How could anyone hate The Beatles? Is it just contrarianism?

>>69221289
I hate THOSE Beatles. Post-Rubber Soul Beatles are the best

insert scruffy pasta here

are they wearing fucking wigs hahahhaha wtf

Black beatles is the best beatles song.

>>69221309
>>69221429
i can't decide which of these posts is worse

Their albums have no coherent sound at all, it just feels like a mess to listen to when the quality and just constantly shifts from song to song. And I dont really like their vocals and their Chord progressions and melodys just feels cheezy.

File: Money.jpg (152KB, 919x927px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 919x927px

>>69221289
I remember Frank Zappa saying that he saw John Lennon and Paul in interview claiming that they were only in it for the money. I would really like to see those interviews.

>FZ, interviewed by Mike Bourne, Down Beat Yearbook, 1971
>On the day that that album was released, the thing that escaped everybody was the fact that it was designed to show that the Beatles were only in it for the money, not that we were. If we were only in it for the money, we'd be doing something else! I mean, to look at that cover and to see the people on that cover and say that these guys are only in it for the money . . . I thought that was the funniest thing we could have put together. But automatically everybody assumed that that was the exact truth, and nobody stopped to question for a minute the relationship between the Sgt. Pepper cover style and the title. You know, they never once questioned that the Beatles might be anything other than directly descended from heaven. And I personally felt for a long time that they were extremely plastic, and flat-out commercial.

>>69221644
In interviews*

>>69221289
http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html
This is quite an interesting read.

cream seats in the regal

>>69221644
Based Zappa :'(

>>69221644
Who cares? They made a shit ton of money AND produced a great body of work at the same time.

>>69221994
>They made a shit ton of money AND produced a great body of work at the same time.
That being said, I can only appreciate them as great businessmen and not artists.

>>69221644
If they were in it for the money it would've made more sense for them to keep making their pre-rubber soul style of music which was more digestable to the average listener desu, this makes no sense

>>69222015
Why not appreciate them as both? Yes their original intentions for entering the popular music industry were mainly commercial (so was everyone else's at the time though) but after achieving commercial success they became the first band to turn pop/rock music into an art form. Even if you listen to their earlier stuff there are almost always nice little musical touches here and there that weren't really necessary for them to include in a "commercial" work.

>>69221644
What a hypocrite. Zappa didn't work for free either.

>>69222228
http://www.ninepointsmagazine.org/john-lennon-an-enneagram-profile-by-gavan-kearney/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2010/12/08/5607578-john-lennon-a-man-of-absolute-contradictions
This doesn't make a lot sense, at least not for a man that's regarded as a peace promoter, public activist and a ''pure'' person.
>>69222416
He didn't make music for the sole purpose of making money, did he? And how did he finance his orchestral work (which required large orchestras)? By engaging in trade deals with Eastern European countries and not by making Top 40 hits. That's what someone with artistic inegrity does.

Anti-popular recorded music is a blissful ideal to me occasionally. Playing is beautiful but why keep it? I'm glad that I've heard this music but it feels like a mental strap sometimes.

>>69222604
(which required large orchestras and more people to get paid for their performance)*

>>69222604
integrity*
a lot of sense*

>>69222604
>He didn't make music for the sole purpose of making money, did he?
Did The Beatles?
>not by making Top 40 hits.
Not like Big Legged Emma or My Guitar Wants To Kill Your Mama?

From the exact same interview anon quoted:
M.B.: According to the press, your group isn't supposed to be officially together.
F.Z.: Well, we were offered an extremely large amount of money to play a festival in England. I didn't think it would be such a bad idea.

>This doesn't make a lot sense, at least not for a man that's regarded as a peace promoter, public activist and a ''pure'' person.
Nice out-of-context analysis but The Beatles were four guys, not one.

>>69222604
>He didn't make music for the sole purpose of making money, did he?

neither did the beatles

File: MagicalMysteryTourDoubleEPcover.jpg (130KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 300x300px

If you don't think this is easily the best beatles album you're a fag with no taste

>>69222713
>Not like Big Legged Emma or My Guitar Wants To Kill Your Mama?
Do you also think that ''Harder Than Your Husband'' is a genuine country/cowboy song?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RokLK8I61mI
I don't think you understand that Zappa did almost everything ironically song wise.
>>69222729
Got any proof of that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jenWdylTtzs
This doesn't seem satirical or ironic at all.

>>69221404
The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith.

>>69222933
>I don't think you understand that Zappa did almost everything ironically song wise.
Why can't this logic apply to The Beatles as well? Or is this just selective logic to make Zappa seem infallible?

in my opinion, it's blank and void. There's exceptions (Revolver and a few other tracks), but in a wider sense it doesn't try to surprise you. It's not a wonder to hear, just an output of the many repetitious emotions that inhabit themselves in the sphere of popular music.

In terms of quality, it's acceptable, maybe even alright in some cases. But, it's course is detrimental (This is not to say The Beatles are the main cause, just a symptom).

ok thanks for hearing my pretentious rant

>>69222933
Are you arguing that """authentic""" art must be ironic?

>>69223122
>but in a wider sense it doesn't try to surprise you
Are you the average listener in 1966?

>>69222750
DUDE ACID LMAO

>>69223108
>>69223142
Funny how you ignored the song I've linked. And no, music doesn't have to be ironic to be good. You know full well that the song I've linked is a genuine mediocre pop song. How I wish I could actually find those interviews I mentioned. Why can't that logic apply to Beatles? Please prove how. And how is any human infallible? This is not a valid argument.

>>69223210
Yes, i traveled through time just to make that post

>>69223236
>Funny how you ignored the song I've linked.
Funny you ignored my original point and evidence.
>Please prove how.
You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you that when Zappa was being commercial he was being ironic, but when the Beatles did it it was genuine.
>>69223246
Non argument.

>>69223280
why would you think i was making an argument?

>>69223294
Why wouldn't you have factual basis around your opinions?

>>69223313
because it's funner that way

>>69223356
So you admit to having shit opinions?

>>69223391
maybe lol

at least i dont like the beatles

>>69222604
What do you mean "by engaging in trade deals with other countries", was he representing the US government or something as an ambassador?

>>69223411
That's fine.

>>69223454
why are you still responding

>>69223462
Why are you still responding?

>>69223478
Why are you still responding?

File: 1479838113641.jpg (55KB, 378x566px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 378x566px

>>69223478
Ya got me

>>69223508
Why am I responding?

>>69223520

I too am responding

plz respond

>>69223280
>You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you that when Zappa was being commercial he was being ironic, but when the Beatles did it it was genuine.
https://youtu.be/rYu3UsNIXMM - This is the interview in which he explains how and why The Mothers of Invention were formed. He, out of all members of the band wanted to make original material and didn't mind getting fired from bars for not playing what the audience wanted to hear and what was popular back then.
https://youtu.be/Eln3J6BxWN0 - This interview in particular. Do you expect a person who's interested in any kind of commercial success would make such statements on TV while being interviewed by someone from MTV?
Again, here's his second album (one of his earlier works).
http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_mothers_of_invention/absolutely_free/
If you've actually listened to it, do you think that it had any commercial potential? And not only that, but he also stated in interviews that the owners of record companies told him that his music had absolutely zero potential of commercial success. I'd like to hear something remotely similar to that by any member of The Beatles. Can you find such statements and interviews?

>>69223543
Here's your response. Why, I don't know.

>>69223559
>my analysis is...
Not relevant.

Please show us this proof.

>>69223559
>If you've actually listened to it
Its one of my favorite albums. it's OK to like both Zappa and Beatles
>do you think that it had any commercial potential?
I literally just gave you two examples of singles made solely to get a hit (commercial rock). Did he make non-commercial albums? Yes. He also made commercial material as well (see Chunga's Revenge, Apostrophe, etc).

Is revolution 9 a commercial Beatles song?

>>69223811
Quotes the words I never used in any of my posts and expects a serious response...

>>69223873
I don't expect a serious response form you anyways because you are using selective logic to put Zappa on a pedestal and take the Beatles down a notch.

Both artists made commercial and non commercial music. Get over it.

>>69221289
I have trouble understanding that myself, even if they aren't my favorite 60's popular music act.

>>69222604
>That's what someone with artistic inegrity does.
I spit out my drink.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "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 worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

>>69223862
>>69223921
>I literally just gave you two examples of singles made solely to get a hit (commercial rock). Did he make non-commercial albums? Yes. He also made commercial material as well (see Chunga's Revenge, Apostrophe, etc).
And yet, almost every single person on this planet older than 13 has heard of The Beatles. They're even in school books. How many of those people have even heard of Frank Zappa? And how many people would consider Frank Zappa a household name compared to The Beatles?

>>69223921
>Both artists made commercial and non commercial music. Get over it.
Funny how every single Beatles album is classified as pop rock among other genres.

>>69223862
You can argue that Zappa tried achieving commercial success and we're all aware that he didn't achieve it.

>>69223862
>>69223921

>YOU SAY YES AND I SAY NO
>YOU SAY STOP AND I SAY GO GO GO
>OH NO
>YOU SAY GOODBYE AND I SAY HELLO
>HELLO HELLO
>I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SAY GOODBYE
>I SAY HELLO

The difference is that Zappa didn't make any songs that had lyrics that literally could have been written by an eight-year-old. Even his commercial songs were intelligent.

Selling out and making commercial music are not mutually exclusive. Beatles sold out. Zappa didn't. Beatles gave away their artistic integrity in favor of making money. Zappa managed to hang on to both.

>>69224024
>How many of those people have even heard of Frank Zappa?
Tons, actually. Zappa was ridiculously famous for a long time.

This reminds me of that time a few months I saw some people here who were actually under the impression that King Crimson was some obscure find.

>>69224205
>All lyrics have to be literature

Vocals are an instrument faggot, lyrics are largely a nicety. Melody = 80%, Lyrics = 20%

>>69221289

according to the Beatles fans:
thinking that they are overrated and that they're not the greatest band ever = hating them

>>69223391
I do sometimes, opinions are a nuisance,

>>69223508
I like talking to you :)
Whatchalisteningto?

>>69224448
>implying the instrumentation/melodies on mindless pop sellout songs like "She Loves You" wasn't just as trite, simplistic, and childish as the lyrics

Most of the time they weren't even remotely technically impressive with their instruments.

https://2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html

>>69224205
Dreamed I was an Eskimo
Frozen wind began to blow
Under my boots and around my toes
The frost that bit the ground below
It was a hundred degrees below zero...

And my mama cried
And my mama cried
Nanook, a-no-no
Nanook, a-no-no
Don't be a naughty Eskimo
Save your money, don't go to the show

Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Ho, Ho"
And the northern lights commenced to glow
And she said, with a tear in her eye
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"

Please stop pontificating.

>>69222933
>>69221644
stop making zappa fans look bad. he's already half hated on here

>>69224205
>cherrypicking

>>69221644
I like and appreciate Zappa, but the dude was out of touch. The Beatles have a lot of artistic integrity and a lot of reasons to like them. Zappa was cynical (he was in literally affair besides his own music), and he thought the Beatles morphing genres to match the times was pandering and driven by lust of money.

And that's the thing with the Beatles. You can be cynical and think they were hacks, and hate them because they are (wrongly) considered the greatest band ever. Or, you can acknowledge that such a bold claim is pointless and appreciate their merits. Your call.

>>69221572
When you have three major talents competing their variety of styles on any output, the result is going to be messy. I'd argue that any post Revolver album is fairly coherent regardless and that is one of the most interesting things about the Beatles.

>>69225214
>posts amazing lyrics
>pretends they are on the same level as shit Beatles lyrics
???????????????????????

>>69224582
Notice how this anon makes no engagement to actually criticize the Beatles. He said something about they're fans. When somebody criticizes a fanbase, it's the most obvious and shameful form of projecting.

>I would never like X, those who like X are Y...
>and I would never want to be a Y!

It's pathetic, and shows how insecure this anon is. This is sadly the dominant form of rhetoric here on /mu/.

>>69225647
Zappa's humor is extremely tiresome. Also, the Beatles had efficient lyricism that got across the point.

>>69221289
SOOO BORING AND DATED

>>69221572
>Their chord progressions and melodies are lazy
What fucking albums did you listen to mate, their chord progressions are the smoothest I've heard save for the beach boys.

>>69222750
But anon, Sgt pepper, revolver and rubber soul exist!

>>69225690
>tripfag
Opinion discredited. The Beatles are shit confirmed.

>>69221534
The "Post-Rubber Soul Beatles are the best" are the typical Pet Sounds circlejerk fans on /mu/. Though they might not go beyond Smile except maybe that one other album or just for Mike Love shitposting purposes.

>>69224024
>Beatles being famous implies beatles intended to be famous implies beatles were in it for the money

wew

>>69226032
Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

>>69221289
I think that their music is diverse enough that if anybody dove into their discography with an open mind they'd quickly be able to find plenty to like, unless they truly hate rock or pop.

Personally, early Beatles don't really do anything for me, but I don't understand people who actively hate the Beatles' later albums. Even if you don't like the entire albums, I find it hard to believe that someone could truly hate all of the songs when they managed to have such a diverse sound.

I guess you could do it if you were trying to be as contrarian as possible though, or, again, really disliked the entirety of pop and rock.

>>69224074
>among other genres.
>>69224024
He tried and failed. Not sure what to tell you on that. Perhaps he was jealous of The beatles?
>>69224205
See: lyrics for "Titties and Beer"

>>69226432
Prove it. Where's the famous interview (TV or magazine) that settles it?
>>69225473
I guess providing sources for your claims and valid arguments backfires many times. This is still neo-/mu/ and it will remain that way.
>>69224310
>Tons, actually. Zappa was ridiculously famous for a long time.
Any proof of this?
>>69225565
>Or, you can acknowledge that such a bold claim is pointless and appreciate their merits. Your call.
The Beatles are the best band ever. Just believe it and stop questioning anything. This doesn't seem reasonable at all, not just in the case of them, but in the case of any band.

>>69227485
neither of the two choices he put up said that the Beatles were the best band ever or that you had to accept them as such.

>>69227434
Please refer to:
>>69223559
Does a man interested in commercial success insult the MTV in an interview? He could've reformed The Mothers of Invention as a hair metal band and cashed in on a growing trend, but he didn't.
>His lyrics are bad.
If you've watched a single interview with him, which contained questions about his music, you would've known that his songs are satirical and are simplistic or ridiculously complex for a reason. Here's an interview in which he's explaining why he made all those ugly songs on The Man from Utopia album:
https://youtu.be/b-mZjnz7mTo

>>69227485
>Prove it. Where's the famous interview (TV or magazine) that settles it?
Well, zappa is also famous. Wouldn't that logic apply to him as well?
>Any proof of this?
Were you alive in the 80s?

>>69227612
>Please refer to: >>69223559
Please refer to >>69223811
>Does a man interested in commercial success insult the MTV in an interview?
Does a man interested in commercial success say they are bigger than Jesus?
>His lyrics are bad.
Quote me where i said this?

>>69227612
>He could've reformed The Mothers of Invention as a hair metal band and cashed in on a growing trend, but he didn't
Someone hasn't listened to Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar 3

>>69227653
When did Zappa said he was bigger than Jesus? It's a famous John Lennon quote. I'm still waiting for the famous interview in which they're repulsed by having commercial success.
>>69227756
It's an instrumental album comprised of live guitar solos.

>>69227822
>I'm still waiting for the famous interview in which they're repulsed by having commercial success.
why is this necessary?

No one has been able to refute what I said earlier in the thread, so it's not really relevant.

>>69227870
>I'm still waiting for the famous interview in which they're repulsed by having commercial success.
>why is this necessary?
For someone who's defending Beatles as purists and true artists and not someone who's hungry for success I think it would make sense. While I've provided many examples of Zappa being repulsed by commercial success and dissing and insulting MTV, record companies and the music industry as a whole, I still haven't seen anything remotely similar in the case of Beatles.

>>69227942
you know over the course of this thread I think I've noticed that you might like Frank Zappa

The Beatles RULE and anybody who disagrees with me is a racist Trump supporting Republican so fuck you!

>>69227942
>For someone who's defending Beatles as purists and true artists
Quote me where I said that.
>While I've provided many examples of Zappa being repulsed by commercial success and dissing and insulting MTV
And I've already shown examples of him motivated by money.
>I still haven't seen anything remotely similar in the case of Beatles.
Where have you looked?

>>69221309
Agreed

>>69227997
>Where have you looked?
Clearly not the same place you have, so, please, let's see an interview that settles it once and for all. If your example of Zappa selling out is 3 albums of live guitar solos, I don't know what to say.

>>69228054
Ooops you didn't answer the question.

where have you looked, specifically?

>If your example of Zappa selling out is 3 albums of live guitar solos, I don't know what to say.
probably start with "I didn't read the thread"

>>69228054
And I've already explained and provided proof that every non instrumental song he's ever written was being done ironically.

>>69228099
He was being ironic when he said that

>>69228084
See: >>69228099
I'm not going to bother repeating myself. You've seen and read all that before. Oops, I didn't answer the question. I've looked on YouTube and:
http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html.
>>69228122
Was he being ironic when he was insulting the MTV,record companies and the music industry as whole as well as fighting the PMRC and censorship?

>>69228159
>Was he being ironic when he was insulting the MTV,record companies and the music industry as whole as well as fighting the PMRC and censorship?
>>69228159
You mean events that happened 20 years after being an established and independently wealthy musician?

Nice red herring

>>69228159
Since I've answered your question, while you've provided exactly 0 articles or interviews proving that The Beatles were not interested in commercial success and were willing to prove that, I'd like to finally see that.

>>69228159
>http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html.
So the only thing you know about The Beatles, is a series of articles about Frank Zappa?

doesn't make much sense, does it?
>>69228197
I shouldn't have to since it's not my argument. Unless you are making a strawman here?

>>69228159
>I get a feeling that The Beatles were only in it for the money
>The Monkees? they are great!!!
haha what an idiot

>>69224205
10000000000x better than dylan, who writes shit melodies with better lyrics

it's music, and i'd much rather hear a phenomenal melody than fucking poetry set to shitty music

ideally you'd have both (which a lot of beatles songs do)

>>69228213
You're never going to back up a single claim by providing a link to anything, are you? I should just believe you, because you said so? I was accused of doing the same, but I still provided proof.
>>69228213
>http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html.
>So the only thing you know about The Beatles, is a series of articles about Frank Zappa?
>doesn't make much sense, does it?
Ctrl + F: http:// - I'd be the only one providing anything other than my opinions. You know this. I've provided links to interviews and not just articles other people have written about him without his involvement.

>>69228317
>You're never going to back up a single claim by providing a link to anything, are you? I should just believe you, because you said so? I was accused of doing the same, but I still provided proof.
How about http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml

>>69228317
>>http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html.
Note how Zappa is speaking in past tense, how he *used* to believe this. He obviously didn't by at least 1971.

>>69228399
http://www.zappa-analysis.com/
https://paulcarr.org/2013/03/13/frank-zappa-musicological-analysis/
The links I've provided and the link you've provided contain analyses of chord progressions, notations and lyric interpretation. None of this proves that The Beatles were not only in it for the money.
>>69228422
I'm aware of that and I've been unable to find and interview that he claimed to have seen in which Paul and John McCain admitted to doing it for the money, so I'm not taking his word for it.

>>69228527
>None of this proves that The Beatles were not only in it for the money.
If they were, wouldn't they have written simpler songs that would be more likely to be hits?
>>69228527
>I'm aware of that
Cased closed then. Thanks for playing

>>69228527
John Lennon*

>>69228562
>None of this proves that The Beatles were not only in it for the money.
>If they were, wouldn't they have written simpler songs that would be more likely to be hits?
I'm still waiting to hear it from the horse's mouth. I'm still waiting for the interview in which they claim otherwise.

>>69228589
Don't play the case closed card again, as I've asked you for this many times before in this thread, but I guess it was too convenient to ignore.

>>69222015
The White Album was crazy essential to the development of probably every genre you love and experimentation in pop in general.
Remember there was a time when people like Mike Love said lyrics could be too detailed, complex and "literary"

>>69228589
>I'm still waiting to hear it from the horse's mouth
I don't think there exists a quote in which the Beatles directly either stated they were or were not in it for the money.

Is there one for zappa? Can you post it?
>>69228618
So you admit that Zappa changed his mind and decided the Beatles weren't in it for the money after all?

>>69228562
lol this is still going

>>69224205
but this is cherrypicking at its finest. What about Eleanor Rigby, Blackbird, Yesterday, and A Day in the Life?

>>69225979
I thought that too but it's very easy to listen to Sgt. Pepper too many times. Once you get to that point it's hard to hear it again and enjoy it nearly as well. Revolver is also like a 6.5-7 if you averaged track quality. Until you get to the bonus tracks/singles (two of which are 10's anyway), MMT averages closer to an 8.

Just don't make this into a Zappa v.s. The Beatles argument, guys. Paul Mccartney apparently loved Freak Out and it influenced Sgt. Pepper.

Zappa was probably arguing about it from a composition standpoint, and he hated psychedelia/drug related things to begin with so that probably did not help.

>>69228777
Remember that he also later jammed with Lennon and covered Beatles songs later in his career. He probably didn't like the marketing aspect of The Beatles, if anything at all, and you people are looking too much into it.

>>69224205
DUDE.
DUUUUDE.
I love Zappa too but "Zappa didn't make any songs that had lyrics that literally could have been written by an eight-year-old".
Zappa literally wrote songs to target 8 year olds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdpDrdwKANU

Songs like this show up a few times in their early work. And yes, that is true. I own the original album and the liner notes for Wowie Zowie say that Wowie Zowie was specifically aimed at children

>>69228823
People like a fight, and early Zappa did too.
He also hated the Velvet Underground for a while but changed his opinion on that, too. VO was too Avant Garde at the time, even for him.

>>69228859
>He also hated the Velvet Underground for a while but changed his opinion on that, too. VO was too Avant Garde at the time, even for him.
Or rather he was jealous because he was on the same label as VU, and they got better marketing funds than The Mothers, especially a lack of promotion in NY, where Zappa felt they were treated like nobodies.

Zappa was surely a musical genius, but he was also a petty egotistical fuckhead

>>69228705
>>I'm still waiting to hear it from the horse's mouth
>I don't think there exists a quote in which the Beatles directly either stated they were or were not in it for the money.
>Is there one for zappa? Can you post it?
See:
>>69227612
>>69223559
>>69222933
https://youtu.be/eRIHZSJhENo
https://youtu.be/tSzY5Bqcq9o
https://youtu.be/U_-y7qOMtTM
https://youtu.be/9cGwcR9WHAM
https://youtu.be/JdvisBNeWzE
https://youtu.be/KZazEM8cgt0
https://youtu.be/zgVUei2853A
https://youtu.be/BpcvJiZUbzI

>>69229055
What time does he say it specifically?

>>69227942
>defending Beatles as purists and true artists and not someone who's hungry for success
The two are not mutually exclusive.

>>69229096
You're not going to bother watching anything, are you? I don't know why I even bother providing proof anymore. I'd love to see a video of The Beatles saying it specifically, but this has been conveniently ignored throughout this entire thread.

>>69228910
Weird, I thought it was the other way around. And yes no Zappa fan can deny his egotistical dickness. Sometimes even that worked in his favor though sometimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydGG1RnooI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYGyySCI9kE

>>69229168
>You're not going to bother watching anything, are you
If I linked you a 20 minute interview with Paul McCartney, would you watch it?

>>69229168
I'm not him but I'll just say this now.
You must be trying to cover your ass by a wall of clips because that is nearly an hour of interviews.
What the fuck did you expect?

>>69229168
>>69229190

>>69229190
Didn't Paul die in 1964 and Ringo said that he was replaced?

File: metal machine music.jpg (57KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x500px

Sgt Peppers is trash and pic related is a far better release.

>>69229168
Frank Zappa saying that The Beatles said they were only in it for the money != The Beatles saying they were only in it for the money.

Again, stop pontificating.

File: joe-buck.jpg (250KB, 521x697px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 521x697px

>mfw my roommate told me sgt peppers was bad

>>69221572
>Their albums have no coherent sound at all

are you joking there styles was very set. all there songs sound like a sunday afternoon with the sun coming down. they dressed their songs differently but at the heart was that 60s yellow rock sound

>http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html
>That cut-out page cost us 66,000 orders in California. Some stores refused to sell the album because of the nipple on the cut-out page. They were completely unaware that it belonged to one of the guys in the band. But that's O.K. It's still selling. They can't keep it from selling
Sounds like he cares about selling records to me

>>69229190
I've asked for this many times and no one has linked a single interview with any member of the Beatles claiming that they were not only in it for the money, where as I've linked a video in which Zappa states that he can't be bought and wouldn't shave off his hear and wear clothes with spikes even if he was offered millions of dollars.

>>69229431
But I guess, even the shortest video I've linked was too convenient not to watch.

>>69229289

This. Loud Reed was a talentless hack but MMM was his best and only good album

>>69229431
>where as I've linked a video in which Zappa states that he can't be bought and wouldn't shave off his hear and wear clothes with spikes even if he was offered millions of dollars.
See >>69222713
>M.B.: According to the press, your group isn't supposed to be officially together.
>F.Z.: Well, we were offered an extremely large amount of money to play a festival in England. I didn't think it would be such a bad idea.

>>69229431
>no one has linked a single interview with any member of the Beatles claiming that they were not only in it for the money

That's not how logic works.

>69229504
Great. Please continue not providing sources for your claims and claiming you know better and anyone who dares to question what you say is just wrong.
>>69229488
Did they actually play at the festival? Let's see the full interview. Even if they did, what's wrong about that, when we have dozens of interviews in which he says what's the motivation for doing what he does - which clearly wasn't primarily money.

>>69229708
>we have dozens of interviews in which he says what's the motivation for doing what he does
Well was he already rich when he said those things?

Also here you go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJczmuZ-OeU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80IUhUg20_A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWFOO9CWfUQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHTPuJZ2OeI

File: Robert Mruczek.png (256KB, 592x320px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 592x320px

>>69229289

>>69229708
>Please continue not providing sources for your claims
What the hell are you talking about ? You don't need a source for what is essentially "you cannot prove a negative." Stop being dumb.

>>69229405
Reminder that this guy gave a shit and is basically the reason all we had were parental advisory stickers instead of huge warning lables
http://consequenceofsound.net/2012/08/rock-history-101-frank-zappa-vs-the-pmrc/

>>69229880
>please don't censor my marketing methods!

>>69229908
You probably question why your mother loves you.

>>69229939
You probably have daddy issues

>>69222228
No it wouldn't. Had they not changed their sound in the mid-60s they would have fallen out of favor during the psych and counterculture era as meaningless pop. You're delusional if you don't think their thought process was something like
>hey look, kids are doing LSD and really like studio effects for some reason
>well we should go psych as an """artistic move""" too so that we stay relevant
The Beatles would not be NEARLY as successful had they stayed a standard rock and roll band.

>>69230418
>>hey look, kids are doing LSD and really like studio effects for some reason
>>well we should go psych as an """artistic move""" too so that we stay relevant
But they were one of the first to do it though. Are you retarded?

Z

>>69225650
>complains about projecting
>is a strawman
beatles fans, everyone!

>>69226069
It's the common census among music fans and even The Beatles themselves.

>>69229794
And as the ultimate proof that they were not only in it for the money, you posted videos in which they talked about their favorite bands, buying guitars, going to school together, learning to play instruments. I guess you were trying to scare me by providing anything and hoping that I wouldn't watch any of it.