The Beatles is legitimately one of the worst bands of all time.

Le ironic copypostaposting xD

>>71863108
fucking no good thugs

only bait because i believe you're serious.a troll wouldn't have your passion.

i'm not even a fan of the beatles particularly, but you're clearly just like 16 and have been told you have shit taste by someone in your class because you don't like the beatles. instead of telling them they are wrong, you're venting here.

>>71863151
its a new copypasta it was AnCo

>>71863108
They are the biggest and most respected band ever, and will probably remain just that until well beyond your death. Nothing you say will change that. Please vent your own insecurities elsewhere.

>>71863108
Assuming this isn't just bait. I sense a serious lack of understanding of the history and development of both popular and experimental music.

>>71863188
it's not new at all, unlike you

File: 1489400497617.jpg (112KB, 750x746px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 750x746px

>>71863108

TURN OFF YOUR MIND RELAX AND FLOAT DOWN STREAM

>>71863108
Go to bed you scruffy wop!

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.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles.