Explain why they're good.

Because they sold a lot of records.

>>71229131
le reddit bazinga troupe

kys

File: Ram.jpg (253KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 600x600px

>>71229131
More specifically, Paul McCartney was a melodic and lyrical genius. The others were his first (but not his best) backing band.

Name one album you like. Then explain why good. Actually, /mu/, how do you explain why any music is good?

>>71229131
Within any given Beatles song, there is interesting and uncommon chord progressions, the bass lines are more involved and specific than traditional rock music, the instrumentation is varied and utilizes rare soundsources, they make good use of studio effects, the lyrics are at times poingnant and surreal, the songs often make use of tasteful modulations, key changes, and time signature changes to renew interest, and within the greater musical tapestry of the 20th century, they were amazingly innovative and influential, with their music crossing many genres and sometimes birthing new ones entirely. And all this is secondary, of course, to their sheer melodic brilliance, which is undeniably why they have such a memorable discography.

Any other opinion is a meme.

>>71229482
Oh I almost forgot to mention the energetic and charismatic performances

Those are very important for good music you see

>>71229218

No. I'm an objectivist. I don't believe in relativism, "opinions" or "disagreements". In every disagreement, one person is correct and the other is wrong, one just has more information than the other. It is impossible for both people to possess the exact equal amount of information.

Guns n roses is better than Beatles because low, heavy and aggressive hard rock is more appealing to higher testosterone people. This is why metal audiences are 98% male whereas high pitched melodic pop audiences are 98% female. There is an objective correlation between your testosterone/estrogen levels and the music you find appealing

Every heterosexual male values having sex with women above all else, and if they are Beatles fans they are also probably unaware of the importance of masculinity, because they would recognise it as effeminate and counter to their reproductive goals.

Therefore the male guns n roses fan has a more accurate working model of reality than the male Beatles fan. The guns n roses fan is objectively more correct. He understands correctly that masculinity is necessary in acquiring attractive women (every male's ultimate biological imperative) and so has a positive view of masculinity, so becomes more masculine, and so becomes a guns n roses fan.

People will say this is crazy or stupid but try actually refuting it. The average male John Lennon fan would be objectively more effeminate and beta than the average hard rock fan. That's a fact you know intuitively. And since all males want to attract women first and foremost, the hard rock fan is objectively better and more fully integrated psychologically. He had s higher level of reality awareness than the male Beatles fan, who thinks incorrectly his emotional sensitivity and artsy personality will be attractive to women.

Sorry it's the truth.

And don't use the Beatles getting laid as an argument. They got laid because they were the first superstars, not because of their genre.

>>71229712
This post could only have been written by a male virgin.

>>71229712
This triggered me

>>71229712
>he thinks November Rain and transvestites with guitars is high test
This is an embarrassing post

>>71229131
Because they're good

>>71229753

I've actually fucked the girlfriends of two separate musicians who liked melodic music (bassist and drummer), one I used to jam with

Thanks for reminding me of the subject of my sexual history because it backs up my point

>>71229756
Not an argument

>>71229767

You joke but you know I wasn't talking about ballads.

To pretend that these songs aren't OBJECTIVELY more based in, and intended for, masculine mindset and identity than "Love Me Do" is just a pathetic, snivelling attempt at a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOqDCSRNgj4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC9L-BZ1PI0

>>71229712
>I'm an objectivist
Go to bed, Neil Peart.

>>71229218
How do you explain why any music is 'good', when the term 'good' is completely subjective?
If you like what you're hearing then that piece of music could by all accounts be deemed 'good'. That's not to say the next guy in line is going to hold the same opinion.

I just like the sound. Sounds like nothing else. You listen to other contemporaries, they either sound like your staple "psychdelic band" that all sound similar, or they sound too "old fashioned / 50s pop" Beatles were the perfect blend of styles that no other band got.

>>71229218
Different word choice. Cacophonous vs chaotic. Dull vs soothing. Mind-numbing vs upbeat.

>>71229131
> first British rock band that still sound British when singing

>>71229905
Those songs are about as masculine as a group of steel workers riding a mechanical bull. G&R is homoerotic, dude. You might be a repressed gay.

>>71229712
Sorry dude, but all you wrote about has nothing to do with the quality of music. You're just talking about what kind of music is someone more likely to listen to.

>>71229712
>>/r/INTJ

File: image.jpg (78KB, 466x316px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 466x316px

>>71230006

Yeah those hard rock musicians, they're the gay ones

>>71230206
Did I ever imply they weren't?

Beatles can be a bathhouse but G&R is still a discotheque

>>71229712
they are from completely different eras of rock music? wtf are you doing nigger

>>71229955
Listen to some pre-1969 the Who. Hell, listen to 1969 Who as well. Listen to post-1969 also.

>>71229712
I don't understand how your argument correlates
>This is why metal audiences are 98% male whereas high pitched melodic pop audiences are 98% female
and
>Every heterosexual male values having sex with women above all else, and if they are Beatles fans they are also probably unaware of the importance of masculinity, because they would recognise it as effeminate and counter to their reproductive goals.

In fact I agree with most of your post, but the simple fact is that if girls would rather see Beatles over GnR, the Beatles and those that take after them are gonna get laid more and by hotter girls.


To address OP: They're good because they consistently produced music that lasts the test of time. Both catchy and innovative (innovative does not mean entirely original, if you want to get in an a pointless argument about that).

Happiness is a Warm Gun is reason enough to like the Beatles.

File: band-on-the-run.jpg (64KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x600px

>>71229192
the most accurate post on /mu/

>>71229712
Helter Skelter is heavier than any Guns n Roses song

>>71229482
This

>>71229712
First off Axel Rose's voice is way higher than any of the Beatles, so by your own insecure logic, you're flaming faggot. Secondly GNR is trash that only appeals Generationext Y burnouts. Thirdly John Lennon and the Beatles have many songs that are considerably heavy anyway.

>>71229192
this t bh

File: 03-freddie-mercury.w529.h529.jpg (134KB, 529x529px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 529x529px

>>71229712
If hard rock is so masculine, then why is one of its biggest stars of all time a bisexual and at times effeminate man from a band whose name has homosexual connotations?

>>71231321
Well, you know, the thing about Freddie is, the man had some SERIOUS pipes...

"A Day In The Life" is one of the most beautifully composed songs I've ever heard and I'm not even a huge Beatles fan

>>71231266
>Thirdly John Lennon and the Beatles have many songs that are considerably heavy anyway

come on now. I understand that guy is faggot but you are just following his steps now

>>71231321
>Queen
>hard rock

>>71231628
This. Same goes for Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End, Let It Be, and In My Life.

File: 1481053671494.jpg (28KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x480px

>>71229712
wew lad so basically if I'm an animal who fucks with dozens of women then I have a better music taste?

This dude will Break it down for you
https://youtu.be/Fb8YNfr9fFM

>>71229712
Prove it.

>>71229192
Silly Love Songs?

>>71231677
Beatles planted the seed for heavy metal, arguably even directly invented it

>>71229905
what instrument do you play?

>>71229712
If this is the case why would any masculine male listen to music in the first place? Art is for fags. If you're a real man you're out there fighting and killing. Maybe you can send death threats to your enemies over beats like they do in Chiraq, but not much else than that

>>71229712
They also tend to be very sweaty.

>>71231952
Listen to any of their albums from '73 to '78.

The Beatles were one of the few bands who successfully took modern (For its time) American music mixed it in with traditional British music both ancient and modern. As they got older and they honed their skills they learned to write and compose more complex and structured compositions. Weather people think thy were actually good is a matter of opinion but I don't think they ever put out a bad album.

>>71229905
>testosterone
>le not an argument
Back to /pol/

File: 0a827a7d2ab3e6d7635e08746cf7a9c6.jpg (28KB, 458x458px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 458x458px

>>71229712
This is literally the most wrong post I've ever seen
If you honestly think a simple band like Guns N' Roses is superior to something like the Beatles based on masculinity, you're probably a micro dick who's insecure. Many women I know idolize the beatles and don't even care about taste in music you little fucking retard. I can't believe something this retarded triggered me this much.

>>71229712
This post made me regain my virginity

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.

>>71229712
I like this new pasta

>>71229131
In trems of influence and the direction of rock music they are not as influential as the Ramones. The Ramones basically reshaped rock and contemporary music by enjecting a minimalist aesthetic into what eventually became the mainstream. Seriousily Rock can be divided into eras before the Ramones and after. Post hippy bands like hawkwind eventually disbanded and morphed into things like motorhead. The leather jacket and the t-shirt reasserted it's dominance on the look of a rock and roller. The hard criminal edge of rock came back. Punk look is still fashionable. The Beatles look is a halloween costume. Plus the low skill of the Ramones democratized rock and roll with a simple ethos of DIY.

>>71231952
retard

>>71236723
There are quite a few parallels between The Ramones and The Beatles and even I have pointed out from time to time that in many ways if it hadn't been for The Beatles there would be no Ramones.

The discernible and notably obvious difference between The Beatles and Ramones is that The Beatles basically changed their style and sound as time went on while The Ramones basically put out the same record over and over again even with member changes like Marky replacing Tommy and C.J. replacing Dee Dee.
Weather this is considered consistency or repetition is strictly a mater of opinion but I enjoy both bands equally and have the complete discography of both bands.

>>71229712
Arthur Maia is that you? If it's get fuck off my board.

ass: you weird friend

>>71236777
>Implying even s/t and leave home are "the same album"
Ramones are the ultimate pleb filter

>>71230000

They all had an incredible ear for catchy melodies that still sounded genuine and not like manufactured shit. They were MASTERS at taking various more obscure musical concepts that were developing in the music scene and adapting them flawlessly and seamlessly into their pop music.
To top all that, they were good lyricists and capable musicians.

>>71229712
I swear, this is copy-pasta material. Please tell me this is a copy-pasta. It has to be.

because pid and they got away with it

>>71230188
This test bullshit is so obnoxious.
Especially all the people with this one who think they are geniuses just because their heads are stuck up their ass.
But hey this subreddit is a goldmine for bringing on mild annoyance.

>>71229131
>excellent voice leading and harmony in pop music was mostly unheard of at the time
>excellent vocals
>musicianship that served the song rather than be unnecessarily flashy
>interesting soundscapes
>excellent use of a number of genres all combined in a pop music context
>confessional songwriting not common at the time

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.

because they're an MI6 invention and all their songs were written by classically trained composers

File: top gateaux.png (342KB, 610x434px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 610x434px

>>71229712
>Google
>it's not a copypasta

>>71237765
I could actually buy this because their songs were so good

>>71229192
this meme needs to die

Mostly because they wrote great songs.

Say what you want about their actual music, or how most of their songs aren't "deep" or anything - they're still all really fucking efficient.

Even simple early songs like I Wanna Hold Your Hand or From Me To You pretty much have everything going for it - they're silly love songs, but they use little metaphors/situations to talk about it rather than outright say "I love you", they have plenty of hooks, non-cyclic chord progressions, great melodic bridges that actually bring something new to the meaning of the song, etc.

Not always deep or amazingly experimental, but almost always solid as fuck to the point where the song itself is just *good*, no matter how it's performed.

>>71237883
>or how most of their songs aren't "deep" or anything
This isn't even true

>>71237932
I'm not trying to be insulting, here.

Yeah, lots of their songs do have a lot of depth to them, but lots also don't. It's fine. Not every song *has* to be all deep and muh hidden meanings. It's fine to just have fun and sing about yellow submarines sometimes.

posting the objectively hight test artist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMnjCJJs1PM

>>71229712
Shit like this is why I keep coming back.

>>71237978
Not what I'm saying. I think you are exaggeration the amount of non-deep songs.

Yeah, Yellow Submarine is not deep, but the rest of the album is not like that

>>71229712
This is comedy gold.

>>71229712
>>71229905
>more masculine = better!
Sounds like you have less information than me

File: jesusarabsaregoodoverlords.jpg (261KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1024x692px

>>71229131
they aren't

There are more women than men on earth.

The Beatles (in your argument) appeal to the effeminate audience and hence women are right to enjoy them.

In an objectivist society, 2 is more than 1, and hence 2 is bigger than one, hence 2 is greater than one, and women must therefore numerically be greater than men.

If women are numerically greater than men, and men have no other advantage over women as both take part in the continuation of the species and women have a greater role in that, then women must objectively be better.

If women are objectively better, what is correct to them is objectively better than what is correct to men.

If music is another method of attracting mates, and the Beatles are effeminate, then women who like the Beatles over Guns and Roses are right.

So, in conclusion, the Beatles are better than Guns and Roses because women are objectively right for liking them more.

>>71229712
forgot to tag you in >>71238747