>300 word essay on The Beatles due in tomorrow >Haven't

>>70590104
At least pick a band worth writing about anon

>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.
There you go anon

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.

>>70590104
>300 words
>"""essay"""
m8, thats half an hour of writing

>>70590104
>essay
underage confirm

>>70590111
>>70590127
Kek, newfags still falling for the scaruffi

>>70590177
newfag confirm

>>70590127
Not even, in one hour I wrote ~1500 words on one Kanye song, so 300 words on a band like the Beatles is probably like 15 minutes

File: theFact.jpg (812KB, 1294x2098px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 1294x2098px

>>70590104

>>70590347
Well you can easily write 1000 words in half an hour, there's just no guarantee it'll be any good.
Keeping essays under the word limit is usually harder anyway.
But either way, 300 words is nothing
>>70590122
is already over 300

>>70590347
You are like a little child. In 45 minutes I made a 80 minute documentary about the ending to Miss Fortune.

>>70590347
please post

>>70590355
This. Also, checked.

The fact that

>>70590347
keep it 300
like the romans

>>70590104
The fact that you're wasting time posting on /mu/ instead of writing your 300 word essay pretty much shows how fucked you are!

>>70590119
>>70590122
I don't care if you either green text or got dubs......

GO TO BED YOU SCRUFFY WOP!

>>70590104
that's not an essay that's a paragraph

File: 1478418429192.jpg (47KB, 500x415px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x415px

>>70590104
>300 word essay
Are you in 5th fucking grade or just retarded beyond belief?

>>70590104
Plagiarize the scaruffi one content wise, but don't do it word for word

>>70590104
300 words?
I'd write 300 words about a band in litteraly 5 minutes.

File: Facepalm.jpg (108KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x800px

>mfw people itt don't get the joke

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.

File: 0.jpg (9KB, 167x195px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 167x195px

>>70590127
>>70590177
>>70590372
>>70590378
>>70591411
>>70591832
>>70592768

>not getting the obvious joke

>>70590378
Hmph... so this is all /mu/ has to offer me? I once created an entire screenplay about the first twelve seconds of Oh Comely by the time the track had started when I listened to Aeroplane

>>70593333
Checked

File: HerbieBelievesInYou.png (499KB, 494x494px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 494x494px

>>70590104
Why the fucking Beatles?
Haven't we already had a dozen books and articles and all that shit saying "The beatles are DEFINITELY the best musicians of all time no question fuck you."

And I hate to say it but....
(Not true, by the way)


However I may know someone better you could write about....

>300 word essay on Chief Keef due in tomorrow
>Haven't even started
How fucked am I?