How come nobody has managed to surpass the beatles yet?

File: 1483227247284.jpg (651KB, 1988x1988px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1988x1988px

>>70339664

Not a fair statement. Bob Dylan winning a Nobel Prize pretty much officially means he surpasses even Beatlemania level overratedness

>>70339674
is this post supposed to be saying anything?

>>70339688
nah, even bob himself acknowledged they screwed up and didn't accept the award

>>70339710

Wrong.

>>70339664
the rutles > the beatles

many many times

>>70339777
I'm waiting!

>>70339783
see>>70339674

>>70339688
What does that mean? Kanye should've won? Dylan's not a writer, but if Nobel Prize for literature is being given to writers and musicians from now on, I would say that he deserved it.

File: john-lennon-death.jpg (218KB, 437x600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 437x600px

>>70339688
> Bob (((Dylan)))
> couple of decent tunes
> Nobel Prize!
>
> Beatles
> Entire catalog of fantastic music beloved by millions across the planet
> nothing

File: d76f913f1ba4395a5c1c1e7c42de7c2e.png (53KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 420x420px

>>70340447
>Bob Dylan
>Couple of decent tunes

>>70339969
>Dylan's not a writer
>what is poetry

>>70340535
He's primarily a musician.

>most overrated band in history

L M A O

>>70340584
>being primarily a musician means you can't be a writer too
also the defining character of his music has always been the lyrics. dylan is a genius lyricist, maybe the best in history

>>70340630
>dylan is a genius lyricist, maybe the best in history
I agree, hence:
>but if Nobel Prize for literature is being given to writers and musicians from now on, I would say that he deserved it.

>>70340584
music requires writing

>>70340696
not really

>>70342308
shut the fuck up pleb

>>70339664
Because it's not possible. Even if you match their levels of perfection and genius,they will still be the ones you did it first and therefore get the credit.

Theoretically you could record songs as good as Strawberry Fields Forever and Tomorrow Never Knows, but they would seem less impressive because The Beatles got there first and paved the way. I don't even know if it's possible to record a song as forward thinking as TNK was in the 60s in this day and age.

THE FACT THAT

Ur gay

>>70339674
A bit extreme but you have a point. I think the beatles are alright but they only really sort of blended the realms of shitty repetitive blues into decent rock and roll. The doors and the velvet underground are far better. In terms of rock as a broader term, i would call jimi hendrix the founding father of rock

>>70342308
Well, only if your talking improv and even that is based of a musicians inspirations, usually based of theory or written work.

>>70340592
exactly, that would go to green day lmao

>>70339664
Because their fans have been holding their legacy hostage in a ivory tower instead of letting it age gracefully with the tides of popular music

>>70340682
HERBIE

NIGGA

>>70342982
you need to talk to more fans/read more Beatles literature

the thing is bands are pretty much a new thing, the way we know music now is very very different from 100 years ago and beatlemania was only 50 years ago so it wont take much

>>70339664
tfw you're ambitious as hell but you never manage to surpass your titanium solid debut

>>70339674
this
fuck off OP

>>70342463
What people find problematic with The Beatles is that they always remained accessible and didn't deviate from pop structures very much. I would also like to mention that popularity doesn't equate critical acclaim.
>I don't even know if it's possible to record a song as forward thinking as TNK was in the 60s in this day and age.
Captain Beefheart, The Mothers of Invention, The Velvet Underground, John Cage, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Soft Machine - although not necessarily rock or pop musicians, all of them were experimental and influential.

>>70343316
that's cute, did /mu/ tell you that?

>>70343382
At least try to present arguments.

>>70343316
>didn't deviate from pop structures very much

The Beatles experimented with songwriting layering and instrumentation more than any pop band in history, as well as revolutionising recording techniques. There's more to experimentation and influence than simply the stereotypical genre sound you eventually hear on a finally produced record.

Look it up, the kind of shit John, Paul and George were doing in studio is fascinating.

>>70343316
Go on, name me a single song by any of those artists as "ahead of its time" and forward-thinking as Tomorrow Never Knows. I'll wait.

>>70344742
Well, for one, The Velvet Underground invented noise rock. Lou Reed was a great lyricist too. I think that Karlheinz Stockhausen's influence is apparent.
>In August 1951, just after his first Darmstadt visit, Stockhausen began working with a form ofathematicserialcomposition that rejected thetwelve-tone techniqueofSchoenberg.
>Using sounds recorded from aprepared piano, he cut the tape into short pieces, spliced the pieces together, and superimposed the results. This involved taking the attack segment of each sound and repeating it to produce a relatively constant sound.
He did groundbreaking work in the studio a decade before The Beatles.
https://youtu.be/JyzoGu6cV3U
https://youtu.be/C5B4B6BY-rM