The Beatles

>>72913001
>or are they actually as revolutionary as plebfork and others paint them out to be
yeah, they are

>>72913001
Both are right

Scaruffi is right because the only reason the Beatles were big was because they were pop music commercially sold well. He's also right because his ratings are spot on for all the albums, maybe magic mystery tour a little bit higher but he's very accurate

However, the Beatles did pioneer stuff such as drum loops and even the modern album as we know it. Even scaruffi admits how great abbey road and Sgt peppers are (which I agree with). The Beatles really weren't that good but they did have influence no matter what scaruffi says. He may claim a band like the rolling stones are better but the Beatles had to have happened for the stones to come to America.

>>72913205
I think Scaruffi is wrong because he seems to still see them as a boyband even when they released Revolver. Imo the early years propelled them to their fame because of their friendly image at the time but by the release of Sgt. Peppers they had truly come in to their own artistically and while the boyband image still lingered they should be apppropriately credited for the tremendous change they brought to music. If they were bad in any way, then why would many of the artists Scaruffi praise call the Beatles their foremost inspiration?

>>72913001
The Beatles have easily one of the best discographies of any band I can think of. They're overrated in that people fucking worship them to the point of not hearing any critiques of the group and they have some bad songs and bad moments on even some of their best albums, but honestly the anti-Beatles circlejerk on this board mostly just shows how completely out of touch /mu/ can be.

>>72913001
Name another band that did what they did in the same time frame. Regardless of being an industry plant they were and are very influential.

>>72913938
Well /mu/ hates them because they're popular. I think popular music used to be better back in the day and that's why I don't see it as a negative when it comes to the Beatles because some other popular artists around that time are amazing as well, namely Bowie, Stones and Beach Boys, none of which I think are better than the Beatles or many other bands of the time, but still undeniably miles better than shit today.

>>72913001
He doesn't appreciate great pop songs enough when he rates things. He even has a separate list for Best Pop (Melodic) Albums.

The Beatles are probably as revolutionary as music teachers and popular music critics write, but it's too bad that these sources don't appreciate or even know about lesser-known artists like Tim Buckley or The Residents.

I don't think his ratings are correct about a lot of things. He clearly values ego and neurosis when rating albums, which is immediately clear if you listen to his entire canon, which I have. I greatly enjoy all of his 9s, but they are all actually kind of ridiculous and immature, whereas the Beatles, especially Paul on his solo albums, are ironically more mature.

>>72914385
Well at least Scaruffi brings a new perspective. Most plebs on here just say things are because they're popular n shiet

What really annoyed me in the infamous Scaruffi, it his assumption that The Beatles was the biggest commercial sucess in the music business. The Beatlemania really wear off after 1965, with bands like The Monkees replacing them , and after The Beatles a bunch of other artist achieve the same level or even more commercial sucess than them.

>>72913938
this

>>72914079
The late 60's definitely had an unusually high concentration of popular music that was actually really good, but there was also a LOT of shitty popular music back then too. For the most part today's music isn't worse than past decades.

>>72913001
The Beatles are one of those bands that's fascinating to study if only because they're a testament to mass hysteria. How four mopheaded twits captured teh world's soul all while inventing a legend for themselves continues to evade us.

It's also a monument to the fairier sex's infinitely inferior taste in art. Saccharine tripe sure makes their panties wet.

>>72914968
Lol, a garbage opinion from a clearly garbage human being.

>>72914932
I willl disagree due to this simple fact: musicians don't write their own music anymore. Literally no one does and when they do it's often shit anyway because the ones writing music today know exactly what to write to get mainstream attention. A computer could do it.

>>72915054
Spotted the defensive bourgie.

>>72915078
Spotted the guy who tries too hard to sound intelligent and just comes off as a cringey douchebag. It's okay, I went through that when I was 15 too. I genuinely hope that you mature into having a little bit of self-awareness in the next few years.

>>72915064
You give too much credit to past musicians- a LOT of them didn't write the bulk of their music either. And while the majority of mainstream music today isn't written by the artist performing it, that's definitely not universally the case.

I mean honestly you have a point, but if you think "literally no one" writes their own music today you aren't knowledgeable enough about current music to have an informed opinion about it.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_imagesSBKRPE8T.jpg (26KB, 553x555px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 553x555px

>>72915303

>>72915303
>It's okay, I went through that when I was 15 too.
So you were smarter at 15?

>>72913762
Because they were popular and that's what they listened too as a kid pretty simple.

>>72915459
You're right, I didn't mean literally no one, I was mostly referring to the most popular musicians right now.

>>72915672
Some of them were adults by the time the Beatles came around

>>72913001
Records aren't "Published".

And I think The White Album is GOAT.