
Also, at that point you already had Shostakovich's works.

>>68241520

Hello OP. We are Tom Rowlands and Ed Simons. We are The Chemical Brothers.

Our entire musical career has been spent making variations on the theme of that one Beatles song. We shall never tire of doing so, and we don't think that our fans will, either.

>>68243318
>beatles release song of themselves shitting on each other

Eh it's pretty sporky for teh beatles but it's not mr. bungle or anything. Still a pop song.

File: chemical-brothers_284_1434.jpg (97KB, 1272x1024px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1272x1024px

>>68243482

Eh-heh-heh. Here is the picture of us sitting in chairs that we had meant to attach.

>>68241520
Honestly Tomorrow Never Knows would sound fresh even if it was released today. Timeless song.

>>68241873
Brian Wilson seriously cried over that song? It's like he didn't even know that Pet Sounds alone BTFO half their discography.

>>68241964
that *one part* in Mrs. O'leary's Cow with the sudden chaotic strings after the beginning cartoony section... imagine hearing that in 1967 in the same years as A Day In The Life and Heroin... holy shit. i could show that part of Mrs. O'learys Cow to someone who didnt know it and theyd think its GY!BE until those trademark beach boys harmonies come in!

>>68242796
>>68243318
>>68243423
pop songs can be experimental. experimental songs can also be pop songs

File: theoldlickeroo.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>68244550
brian is very humble desu

>>68241548
this this this

https://www.kindakinks.net/misc/articles/beatles.html
here's a review of Revolver from 1966 by Ray Davies of the Kinks if you wanna know how the 'counterculture' and youth were percieving this stuff before Sgt Peppers.... interesting shit-
>he calls yellow submarine and TNK electronic music (tnk i get but its fun to think of how people reacted to the sound collage and sampling in a ditzy kids song like Yellow Submarine!)
>he hates Eleanor Rigby
>thinks Good Day Sunshine is gonna be a huge chart hit
>thinks George Martin must have hated Tomorrow Never Knows (when in actuality he was on board helping make it reality)
>references how the Beatles using sitar and doing indian songs was only after the kinks had already done See My Friends

>>68241520
Just imagine it
>oh look it's showtunes with sound effects
>*yawns*

early beatles >>>>>> mid-to-late beatles

>>68243318
shitty avant garde is still avant garde

>>68245105
is this the ultimate contrarian opinion?

>>68245214
No, it's my genuine opinion.

Early Beatles is great rock and roll. They became bloated, fragmented, and pretentious as time went on. Especially with horrifically overproduced albums like Sgt Pepper's that sounds like fucking movie music

>>68245214
It's the ultimate stupid opinion that's for sure

>>68244908
>until those trademark beach boys harmonies come in!

>>68245270
>pretentious
Stopped reading there.

>>68244958
To be fair, Ray Davies was a jealous drunk curmudgeon who was forever butthurt he was in the shadow of The beatles

>>68245355
It's a valid criticism.

>>68245406
Oh do you know them personally?

>>68245270
>They became bloated, fragmented, and pretentious as time went on.
nice buzzwords.
>Especially with horrifically overproduced albums like Sgt Pepper's that sounds like fucking movie music
how the fuck is sgt. pepper's overproduced? the production is fucking top-tier, why else do you think it was so influential? early beatles were okay pop at best but thinking late beatles are "pretentious" is a shit argument. are you saying all artists need to make their music as basic as it comes instead of having an artistic progression in their sound? what the fuck?

>>68245422
Oh it's this argument again
>Beatles fan gets mad and says you can't critique their music unless you know them personally
Music can be pretentious.
>>68245466
>how the fuck is sgt. pepper's overproduced?
How is it not, you retard? Do you know how many musicians were involved in the making of that album? How much studio time and tape it used up to make average pop songs seem flashy to conform to the latest trends?
>are you saying all artists need to make their music as basic as it comes instead of having an artistic progression in their sound? what the fuck?
No. The Beatles barely had "artistic progression", they made their sound MORE accessible and MORE appealing as time went on. There were some traces of experimentalism, and I have to give them credit for being the first experimental rock/pop artists, but their avant-garde pretensions never materialized into anything truly great. I love Life With The Lions though.

>>68245554
>Music can be pretentious.
Prove it. Do you know them personally?
>they made their sound MORE accessible and MORE appealing as time went on
How is Tomorrow Never Knows more accessible than I Want To Hold Your hand?

>>68244550
Even Brian was smart enough to know the Beatles were better

>>68243482
>>68241520 (OP)

https://vimeo.com/141774438

>>68244550
>implying

>>68245406
No it's not it just means you're feeling intellectually insecure, pleb.

>>68245598
>Prove it. Do you know them personally?
Nonsensical argument. Tell me why music can't
>attempt to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed
Because this certainly applies to a lot of albums, like ITCOCK, Ziggy Stardust, and Spiderland.
>How is Tomorrow Never Knows more accessible than I Want To Hold Your hand?
I acknowledged Tommorow Never Knows as the first experimental rock song. It's not very inaccessible though, it has sound effects but they're pleasing to the ear and it's still as melodic as anything else. What I'm thinking is their Sgt Pepper's and later direction, where, even if they want you to think of it as psychedelic and experimental, they made their songs closer to Vaudeville and traditional pop to appeal to parents and old people who didn't like love songs or the noise of guitars and drums. The Beatles didn't become the best selling music artist of all time just "following their muse". They had an audience and they catered to it.

>>68245669
People who try to discredit the term "pretentious" are insecure pretentious people.

>>68245692
I don't think you know what you're talking about.

>>68245718
Nice rebuttal. Do you care to expand on it?

>>68245726
Not worth my time.

>>68245746
So you don't have a rebuttal? K dude

>>68245692
>Nonsensical argument. Tell me why music can't
>attempt to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed
Again, how do you know of the talent "actually possessed"? Once again, do you know them personally?
>they made their songs closer to Vaudeville and traditional pop to appeal to parents and old people who didn't like love songs or the noise of guitars and drums
Oh like"I Am The Walrus or Helter Skelter?
>They had an audience and they catered to it.
Who didn't?

>>68245761
:^)

File: jej.jpg (36KB, 599x449px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 599x449px

>>68245554
>The Beatles barely had "artistic progression"
Are you seriously implying Revolver isn't an artistic progression from Please Please Me, hell even Help? What the fuck?

>>68241825
was most likely in the Anthology.

>>68245765
>Again, how do you know of the talent "actually possessed"? Once again, do you know them personally?
Well now you're just being pedantic. If the music is trying to pretend to be something it's not, then it's pretentious. This, in my opinion, applies to a lot of the Beatles' work.
>Oh like"I Am The Walrus or Helter Skelter?
To be the best selling music group of all time, you need to cast as wide a net as possible. They needed songs for rebellious teens too. But for every Helter Skelter, you have three short, melodic ballads using baroque instrumentation and sappy singing.
>Who didn't?
The Velvet Underground, the Stooges, Frank Zappa, hell even the Beach Boys. Most bands were deep into experimentalism at the time, the Beatles watered their innovations down but tried to pass it off as the real thing.

>>68244932
Are you the same person that said this this this when I posted Bon Iver's s/t as my AOTD?

>>68245789
Oh, you could say that they became more sophisticated, but then they lost the irresponsible energy of early Beatles. They became artier, but not more "artistic".

>>68244550
pet sounds is overproduced garbage.
>hurrr let's throw in some more random instruments and let me sing about how a fucking beta I am

>>68245870
>Well now you're just being pedantic
Or rather, you don't understand what "pretentious" actually means, or the implications of using it.
>If the music is trying to pretend to be something it's not
Which is the crux: who do *you* know what it (the art or the artist) is or is not? Do you know them personally?

No you don't. Argo "pretentious" is a weak criticism. You're going to have to live with that and no vaudeville song and dance will get you around it.
>To be the best selling music group of all time, you need to cast as wide a net as possible. They needed songs for rebellious teens too.
OK show me 30 songs that sound exactly like I Am The Walrus.
>>68245870
>The Velvet Underground
They had pop songs. They even recorded a sell-out album
>Frank Zappa hell even the Beach Boys
Talk about overproduced and pretentious! You must not have heard Lumpy Gravy or Pet Sounds...

But seriously, Brian added commercial lyrics to his most experimental piece (Good Vibrations) so it'd be more commercial. Zappa was recording commercial single to try and get a hit (Big leg Emma, My guitar Wants To Kill Your mama). how is that NOT commercial pandering, yet The Beatles ARE? That's selective reasoning

File: j5UrAlQ.jpg (32KB, 480x454px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x454px

>>68245949
>let's throw in some more random instruments
>let me sing about how a fucking beta I am
is this what passes for critiscism these days?

>>68241520
>I can't even imagine how awestruck people in the '60s must've been when they heard this for the first time
Only plebs were amazed by it back then, and even now too, from looking at your post.

tomorrow never knows is so technologically advanced for its time it must have been given to the lads by aliens.. and the mellotron too.

>>68241520
I still haven't heard the "Long" version yet.

>>68241520
>I can't even imagine how awestruck people in the '60s must've been when they heard this for the first time.

I have an old copy of Revolver on vinyl, an early stereo press (In a mismatched mono sleeve...), and Tomorrow Never Knows is basically the only song that doesn't sound like degraded, distorted shit. Apparently, it wasn't appreciated or even listened to much in this case.

>>68245980
no but it passes for shitposting on /mu/