ITT: bands with perfect discographies

>>72321929

That HAS to be a fucking joke.

Their early albums are pathetic teen pop, their psychedelic phase is simply "okay" and their late experiments with art/prog rock as imperfect as it gets.

You start OP

File: The_Byrds_in_1965.jpg (63KB, 612x411px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 612x411px

only this lineup though

File: the-beatles-circa-1966-650-430.jpg (49KB, 636x421px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 636x421px

>>72322031

File: 2017_0224_10330_5870.png (101KB, 800x184px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x184px

>>72321929

Since OP can't even do his own fucking thread right, I'll start us off properly.

You can't even dispute my choice.

>>72322101
>What is every album after Rust In Peace?

File: tumblr_n52smn3t9Y1ryu5rko6_400.jpg (30KB, 303x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 303x450px

>>72322101
TAKE THAT BACK

File: beatles-letitbe-new-4.3.2013.jpg (86KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x500px

>>72321929
Ooops

>>72322154
From all the albums you could pick (PPM, BFS, YS), you pick this? It's good.

>>72321929
Was about to post gorillaz until I remembered the latest album

>>72322101
>Hello me, meet the real me!

That was easy.

File: 1003459.jpg (25KB, 249x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 249x300px

Noam Chomsky

>>72322018

Listening to a band's sound change over time is what makes for a great discography. The fact they started out in a genre you don't like doesn't make them bad, they were the best at teen-pop to the point they had stadiums of teenage girls screaming so loud you couldn't hear the music at their concerts.

File: Megadeth - Cryptic Writings.jpg (28KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x300px

>>72322101
Even I'm a huge Megadeth fan, but everything after pic related is trash (though they redeem themselves a bit with Endgame)

>>72322330
couldn't be more accurate

>>72321929
>>72322088
You are a perfect example of the plebeian filth spoiling this board with their sad obession with mediocre dadrock.

If you seriously think you have any understanding what actual musical art is you need to leave this board right now. Try Pitchfork or Noisey but not /mu/. This is a place for true patricians dont ruin it for us because your taste is underdeveloped.

File: 1491384616946.jpg (75KB, 617x409px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 617x409px

Still on the fence on the new one

>>72322487
QOTSA is one of the best of this generation. All good albums, amazing live, and not slowing down any time soon by the looks of it. Just announced a new album as well IIRC

>>72322510
>This mad

>>72322567
Across all the albums they only have one or two songs I dislike. I'm assuming you've listened to Them Crooked Vultures too?

>>72322625
Not really, never got that far. Liked the single, though.
But Kyuss is a favourite.
Check out Mini Mansions. The current bassist in QOTSA plays drums and sings: https://youtu.be/62vtT3cLrJc

>>72322625
What songs didn't you like btw?

>>72322154
pleb

>>72322546
3 good albums more like

>>72322419
Incredibly overrated

>>72322330
Ehhh that's a stretch

>>72322088
>>72321929
No. Exhibit: early albums, Sgt. Pepper is overrated as fuck, White album is full of mediocrity and so on... Rubber Soul is great, Revolver is amazing, Abbey Road is wonderful and the singles on Mystery are good but that's about it.

>>72322698
>>72322718
Thanks man, appreciate the rec. This song really got me into TCV though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l0Fx1_rP9Y
Also I've never been huge on Burn the Witch, Run Pig Run is alright, but I definitely have to be in the mood for it

>>72322251
>It's good.
But not flawless
>>72322726
What do you mean?

>>72322769
>Sgt. Pepper is overrated as fuck
That is a flaw with the audience/you, not the music. The album itself is flawless

File: smiths-the-50f664a13b769.jpg (734KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 1920x1080px

>>72321929

>>72321929
Shit starting albums and "ooh were so peaceful man" garbage later on. Fuck Beatles.

>>72322101
Super Collider exists.

>>72322419
Hello King of Limbs and Moon Shaped Pool

>>72322528
The Hunter and Emperor of Sand are their low points.

>>72322018
are you like
fucking kidding me

a record like HELP! in 1965 blew everyone the fuck away
also, fucking music videos

you're talking about "pathetic teen pop" as if they were another Justin Bieber who's ascending to fame in early 90s, but they invented that shit

I'll never get salty enough with people shitting on the Beatles
everything they did, they did it first

hell, at one point they just said "you know what? we won't play live anymore, fuck that shit" and usually that kills a musical career, and you know what they made? Peppers and Mystery tour in the same year

File: 1136503.jpg (75KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x427px

>protip:you can't

>>72322881
OK I can see King of Limbs but AMSP was a fucking beautiful album

File: nick_drake.jpg (77KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x338px

Go ahead and embarrass yourselves.

File: DaftPunk_SnapChat.jpg (284KB, 1202x747px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1202x747px

p r e t t y g o o d

>>72322881
>Shit starting albums and "ooh were so peaceful man" garbage later on. Fuck Beatles.
Pleb opinions general?

>>72323008
heh, I guess you either love them or hate them.
but he sounds like one of those guys who never really bothered to listen to their work

the thing is, being the most famous band of all times makes you pretty overrated in the eyes of the plebs

they simply can't understand they were fucking gods
and maybe they listen to the stones, lol

File: 907141.jpg (14KB, 300x210px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x210px

>>72321929
>>72322088
>>72322101
>>72322330
>>72322419
>>72322546
>>72322849
>>72322935
>>72322996
wrong

>>72322992
correct

>>72323061
Repeat isn't that good

>>72321929
>>72322330
>>72322419
>>72322546
>>72322996
>>72322992
Correct answers

>>72323079
it's archival, so I'll let them off

>>72323079
it's still better than most of the beatles discography

File: p01bqj4q.jpg (81KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 960x540px

New Order doesn't count

>>72322849
meat is murder exists

>>72322327
this man

the hell Damon was thinking, a featuring with Vince Staples?
I'm afraid Plastic Beach will be his last decent album

>>72322018
>pathetic teen pop
With a greater deal of musical sophistication

>>72322018
I agree but are you seriously questioning that people like The Beatles?

They might be the most respected band of all time, saying you DON'T like them is sacrilege

>>72323204
this is what beatlesfags actually believe

>>72323220
t. I don't know music theory

>>72323240
nice argument

>>72323240
The fucking Beatles?

I know a standard amount of music theory and there was nothing interesting or challenging about how their music was made. I was playing their songs in the 8th grade and it was remarkably straightforward

Please explain to me why I'm wrong

>>72323277
http://2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html

You must not be very good at theory if you missed this

File: A-92564-1319362526.jpeg.jpg (13KB, 300x285px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x285px

>>72321929

Digable Planets

>>72323277
just wait and some beatlesfag will come out with bullshit like "the beatles brought microtonality to popular music"

>>72322906
Yeah bro you sure showed those hipster meanies. I mean you are right they were like literally the best literal band ever. Like they invented music bro
You Say Nicky Minaj I Say The Beatles
You Say PINK I Say The Who
You Say (c)rap I Say Rock
99%of teens forgot about good music

>>72323299
nice proof by verbosity
tl;dr

>>72323380
>explain to me why I'm wrong
>but please talk to me like I'm a child
Sorry the grownups are talking, g2b

>>72323380
t. I don't know music theory

>>72323277
The ability to play a song easily does not mean it is theoretically easy.

>>72322881
>King of Limbs and Moon Shaped Pool

King of Limbs is awful. A Moon Shaped Pool is great. You have autism for not mentioning Pablo Honey as a flaw.

>>72323299
You phrased that like there's one outstanding thing I missed about their music

The article is about 10 different talking points

>What kind of knowledge makes it possible to play a song by ear? How can a musician play a song that he or she has never played before, and maybe never even heard before?
By making it simple?

If that's intelligent production than so is every bargain bin pop song on the radio

>Considering the relatively few types of form parts, the amount of variation in the Beatles's music is striking. However, songs often start off with (intro)-verse-verse-bridge-verse (57 cases) or (intro)-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge (23 cases); they then continue in many different ways. A common principle seems to be to repeat something twice: verse-verse or verse-chorus-verse-chorus, and then follow this by a contrast, either verse-verse-bridge, verse-verse-chorus, verse-verse-solo, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge or verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo.
So their songs tend to be structured in different ways

That doesn't really make it inherently interesting. If you do that in a good way that's relevant to the music that's something I guess

The rest of the article is just like this. It just describes how their music is structured without explaining why that's supposed to make it good

If it really is so obvious why their production is good you should be able to briefly summarise it without just linking to something somebody else wrote.

File: their-satanic-majesties-request-600x537.jpg (139KB, 600x537px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 600x537px

>>72323277
For example, an album like Peppers introduced completely new technologies to a recording studio.
Magnetic tapes, moogs, all kind of experimentation.
"A Day in the Life" is written for an orchestra, probably the peak of pop music writing.
Peppers is the first concept album. They created this "personas" and experimented new soudns and harmonies in a way no one ever did before.
Harrison introduced oriental and indian music to the western audience.
Sgt peppers reprise is possibly the first hard rock track in history
Being for the benefit of mister kite is a complete trip, they recreated the sound of a late '800 fair with organs, chimes and all kind of crazy shit
Paul wrote When I'm sixty four when he was 16
Lennon took LSD while recording Getting Better, that track is crazy
the "Paul is Dead" shit

man I could go on all day and its just Peppers

Oh, also the Stones never really cared about Peppers
yeah, they didn't like it at all

I could go on all day

>>72323442
And being hard to compose doesn't mean it's good

Why is the production good?

>>72321929
>>72322088
THE FACT THAT

>>72323468
>It just describes how their music is structured without explaining why that's supposed to make it good
Sounds like you missed the point.

See: Exploding harmony

>>72323359
but Pink, she's actually good

>>72323482
Define "good"?

>>72323473
>Sgt peppers reprise is possibly the first hard rock track in history
jesus christ

>>72323482
>being hard to compose doesn't mean its good
A song with more complex musical elements is objectively superior and more interesting than one with simplistic ones. Unless you don't care about music...

>>72323473
Stop posting, you are making us Beatlefags look bad. nearly everything you just said is incorrect/misinformation

>>72323491
If you just keep saying "ur wrong" I'm just going to post the Scaruffi pasta

>>72323508
Interesting

>>72323548
>If you just keep saying "ur wrong"
I literally just told you what to look for. Did you not read it?
>Interesting
You find it interesting we can see through your circular logic?

"Good" is a subjective and ambiguous term. if one defines "good" as "I like it" then obvious it would be impossible to prove something if it's solely based on your taste.

You'll have to come up with a better argument.

File: 1467012600298.jpg (708KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 2048x1536px

>>72323473
>Sgt peppers reprise is possibly the first hard rock track in history
Imagine being a Beatles fag and never stepping outside your comfort zone

>>72323516
dude it was '66

deep purple, zeppelin, cream etc they came a little later

the only thing I can think about are Hendrix and the Stones, maybe the Byrds and the who
but I'm actually kind of serious

>>72323544
actually I'm the one posting some shit; I'm not even trying to make people change their mind, it's just that it's kind of silly to say they haven't influenced shit

but you guys are still posting stuff like "you're wrong" "no u" so whats the point anyway

>>72323548
>interesting
>>72323542

>>72323616
The Kinks, maybe

>>72323616
if you mean Hard Rock as in the strict boundaries of whatever you can classify as "Hard Rock" then maybe you're right

but proto-punk has been kicking since the very early 60's and they are (hard) rock tracks

>>72323616
>but you guys are still posting stuff like "you're wrong" "no u" so whats the point anyway
>a thorough theory analysis is just "no ur wrong"
please die

For example:
>dude it was '66
Sgt Pepper came out in 1967. Would you like me to break down more of your errors?

File: file.png (3MB, 1349x1318px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1349x1318px

Not everyone will agree, but yeah

>>72322828
It's babby's first psychedelia. Songs like Lucy in the Sky, When I'm Sixty-Four, Mr. Kite, Good Morning are so incredibly lame that it stinks the whole place. You cannot possibly say those songs hold any sort of value compared to, say, I Am the Walrus.

>>72323591
>I literally just told you what to look for.
Yes. That is a thing that exists.

That's not an argument. An argument is explaining why it's supposed to be true.

>You find it interesting we can see through your circular logic?
This isn't "circular logic". If you're going to be an insufferable neckbeard at least understand what you're saying means.

>"Good" is a subjective and ambiguous term. if one defines "good" as "I like it" then obvious it would be impossible to prove something if it's solely based on your taste.
Astute observation.

Are you so stupid that what's what you thought I meant when I said "good" or do you not care and posted that anyway?

>You'll have to come up with a better argument.
No, the burden of proof is on you. But I'll provide an argument anyway to contribute something:

The Beatles were a remarkably generic boy band that completely changed their image for monetary gain. Their image and music was just a reflection of other pop artists at the time and their "experimental music" was just different for the sake of it and wasn't like that for any interesting reason.

>>72323542
A randomly generated sequence of notes is complicated. That doesn't make it interesting.

When something complex is interesting it's complex because it's accomplishing something notable.

>>72323700
yeah this is a problem for a lot of Beatles tracks for me.

a lot of it is just meaningless fluff and frills without substance

>>72323640
fuck you may be right, You really got me came out in '64

>>72323656
you're right, my bad
but then again, pretty much all the bands I cited before started playing some year later

but, sure please do, I don't want to sound cocky

>>72323700
I hate Good morning. Tomorrow never knows is THE beatles psychedelic song. Blue Jay way, flying and Walrus are good too.
also, baby you're a rich man, that rickenbacker

File: image.jpg (84KB, 719x354px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 719x354px

Unwound

honorable mentions
Deftones
Sunny Day Real Estate
Elliott Smith
Hum
At the Drive-In (new album pls don't suck)

>>72323713
>When something complex is interesting it's complex because it's accomplishing something notable.
*cough* *cough* non-functional harmony creating points of greater musical interest

>>72323730
Tell me the meaning of music...

>>72323753
>*cough* *cough* non-functional harmony creating points of greater musical interest
Oh, that's what it is. Silly me. The non-functional harmonies. It's so obvious you don't even need to explain why that's a good thing.

How is a board for discussing music so utterly incapable at discussing music?

>>72322906
is this bait?

>>72323700
>It's babby's first psychedelia.
Not an argument
>incredibly lame
Why? What's lame about them? Chart them out
>You cannot possibly say those songs hold any sort of value compared to, say, I Am the Walrus.
What value does that song have?
>>72323730
How do you measure "meaning"? What do you think it is? Did you research the song?
>>72323713
>An argument is explaining why it's supposed to be true.
Oh so you didn't read the link then. Try again and come back please.
>This isn't "circular logic".
If you are beginning with the notion that "they are not good" it's going to be a self fulfilling prophesy and any counter argument will result to "no that doesn't make it good". Nice try though
>Are you so stupid that what's what you thought I meant when I said "good" or do you not care and posted that anyway?
Still not defining "good", huh? Can you, or are you going to dodge the question some more?
>the burden of proof is on you
You were the first to claim they weren't good, it's on you actually.
>The Beatles were a remarkably generic boy band
How so? I don't think you know what a boy band is.
>Their image and music was just a reflection of other pop artists at the time
Like what?
>just different for the sake of it
Prove this. Have fun proving intent!

>>72322546
nah mate, the beastie boys are shit

>>72323805
Second

File: buckley.jpg (559KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1000x1000px

I win :^)

>>72323805
fucking wrong as fuck
most NIN records are weak

>>72322906
>>72323473

I love The Beatles, but you sound like the "music defener"

>>72323753
>Tell me the meaning of music...
>How do you measure "meaning"? What do you think it is? Did you research the song?

That famous Beatles-fans autism rears its ugly head yet again. You mouth-frothing tizzers.

You use one word with a subjective or abstract definition and these fuckers will jump on you as if they don't know what you mean.

I'm going to tell you now that a track like "For the Benefit of Mr Kite" is trite garbage. As is "When I'm Sixty-Four". Music theory unfortunately cannot dictate whether music is fucking boring and vanilla.

>>72323473
>>72323713
>>72323807
>>72322906
Why are Beatles fags so triggered itt?
I´m seriosly baffled by the amount of music defeners that pop out in every Beatles thread
Is your favourite band so important that you have to star spitting bullshit and acting so smug about it?
It´s literally the most famous band in the world I think they don´t need 16 year old edge lords to defend them every time their face pops up in a Camboyan cooking board

>>72323663
>flatlander cameltoe

>>72323807
>Oh so you didn't read the link then. Try again and come back please.
Oh, you clearly haven't read the Scaruffi copypasta. Try again and come back.

>If you are beginning with the notion that "they are not good" it's going to be a self fulfilling prophesy and any counter argument will result to "no that doesn't make it good". Nice try though
Sure

>Still not defining "good", huh? Can you, or are you going to dodge the question some more?
Why do you personally consider The Beatles to be a good musical group

Here's the question with any potential confusion or different ways of being interpreted sandblasted off

Are you familiar with the term "pseudo-intellectual"? It means being more interested than looking smart and nitpicking irrelevant technicalities rather than saying or accomplishing anything interesting

>How so? I don't think you know what a boy band is.
A band comprised of young males designing their image and music to appeal to female hormones

>Prove this. Have fun proving intent!
Tell me what a song like "Yellow Submarine" is supposed to be getting across

>>72323859
You are wrong as fuck. All NIN albums are different and introduced new sounds and styles and they always worked and always spawned top tier tracks from them.

>>72323871
I actually listen to a lot of other shit but when they come around I get emotional
they're not even my fav band

music is subjective, I'm not here to say everyone should listen to their albums, screaming and yelling with the force of a thousand orgasms

but they made history in their way, even if you don't like them so it's pretty pointless to say they brought nothing new to the table

>>72323739
>but, sure please do, I don't want to sound cocky
OK
>>72323473
>Magnetic tapes, moogs, all kind of experimentation.
There were no Moogs on Sgt Pepper. They first starting using them on Abbey Road. It was actually The Monkees who first sued a Moog in rock, in 1968. Mickey Dolenze was one of the first to own one.
>"A Day in the Life" is written for an orchestra, probably the peak of pop music writing.
It was not written for an orchestra. The middle section in which you hear an orchestra was originally not there when The Beatles recorded it, because they didn't know what to put in the middle section (John Lennon was infamously indecisive at this point). When they tracked it they simply vamped and had their roadie Mal Evans count upwards, ending the empty build up with an alarm clock (you can still hear the counting and clock in the master recording). Paul later thought of the orchestra buiold up, and it was an overdub.
>Peppers is the first concept album. They created this "personas" and experimented new soudns and harmonies in a way no one ever did before.
The first concept albumw as actually either Frank Sinatra "In The Wee Hours" from 1955 or (depending if you think it's an "Album") Wood Guthrie's "Dust Bowl Ballads" in 1940.
>Harrison introduced oriental and indian music to the western audience.
I'll agree to this but it is debatable, and a long debate at that.

>>72323787
Because it breaks the mould of banal, uninteresting functional chords of which most pop music consists. With a wider range of chords at your disposal you can more accurately depict the feeling/atmosphere you want to get across with your song than with just functional harmony.

>>72323963
Seriously, I mean if nothing else, they brought tape looping techniques into mainstream music which is a pretty big deal.

File: gybe_2010pic_300dpi8x10.jpg (1MB, 3000x2507px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2507px

Godspeed You! Black Emperor

>>72323997
>>Harrison introduced oriental and indian music to the western audience.
>I'll agree to this but it is debatable, and a long debate at that.

And if it were the case, he had done it already with Love You To, from Revolver.

>>72323905
>Cites songs that Beatles fans are fully aware aren't their best
True Beatles fans knows Sgt. Peppers isn't even the greatest Beatles album anyway

>>72323997
>>72323473
>Sgt peppers reprise is possibly the first hard rock track in history
It depends on your definition of Hard Rock, but off the top of my head Jimi Hendrix's "Foxy Lady" from earlier in 1967 beat it, which was the first use of the term heavy metal by the press. But as previous anon said, lots of garage rock was already veering to Heavy Rock, notably Dave Clark Five.
>Being for the benefit of mister kite is a complete trip, they recreated the sound of a late '800 fair with organs, chimes and all kind of crazy shit
This is true.
>Paul wrote When I'm sixty four when he was 16
This is true.
>Lennon took LSD while recording Getting Better, that track is crazy
Lennon's work that day he was tripping was completely unusable, and they had to track it again a later day. You must already know this story then because 1) the journalist who reported the incident who as there, commented Lennon was out of tune and was not impressed with the track, and 2) Lennon disappeared and nearly jumped off the roof to his death, due to him tripping balls.
>the "Paul is Dead" shit
While interesting, this is neither 1) proves the Beatles were good and 2) even possible to prove The Beatles intended this and wasn't accidental/fans's overactive imagination.

>>72323958
new =/= good
most of NIN's "innovations" don't work.

your use of retarded expressions like "top-tier" proves that you have shit taste and that you shouldn't trust your own appreciation of music.

>>72324036
>Norwegian Wood (Rubber Soul)

>>72323905
>Music theory unfortunately cannot dictate whether music is fucking boring and vanilla.
Since "boring and vanilla" is a useless, subjective assessment, we need to rely on a more objective approach, like music theory.

The chord sequence to Mr Kite is very interesting, and dizzying--which fits the motif of the song itself. name ANY song that sounded like Mr Kite at the time.

Not a fan of When I'm 64, but again, name another example of a rock band suddenly drifting into a vaudeville track.

>>72323473
>Being for the benefit of mister kite is a complete trip, they recreated the sound of a late '800 fair with organs, chimes and all kind of crazy shit
How can they recreate something that nobody alive had ever heard?

>>72322881
>Moon Shaped Pool
what the absolute fuck is wrong with you

>>72324075
I'd say most of them work amazingly well. Perhaps it you that has the shit taste.

>>72323936
>Oh, you clearly haven't read the Scaruffi copypasta
The one with all the errors and historical inaccuracies?
>Why do you personally consider The Beatles to be a good musical group
Quote me where I said I did
>Are you familiar with the term "pseudo-intellectual"?
Are you talking about yourself now?
>A band comprised of young males designing their image and music to appeal to female hormones
While that is an incorrect definition, then by this logic all rock bands form the 60s were boy bands.
>Tell me what a song like "Yellow Submarine" is supposed to be getting across
A youthful fantasy trip? An audio tone-poem? Are you serious right now?

Also you forgot to answer my questions. Why is that?

>>72322487
What do you think of united abominations and dystopia? I really liked those 2, for post-youthanasia albums theyre pretty solid

>>72321929
For anyone who listens to death metal or extreme metal, i think Death has a perfect discography

File: 1464028616219.png (58KB, 553x759px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 553x759px

>>72323805

>>72324036
>>72324076
The problem is that David Crosby attempts to take credit for the creation of Raga Rock with "Why" and "Eight Miles High", as well as claim he himself introduced George Harrison to Ravi Shankar's music.

The problem is Crosby's an egomaniac who wants to take credit for everything and his claims don't match the actual chronology

It comes down to what you think Raga Rock actually is, or "Western music Influenced by Eastern Music". You could make a case for either The Byrds or The Beatles. I side with The Beatles on that
>>72324105
None of The Beatles never went to the circus?

>>72322992
this is correct

>>72323827
Awful taste

>>72322018


Jesus Christ what happened to this board? It's descending to /tv/ levels of pleb.

You have to be mentally retarded to think AHDN is just "teen pop". As if that's even an argument anyways.

Read up pleb

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/iif.shtml

>>72324263
I believe you were just coaxed into a snafu.

This thread is one giant bait.

>>72322769
>No. Exhibit: early albums

When someone says "early beatles" sucked. I automatically assume they know nothing about music or harmony in general. A Hard Day's Night is easily their best album.

>>72323997
interesting, I didn't know much about recording sessions: what I meant about Day in the Life is that one of the first times a "pop band" winks at classical/orchestral music and composition, with a great effort from musicians, producers and technicians. they always seemed to push things to the extreme, for their time

I know Harrison was pretty good with the Moog (electronic sound, 1969), but then again I forgot Maxwell's silver hammer is on Abbey road

>>72324105
well, "circus music" has pretty stayed the same, you know. it's one of those clichè genres: what they actually did was find and use antique instruments, so that they could recreate that "sound"

>>72324067
>LSD and Paul is Dead
I said that because these myths and legend are what rock history is made of: and the Beatles have their fair share of stories, every single one of them contributed in making them one of the most iconic bands ever
the hype around them was super crazy

>>72324290
>the first times a "pop band" winks at classical/orchestral music and composition
Pet Sounds anyone?

ITT: People who get off on being contrarian

>>72322528
These guys started falling off immediately after Remission. They have completely transitioned from sludge metal gods to pathetic late 90s radio rock schlock.

>>72324290
>interesting, I didn't know much about recording sessions: what I meant about Day in the Life is that one of the first times a "pop band" winks at classical/orchestral music and composition, with a great effort from musicians, producers and technicians. they always seemed to push things to the extreme, for their time
They had already used a string quartet on "Yesterday", back in 1965 and then a number of bands followed suit (See: Rolling Stones' "Ruby Tuesday"). That's not to mention that Phil Spector (and then by extension Brian Wilson) were using orchestral instruments in rock/pop years before Pepper.
>I said that because these myths and legend are what rock history is made of: and the Beatles have their fair share of stories, every single one of them contributed in making them one of the most iconic bands ever
Well, that's more indicative of the problem. You are perpetuating myths about The Beatles which aren't true, which in turn gives fuel to the fire of these contrarian idiots like Scruffy and others. Just get your facts straight before praising the Beatles.
>>72324318
Phil Spector anyone? Spike Jones anyone?

>>72324141
>The one with all the errors and historical inaccuracies?
The one you posted, yeah

>While that is an incorrect definition, then by this logic all rock bands form the 60s were boy bands
Not if they wrote songs about things other than relationships for the purpose of making money.

>A youthful fantasy trip? An audio tone-poem? Are you serious right now?
Oh, a youthful fantasy trip. So a scenario totally divorced from reality that isn't like that for any reason and has nothing interesting to be gleaned from it.

Somehow I think if this song were written by The Chainsmokers you wouldn't have the same opinion.

By the way, that song was explicitly written to be total bullshit. It was sort of a trick question.

>Also you forgot to answer my questions. Why is that?
I didn't answer things that were redundant or things that can't be argued.

If you really have a substantial argument to make that you're so confident you have lay it on me but if you just want to throw peanuts so you can make yourself feel semi profound then I'm not wasting any further mental real estate on you.

>>72324067
>It depends on your definition of Hard Rock, but off the top of my head Jimi Hendrix's "Foxy Lady" from earlier in 1967 beat it, which was the first use of the term heavy metal by the press. But as previous anon said, lots of garage rock was already veering to Heavy Rock, notably Dave Clark Five.


Helter Skelter?

>>72324369
>Somehow I think if this song were written by The Chainsmokers you wouldn't have the same opinion.

see>>72324263

Call me when the Chainsmokers can write something on that level.

Come back when you have an understanding of music beyond Scaruffi's top 10.

>>72324369
>The one you posted
No I didn't post the Scruffy essay. Are you thinking of someone else?
>All songs written about relations is for money
Have you ever been in a relationship? It's one of the most important human experiences and the subject of a lot of art for thousands of years.

That's ignoring the fact that there's numerous Beatles song not about love
>So a scenario totally divorced from reality
Have you ever watched a cartoon before? You ever posted an anime pic on 4chan in your life, ever?
>nothing interesting
Define "interesting"
>The Chainsmokers
Never heard of them. Sorry. Nice Red Herring though
>that song was explicitly written to be total bullshit
[citation needed]
>I didn't answer things that were redundant or things that can't be argued.
Nice double standard
>If you really have a substantial argument to make that you're so confident you have lay it on me
I tried, but you didn't understand it, because you don't actually know music theory.
>>72324386
What about it?

>>72324369
>Somehow I think if this song were written by The Chainsmokers you wouldn't have the same opinion.
Yellow Submarine is hardly a great song by any standards (certainly not Beatles standards) but it's still a great insult to compare it to The Chainsmokers' stuff. In fact I wish The Chainsmokers could write a song as comparatively unrestricted as Yellow Submarine.

>>72324410
*ring ring* (I'm calling you)

Oh yeah I tell you somethin'
I think you'll understand
When I say that somethin'
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
Oh please say to me
You'll let me be your man
And please say to me
You'll let me hold your hand
Now, let me hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
If we go down then we go down together
They'll say you could do anything
They'll say that I was clever
If we go down then we go down together
We'll get away with everything
Let's show them we are better
Let's show them we are better
Let's show them we are better

Wait, which band were we talking about?

>>72324457
Chart out the chord sequence and voice leading and compare them

File: l04he.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>72324457
>He thinks lyrics are music
Come back when you learn about music theory

>>72324410
Nahnahnahnahnahnah nah
Hey Jude
Nahnahnahnahanahanahanahanah

>>72324457
>lyrics

This board gets worse every year.

Even a song like I wanna Hold Your Hand is complex beyond words in terms of harmony and chord progression.

Read up

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/iwthyh.shtml

>>72324519
- The Beatles opt here instead for an unusual binary form that combines a fully developed, hymn-like song together with an extended, mantra-like jam on a simple chord progression. It will become clear from a detailed examination of HJ just how neatly the two halves complement each other, and from what simple musical materials they are constructed.

- The song-like half of the track is cast in the standard two-bridge model with one verse intervening, albeit without an intro. The lyrics of each section are different, even for the two bridges; most unusual! Even the final verse, which comes close to reiterating the words of the first section significantly substitutes "under your skin" for "into your heart." The melody of all sections here begins with a pickup before the down beat. In the case of the bridges that pickup anticipates the downbeat by close to a full measure.

- The jam-like half of the song presents no less than nineteen repetitions of the same phrase, slowly fading out to eventual silence in the middle of the final repeat. The main "lyrics" are scat sung to the syllable "na-na" and start right on the downbeat of the phrase. Superimposed against that background we get half-sung/half-screamed interjectory phrases from Paul.

>>72324102
>we need
who's fucking "we" here

if everyone measured music by music theory we wouldn't be listening to rock music

>name ANY song that sounded like Mr Kite at the time.

I don't need to do that and you know I don't need to do that

>>72324541
>dat damage control

>>72324452
>No I didn't post the Scruffy essay. Are you thinking of someone else?
No. I'm saying that mentioning that something exists is not an argument

>Have you ever been in a relationship? It's one of the most important human experiences and the subject of a lot of art for thousands of years.
Yes, it's just boiled down to "I wanna hold your hand" in this case.

>Have you ever been in a relationship? It's one of the most important human experiences and the subject of a lot of art for thousands of years.
Yes. Being weird is not what makes it interesting, it's interesting when it's weird for some kind of purpose.

I'm not wasting any more brain capacity on you. If you're going to be an insufferable pseudo-intellect atleast be an entertaining dickhead.

>>72324519
You can't just post the outro of the song without the context of the moving harmonic power of their voices blending together with the orchestration

>>72324457
I Want To Hold Your Hand:
>G D Em B7
>C D G Em C D G
>Dm7 G C Am Dm7 G C C D

Paris:
>G Bm A F#m

Yeah, nice try

>>72324571
>I'm saying that mentioning that something exists is not an argument
Why not? You made an argument out of mentioning your opinions exist ("I don't like this"), without substantiating it
>it's interesting when it's weird for some kind of purpose.
Ooops you still seem to be having trouble proving intent.

>I'm not wasting any more brain capacity on you
Read: I'm out of arguments, better run away.

Been nice taking to ya. Have fun "playing instruments" and "being in a relationship"

>>72324539
Wow I'm not the dude you're replying to but you got b8'd pretty hard m8

>>72324541
>if everyone measured music by music theory we wouldn't be listening to rock music

We don't. We use Music theory to explain why a particular song sounds good and original. Music theory cannot vindicate a bad song like you think.

>>72324578
>Discuss lyrics
>Post shit tier lyrics
>Dude but le music blends
>Never listened to Pet Sounds or Smile
Why are Beatles fags So autistic

>>72324632
You just replied to pasta

Who's being b8ed

>>72324498
>>72324505
>>72324534
>>72324599
He said "write"

What, am I silly for believing that lyrics are important to music? Did that that statement justify the frogposter laughing so hard he's crying? What's supposed to be so silly about that?

Wow, you cool and knowledgeable 4chan alpha-males really schooled me

>>72324599
Okay so the semblance of an argument we've been able to siphon out of this thread is that the production is good because it has more notes.

Why is this supposed to make it better? I'm pretty sure a cockrock song has like 80 different notes, is Through The Fire And Flames the best song ever made?

>>72324652
>He said "write"
You don't write music?

Nice try though
>What, am I silly for believing that lyrics are important to music?
It's only 50% important
>Okay so the semblance of an argument we've been able to siphon out of this thread is that the production is good because it has more notes.
Do you literally have no idea what you are taking about? You seem to be combining "production", "notes" and "chord sequence" all into one idea. Are you a bleepfag?

>>72323156
I didnt realise how ugly the whole band was

File: The_Fabs.jpg (230KB, 1110x1110px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1110x1110px

Did you know the Beatles invented psychedelic rock, psychedelic pop, baroque pop, garage rock, punk rock, progressive rock, noise rock, no wave, musique concrete, microtonality, serialism, zeuhl, throat singing, neue deutsche welle, gamelan, reggae?
Checkmate Scaruffi!

>>72324637
>>Never listened to Pet Sounds or Smile
What about them?

>>72324560
(You)
>>72324634
>Music theory cannot vindicate a bad song like you think.
it also can't validate a bad song either, reminder that you wouldn't still be arguing if we weren't dipping into the arbitrary music theory pocket

music theory is a fucking non-entity, and it doesn't help defend the Beatles' shittiest moments no matter how hard you try

>>72324730
They literally sus everything the Beatles wanted
But better

>>72324652
It's nothing to do with the production but the composition. I Want to Hold Your Hand is superior to Paris because it has a greater deal of chords (two of which are non-functional) as opposed to Paris with which The Chainsmokers (as they always do) seem to have just handpicked four chords in the home key and wrote a stagnant vocal part over it.

>>72324686
>You don't write music?
How is that relevant?

>It's only 50% important
Under all circumstances? That seems awfully tunnelvisioned

I'd say in this case this adds up to an pretty mediocre song though

>Do you literally have no idea what you are taking about? You seem to be combining "production", "notes" and "chord sequence" all into one idea. Are you a bleepfag?
Yes and no.

I don't care about pandering you and sandblasting off any potential ways to reinterpret what I said. I'm aware that notes and chords are different, yes.

>>72324750
>music theory is a fucking non-entity

t. too stupid to understand music theory

>>72324692
i love the beatles but i hope you're fucking trolling

>>72324776
I'm aware it has more chords. I said that

The question I'm presenting is why this is supposed to make it better

>>72322906
>everything they did, they did it first
Name ten

>>72324750
Except "I don't like it!" is not a valid argument because it's too subjective.

In contrast "this song is innovative" or "the compositional quality is tied into the themes of the song for these technical reasons..." is a valid argument because it's more objective.

I don't care if you like the song or not, it was innovative and compositionally interesting.
>>72324755
How so? Brian was copying The Beatles' Rubber Soul on Pet Sounds, and Smile never actually was finished and The Beatles beat him to it with Sgt Pepper.
>>72324786
Oh! You're still here? I thought you left? ;)
>How is that relevant?
You just said implied that music is written. So I am asking you, how else would it come into existence? One writes it.
>Under all circumstances?
Under legal stances for a song. You don't know anything about copyright do you?
>I'd say in this case this adds up to an pretty mediocre song though
Subjective and thus irrelevant
>Yes
Then why did you get all emotional when you misinterpreted me as asking if *you've* ever written music? You woudl have just said "yes" instead of asking why it's relevant. I'm calling your bluff.
>no
Nah. You are.
>I don't care about pandering you
By all means then keep replying
>I'm aware that notes and chords are different, yes
Based on your reply, you don't seem to. I thought you learned this in 8th grade? ;)
>>72324803
More chords, more opportunities for interesting voice leading.

>>72324877
>More chords, more opportunities for interesting voice leading.
Alright that's the best argument I'm getting out of this thread I guess

"More potential" doesn't mean they actually did something with it and I can't imagine calling any vocal harmony on the song interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stw3yLwWlN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF8Ng9v3vKc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpeGhq-sCok
while the beatles were "experimenting" with le slightly unusual chord progression and le so weird studio tricks, other bands were making actually interesting music
of course you don't know this because you only listened to 11 albums in your life, the beatles discography

>>72324924
>>"More potential" doesn't mean they actually did something with it and I can't imagine calling any vocal harmony on the song interesting.

Seriously, go fuck yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRue0xtka8k

>>72324924
>doesn't mean they actually did something with it
Just claiming they didn't isn't a real argument.
>I can't imagine calling any vocal harmony on the song interesting.
Actual musicologists would disagree with you. I'd show you but 1) you wouldn't read it and 2) you wouldn't understand it

It's OK to not like something. It's fine you don't like the Beatles. But you shouldn't make incorrect claims to justify your dislike
>>72324929
I love all those artists as well. It's OK to like both and recognize both as being great.

>>72324929
Yeah seriously if The Beatles are impressive to you then Zappa and The Mothers will blow your mind beyond recovery

THAT is a band that actually innovated and displayed musical nuance far beyond their years

>>72324983
It's OK to like both and recognize both as being great.

>>72324996
sorry but they are not equally great

>>72325005
Why not?

>>72324979
>Actual musicologists would disagree with you.
Yeah there's so many knowledgeable people that disagree with me you'd think atleast one of them would have some kind of substantial argument

I "understand" the music just fine, believe me. I just don't think it's very good

>>72325021
>I "understand" the music just fine, believe me
I don't believe you. Sorry anon ;_;

>>72325011
because the beatles music did not have as much classical, jazz and improvisation elements as the mothers music

>>72325039
You might be the wrong one, you know

>>72324983
Zappa is a hack who had no talent and had to rely on "muh exprimentayshun" rather than writing good music.

>>72325058
>much classical, jazz and improvisation
That's fine, it didn't need to.

In contrast, Mother's did not have as many intelligent compositionally sound songs.
>>72325069
Based on the conversation, no I'm most likely the correct one.

>>72325087
You have no idea the can of worms you're opening with this comment. Retreat now.

>>72325087
zappa invented the "muh exprimentayshun"

File: my_chemical_romance.jpg (58KB, 502x382px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 502x382px

>>72321929
nope

>>72322330
little bit of a strech, but I'd say it kinda counts

>>72322419
nice meme

>>72322992
yes.

>>72322996
if you consider only the years 1996

>>72323663
it's ok.

>>72323805
nope

>>72324033
I wish.

>>72324220
You really think so?

>>72325138
Unless Frank Zappa was a Frenchman in the 1940s, then no, he did not.

>>72325155
what frenchman in the 1940s are you referring to

File: 1ecea560c4688f45b1a247bea29092e0.jpg (49KB, 500x556px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x556px

>>72325087

>>72325184
If you don't know what I'm referencing, you probably shouldn't be trying to post on a music board, let alone discuss experimental music

>>72324849
http://listverse.com/2012/10/11/10-beatles-innovations-that-changed-music/

literally the first thing that comes out of google

>>72325261
>not a single one is about music

>>72325237
if you think a frenchman in the 1940s used "experimentation" as a gimmick or a style you are probably wrong
are you referring to schaeffer?

>>72325280
>Concept album not about music
>studio techniques not about music

>>72325314
>as a gimmick
Quote me where I said this

>>72325318
>beatles
>invented concept albums
>invented all these studio techniques
hahahaha

>>72325335
Quote me where I said they did.

>>72325331
you didn't say it, but that what is was originally meaning with "zappa invented the muh exprimentayshun"

There are no bands with perfect disco, ever, and there never will be

>>72322992
not a band u retsartd

Interpol
Tame Impala
Modest Mouse
Kanye
Strokes

>>72325369
Except The Beatles.

>>72325345
you should read the thread before posting

>>72323158
>their best album exists
yeah i know

>>72323313
correct

>>72325390
No, Beatles have nice songs, some really nice songs, some legendary songs, and also very discutable songs and some are straight garbage

>>72325345
also, are you implying experimental music was born in the 1940s?

>>72325391
You shouldn't assume you are talking to one person. Maybe reddit is better suited for you?
>>72325368
Sounds like you should avoid memespeak.

>>72325407
Nope. Wrong

>>72325407
>straight garbage
Like what?

File: jack_white_58022.jpg (31KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x300px

hi

File: 0AlM1qz4rgp.gif (904KB, 427x240px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 427x240px

>>72325345
Look at the list you posted and the initial question: >everything they did, they did it first
The list has "lyrics printed on an album" as an innovation. Why would you post such an awful list? Did you not review it first?

>>72325422
not him but I agree
>>72325430
Love me do

>>72325455
Youre also wrong then, and retarded.

File: Screenshot 2017-04-21 12.34.17.png (39KB, 675x611px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 675x611px

>>72325440
Guess I'll have to repeat myself since you have trouble paying attention.

Quote me where I said they did,

>>72323156
Unflattering photo of all members, save for Hook

>>72325476
you didn't answer my question mr. autism
>>72325408

I have a feeling that this thread is a straight up bait.

>>72325143
The Police had a career that was short enough that every album they released was really good. There are flop songs like Born in the 50's, Walking in Your Footsteps and Hungry for You, but every album was at least an 8/10 for me.

>>72325503
you're mother is bait

>>72325501
>answer my question
>answer my question
>answer my question
>answer my question
>answer my question


>yet you are the autist
Wow

>>72325440
why should we care about your shitty opinion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_the_Beatles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_technology

and the fact that they were the first band where each single member had a #1 hit song should probably be enough already

>>72325476
I'm not quoting you. I'm telling you to read conversations correctly. We're trying to find 10 examples of the Beatles innovating, that is inventing or being the first to do something. The list included "concept albums" and the vague term "studio effects." You didn't directly state anything, and there is nothing to quote, but we are trying to find Beatles innovations. Do you have any?

>>72325430
top of my head,
What's The New Mary Jane
Back in the USSR

I remember really disliking some songs from Please Please me and With the beatles aswell

>>72325549
Read the conversion. This anon >>72325280 made an error and I pointed it out. Don't get upset with me that you think all anons are one singular person
>but we are trying to find Beatles innovations. Do you have any?
How about the invention of Raga Rock, use of tape loops in popular music, ADT? Will that suffice?

>>72325528
>thinks a frenchman in the 1940s invented experimental music
>"you probably shouldn't be trying to post on a music board, let alone discuss experimental music"
you are embarrassing yourself

>>72325593
Quote me where I said Pierre Schaeffer invented experimental music

>>72325607
quote me where i said you said pierre schaeffer invented experimental music

>>72325642
Why else would you think it?

>>72325588
We're looking for 10. ADT I'll accept. They didn't invent raga rock. I find adding the qualifier "in popular music" for tape loops worthless. Any more?

>>72325768
>They didn't invent raga rock
How so?
>I find adding the qualifier "in popular music" for tape loops worthless.
Why? it's valid, and was an important milestone to the evolution of the sample-based present we live in.
>We're looking for 10
Why? Would any other artist have 10 or is this something you only made up for The Beatles?

>>72326110
>raga rock
Sandy Bull released an actual raga blend in '63. A quick wiki traces raga rock to the Kinks, Byrds, and Yardbirds.
I agree that it's a part of the evolution, but they simply did tape loops after it had already been around for over 20 years.
I initially asked for 10, because I knew it would be difficult to get 10, and I'm sticking to it.

>>72322154
I really wish George Martin could've taken Phil Spectre's role on this. Apparently it was not to be released until it had further work done, but John took it to Spectre who produced the album we ended up getting. It wasn't supposed to be released in the state it was in

>>72322330
>>72322546
>>72323663
>>72324033
>>72324163
Correct

also:
>Sex Pistols
>Slint
>Elliott Smith
>Nirvana
Basically any band who didn't have a career long enough for their music to turn to shit

>>72323663
government plates is ass and only half of niggas on the moon is good

>>72324163
10,000 Days is aight. Also I can't remember the last time I felt like listening to Tool

>>72326719
>Sandy Bull
Not rock
>A quick wiki traces raga rock to the Kinks, Byrds, and Yardbirds.
Beatles predated them
>but they simply did tape loops after it had already been around for over 20 years
But wait, ragas and Indian music had been aorund 2000 years before Sandy bull. Why are you using selective logic?
>I initially asked for 10, because I knew it would be difficult to get 10, and I'm sticking to it.
Show me 10 artists who would qualify has having 10 in your mind. if you can, I will list another 7 for The Beatles.
>>72326819
Not exactly correct. The state it was supposed to be released in is even worse. Spector at least improved it.

I actually enjoy their early pop albums full of covers. A taste of honey is one of their better songs

>>72326719
1- First use of ADT (created specifically for Lennon use)
2- First recorded feedback on a rock or pop song (I Feel Fine)
3- First backwards recording on a mainstream rock or pop song (Rain)
4- First use of tape loops or samples on a mainstream rock or pop song (Tomorrow Never Knows)
5- Introduction of Indian instruments on a mainstream rock or pop song (Norwegian Wood)
6- Use of damping and close-miking to Starr's drum kit (Sgt. Pepper's title song)
7- Running voices and instruments through a Leslie speaker (Tomorrow Never Knows)

And... I don't know. Lyrics in the back cover? Self contained rock band? A Hard Day's Night movie or Strawberry Fields promo effectively creating the music video?

It's tough to list 10, and it would be even harder for any other band.

>>72326967
Also, according to wikipedia:

>Sgt. Pepper was the first pop album to be mastered without the momentary gaps that are typically placed between tracks as a point of demarcation

>>72323973
This. The Velvets were way ahead of their time while keeping a simple sound and influencing a large portion of modern music. Their music stands out very well against any other band from the same time period. Not to say other bands are bad but compared to the Velvets they weren't doing anything nearly as good or cool as them.

>>72326908
The wiki specifically states those artists released tracks predating anything the Beatles produced that could be called raga rock. And indeed raga music existed long before the Beatles did anything with it. I was actually simply going to deny raga rock as an innovation in that case. Thanks.
>Show me 10 artists...
You got me. I have no intention of doing so. Led Zeppelin/Jimmy Page might have 10 guitar innovations off the top of my head. The Velvet Underground are also possible contenders. And again with your list >>72326967 adding the qualifiers of "first use on a mainstream rock or pop song" is less than impressive. It simply indicates these things have been done, and the Beatles did also did them, later, and with more popularity. Yawn.

>>72322571
It's a pasta lad

>>72327246
>The wiki specifically states those artists released tracks predating anything the Beatles produced that could be called raga rock.
Raga Rock, as in Rock musically specifically governed by the compositional structures inf India ragas, rather than a Dm guitar strummed with a fake sitar-sounding guitar.
>Led Zeppelin/Jimmy Page might have 10 guitar innovations off the top of my head
What were they?
>And again with your list >>72326967 a
That wasn't me. Why would I list ADT a second time if I already said that and you accepted it?
>"first use on a mainstream rock or pop song" is less than impressive.
Maybe that's the problem: your expectations. Is innovation using old ideas in a new way? I believe it is. So The Beatles using ideas from musique concrete in a new way would be considered innovation. Otherwise there are nearly NO real innovators in music, Velvet Underground included.

File: download (4).jpg (10KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 225x225px

>>72326819
Have you heard this?

2003 remaster of let it be with mccartneys input on making the album sound closer to what the beatles intended it to be

>>72327328
>Raga Rock...
So what did the Beatles do regarding Raga Rock before those listed?
>What were they?
As stated I have no intention of doing so.
>Why would I list ADT a second time...
Because I don't trust the capacity of 4chan users.
>Maybe that's your problem
I think there's a strict distinction between something like the first use of ADT and using tape loops like someone else did 20 years ago but with greater visibility.

>>72327556
>So what did the Beatles do regarding Raga Rock before those listed?
I just stated it.
>As stated I have no intention of doing so.
If you can't prove it, it isn't true.
>Because I don't trust the capacity of 4chan users.
Yourself included?
>like someone else did 20 years ago
Show me a pop/rock song from the 40s that specifically used tape loops as it's arrangement.
>>72327467
Oh The Beatles intended to use ProTools to digitally fix their errors?

No sir

>>72324220
the only correct answer itt

>>72327687
>I just stated it.
Okay, I understand. You're defining raga rock as something that the Beatles specifically created?
>If you can't prove it, it isn't true.
Congrats. I have no intention of playing the game of looking up other artists and quoting superficial innovations.
>Yourself included?
I question myself constantly. But I know my mind more clearly than the minds of others.
>Show me a pop/rock song...
No because I have actively been talking about detaching from the distinction between what pop/rock achieved in the mainstream years after something had already been innovated.

>>72328062
>You're defining raga rock as something that the Beatles specifically created?
Did you read what I said?
>I have no intention of playing the game of looking up other artists and quoting superficial innovations.
Then you need to accept that my answers resolve your queries if you are not willing to make a counterargument.
>detaching from the distinction between what pop/rock achieved in the mainstream
So have I. I am not talking about mainstream. Please pay attention.

>>72328121
>Did you read what I said?
I did. And it stands in opposition to what I have read elsewhere. And instead fits neatly into your definition that the Beatles did it first.
>Counterargument
Why would quoting superficial innovations from other artists prove anything about the Beatles? That's just a shallow distraction, since we're talking about the Beatles.
>I am not talking about the mainstream
Why are you trying to get a pop/rock example from me? Would you be happy with me showing you tape music from before the Beatles?

>>72328277
>And it stands in opposition to what I have read elsewhere.
The Beatles were the first to use Eastern raga as a compositional tool, rather than a faux sitar sound on a rock song. There you go. OK?
>Would you be happy with me showing you tape music from before the Beatles?
I would be happy with you showing me something that doesn't exist, yes.

Again, popularity/mainstream is not a distinction here. It is using art music ideas in non-art music. The popularity of that non-art music is irrelevant, only style and genre.

>>72328356
>...to use Eastern raga as a compositional tool...
...in a western pop context. And Sandy Bull is it because it's not rock? Would you still define it as non-art music?
>I would be happening you showing me something that doesn't exist, yes.
I'm confused here. You're looking for me to post tape music/loops from non-art music (that which is generally defined as popular music) despite my saying that I refuse to draw a distinction between the tape music (what you're probably referring to as art music) of the 40s onwards and the Beatles including tape loops in whatever pop songs they included it in.

>>72328677
This is all misdirection.

If you refuse to accept my answers but refuse to retort them, then there's nothing more to say.

What do you want from me?

File: 2013ArcticMonkeys_Press_ZackeryMichael-240613-2.jpg (240KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 900x600px

Tell me I'm wrong

the beatles were a quality band but idk why baby boomers and their brainswashed kids and grandchildren act like they were the messiahs of the decade. as if steve reich and john Coltrane were their cute little sidekicks.

>>72328736
Cool thanks. I enjoyed it.

File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

They've never released a bad album, nor even a good. They've always released things that I've considered great, and near perfection. All they're music is so great.

>>72328800
you're wrong AM is dog shit

File: the big 5.jpg (11KB, 273x184px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 273x184px

>>72324220
Yes. Some say they never made a masterpiece but I disagree.

File: 1435180971694.jpg (44KB, 550x472px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x472px

>>72322906
are you like fuckin kiddin me bro? beatles were GENRE DEFINING BEST EVER MOST INNOVATIVE FUCKING BAND OF ALL TIME YOU FUCKING PATRICIAN TRASH PIECE OF SHIT OH MY DEAR LORD DID YOU EVEN HEAR SGT PEPPERS DID YOU EVEN FUCKING LISTEN YOU FUCKING PIECE OF NORMIE TRASH GOD DAMMIT RIEEIEEIEIEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>72322849
this if we dont include the complilation albums, louder than bombs sucks

>>72321929
Gorillaz
>Kinda

I wish le epic scaruffi drones would just listen to Tomorrow Never Knows. For their own sake. AH well, their loss.

File: 1405_TAME-IMPALA_Press-Pictures_4-by-MATT-SAV.jpg (4MB, 2800x1867px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2800x1867px

>>72321929
tame impala obviously

>>72323170
noice

>>72330208
They wouldn't know what to make of it without Scruffy's opinion to mimic

File: AndyStott.jpg (371KB, 1260x608px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1260x608px

easy andy stott, always awesome

>>72330415
amazing live as well

>>72322330
Best band ever? Not by a long shot. But they have been consistently great for almost 20 years, they've undergone numerous line up changes and managed to stay fresh and inventive. They also have stay popular despite the decline of """mainstream rock""""

File: Fleet Foxes.jpg (82KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 280x280px

None of their albums are "perfect" but I think everything they've released is good.

>>72324652
>Wow, you cool and knowledgeable 4chan alpha-males really schooled me
be honest you got bullied in school didn't you?

>>72321929
THE

File: 1447867746085.png (645KB, 830x1262px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 830x1262px

>>72325564
>Back in the USSR
>trash

>>72325143
>what is Danger Days

>>72330208
>3 minute track
wow it's fucking nothing
maybe the beatles should have developed their innovations instead of using them as gimmick to make "weird" pop songs

>>72332121
>quantity not quality
kys

File: 0007960794_10.jpg (241KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1200x800px

Da Pawn
They´ve only released an ep and a full lenght, but every song on those is perfect.

>>72332237
it's not a matter of quantity
the beatles didn't start any genre, they didn't even have a personal style, just random songs

>>72323744
Their s/t is fucking terrible dude. as much as i love unwound their discog is not perfect with that dud. also "challenge for a civilized society" is not that good.

>>72332358
>it's not a matter of quantity
You just mocked them because of the time length. That's quantity
>the beatles didn't start any genre
Jangle Pop
Sunshine Pop
>they didn't even have a personal style
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatlesque

File: Death_band_II_8420.jpg (21KB, 326x312px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 326x312px

prove me wrong. chuck was the most handsome boy in death metal. also fugazi

>>72332358
>the beatles didn't start any genre
>literally what is Helter Skelter
inb4 le kinks did it first xD

>>72332516
what genre did helter skelter start exactly?

File: SWR.jpg (124KB, 1800x1126px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1800x1126px

Short, but sweet

>>72332565
Heavy metal

>>72324033
allelujah and skinny fists are very mediocre

>>72332516
saying "le" and using an ironic xD doesn't change the fact that the kinks actually did do it first, by four years.

>>72333530
>>72333530
What song?

>>72333583
All Day and All of the Night

File: upoo].png (127KB, 1422x606px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1422x606px

>>72321929
This.

>>72333598
That's not metal you dummy.

>>72333644
Neither is Helter Skelter you dummy

>>72333653
Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

>>72333530
The Kinks songs arguably planted the seed, but they're a far cry from the level Helter Skelter is on. The vocals on HS in particular were staggeringly influential to the genre, not to mention how Lennon plays the bass.

>>72333721
>not to mention how Lennon plays the bass.
Shitty?

File: portishead-51a4164116160.jpg (462KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1920x1080px

>>72321929

File: 13612204_824540574313021_5922114087952528392_n.jpg (27KB, 480x310px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x310px

Albums that are the examples for why you are wrong.

>>72322018
Please Please me
Yellow Submarine
Beatles for sale

I love The Beatles mate, but sorry, they have flaws that make their discographies imperfect.


>>72323170
Album pictured on your post

>>72323663
Eh, GP was a weak point.

>>72323973
Loaded exists

>>72324033
Asunder sweet and other distress was plain bad
As for who I would say?

Sex Pistols (though they only had one album so not much of an achievement)

Van Morrison

The Frontbottoms

The Strokes

Apart from that I cant think of any other examples, the issue is that so many of my faviouites have one or two stinkers (Bob Dylan = Self portrait, Bowie = Lets Dance, Fleetwood Mac = Time, Death Grips = GP, The Swans = The Seer, The Clash = Cut the crap, Bruce = Most of his modern stuff, Neutral Milk Hotel = invent yourself a shortcake).

>>72334665
>Neutral Milk Hotel = invent yourself a shortcake
Demos count?

Nah. Then no artist would have a perfect discog

>>72334780
That was a demo? Okay I take back them not having a perfect discog.

>>72321929
Beatles are pretty shit to be honest. I've tried over and over to get into them but the production is awful, the guitar is sloppy (in a bad way) and the vocals are grating. It's no wonder everyone considers Pet Sounds to be one of the best albums ever made if it's being compared to something like Revolver or Sgt Pepper. Not that there aren't a few gems, Here, There and Everywhere for example, but not a single album they've released is as cohesive, beautiful or catchy as Pet Sounds. Everything the Beatles do feels very amateurish.

>>72335054
Yeah they only have two albums, On Avery Island and ITAOTS. Everything else is just demo tapes, some singles and an EP

>>72335163
b8