Thread replies: 49
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
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.
>>
No, he's a total pleb and knows nothing about well crafted music from the greatest artists that have ever lived desu.
>>
>>73198034
>Is he right?
He's not, sorry.
>>
>>73198034
Pretentious fag
>>
>>73198034
What instrument does he play again?
>>
>>73198034
He is right.
>>
>>73198034
Yes, he is
>>
i know this a meme right dog but wasnt this form the 1991 movie Slacker
>>
>>73198373
your mom's pussy
>>
File: scaruffucker.png (35KB, 905x394px) Image search:
[Google]
35KB, 905x394px
>>73198034
>reminder that this person thinks that Fred Durst is a better vocalist than Ian Gillan, Ozzy Osbourne, John Lennon, and Paul McCartney
>>
>>73198373
>muh instruments
fuck off
I just ate a Big Mac, should I go as a professional chef if it was healthy for me?
>>
> Theirs were records of traditional songs crafted as they had been crafted for centuries, yet they served an immense audience, far greater than the audience of those who wanted to change the world, the hippies, freaks and protesters. Their fans ignored or abhorred the many rockers of the time who were experimenting with the suite format, who were composing long free-form tracks, who were using dissonance, who were radically changing the concept of the musical piece. The Beatles' fans thought, and some still think, that using trumpets in a rock song was a revolutionary event, that using background noises (although barely noticeable) was an even more revolutionary event, and that only great musical geniuses could vary so many styles in one album, precisely what many rock musicians were doing all over the world, employing much more sophisticated stylistic excursions.
>While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avantgarde music, thus elevating rock music to art, the Beatles continued to yield three-minute songs built around a chorus. Beatlemania and its myth notwithstanding, Beatles fans went crazy for twenty seconds of trumpet, while the Velvet Underground were composing suites of chaos twenty minutes long. Actually, between noise and a trumpet, between twenty seconds and twenty minutes, there was an artistic difference of several degrees of magnitude. They were, musically, sociologically, politically, artistically, and ideologically, on different planets.
He does have a good point that plenty of other artists were doing innovative things at the same time that The Beatles did. Beatles fans have this attitude that The Beatles are the nexus that all rock music revolves around, and that the were the only ones to forward rock music, and that just isn't true at all.
>>
>>73199194
*ask
>>
File: 1469104787694.jpg (35KB, 389x500px) Image search:
[Google]
35KB, 389x500px
>>73198034
Quit reposting this shit daily. Fucking cocksucker.
>>
>>73198034
yes, he always is
>>
>>73198034
No. He's WRONG!
He has obviously never heard the instrumental version of A Hard Days Night which is played in 5-4 time and almost sounds like a rip off of Dave Brubeck's Take 5!
>>
lol@butthurt beatlesfags
>>
>>73199194
>discusses lack of critical rock criticism
>music theory is not needed
Nice try faggo
>>
>>73200076
t. doesn't know music theory
>>
>>73200766
The Beatles didn't know shit about theory
>>
>>73200889
They also didn't claim to be intellectuals, unlike Scruffy
>>
>>73201013
>implying Scaruffi the most trustworthy critic out there
>>
>>73201189
Why would I be defending The Beatles if I was implying that you dummy
>>
>>73201244
forgot to add "isn't" my bad anon
>>
>>73198034
Yes he is, but so many normals are like "MUH BEATLES" it will never cut through.
>>
>>73201261
>telling blatant lies
>the most trustworthy
>>
>>73198034
This is not even a critique of the Beatles music, it is one long refutation of a straw man argument that the Beatles are credited with being first at everything.
You attempt to support your position by obfuscating the timeline of events, distorting historical context, and deliberate misrepresentations. You suggest they followed in the footsteps of Gerry & the Pacemakers. By 1961 the Beatles were the most popular group in Liverpool as evidenced by the first Mersey Beat readers' poll. After signing the Beatles and securing them a record contract, Epstein then signed Gerry & the Pacemakers. Their first single, a song previously recorded and rejected by the Beatles, was released after the Beatles already had two singles out.
You misrepresent the historical context in which the Beatles arrived in America. The 1964 protests had to do with the Free Speech Movement and nothing to do with the Vietnam war. The first U.S. combat troops didn't arrive in Vietnam until the following year, and large scale anti-war protests didn't occur until 1967.
You implied that Sgt. Pepper was created on the heels of other events of 1967: The sessions started in December 1966 and the first product of those sessions, was released in February, a month before Pink Floyd's first single. You falsely claims that "Tommy " was from 1968 and the Beatles didn't attempt a concept album until a year later.
You actually reverse the timeline to claim songs were released a year after they actually were.
>>
>>73201294
my bad, I'm positive your RYM account is far superior
>>
Yes he is always right
>>
>>73201425
>RYM
Not familiar with that, sorry.
>>
>>73201359
Post some more please.
>>
>>73201488
rateyourmusic.com
welcome to /mu/
>>
>>73201520
Sorry, I don't make silly lists to showcase my taste like you might. I'm only interested in discussing music
>>
>>73201559
obviously not since we're both currently engaging in a pitiful argument.
>>
>>73198034
>Duke Ellington
>not the most famous Jazz musician of his day
What bizzarro universe does Scruffy live in?
>>
>>73201359
scaruffi btfo
>>
File: 1467007212343.jpg (49KB, 899x674px) Image search:
[Google]
49KB, 899x674px
>mfw i actually read more than the first sentence
nothing wrong with the beatles but no where near the greatest rock bands
>>
>>73201587
Well, you are. I've already won.
>>
>>73200646
Music theory is just naming a bunch of things that musicians have done in the past. There's nothing "theoretical" about it that would prove anything about the actual quality of any music.
>>
>>73202266
>prove anything about the actual quality of any music.
When did I mention anything about the quality of the music?
>>
>>73198034
I agree with him but acknowledge that it is my own subjective opinion, and that anybody who disagrees and likes the Beatles is entitled to their opinion.
I disagree with him concerning Abbey Road, Tomorrow Never Knows, and Revolution 9, though.
>>
you are just as pitiful as him for having an argument about nothing of importance
>>
>>73202297
When your green-texting implied that music theory was required for rock criticism. Unless this is not what you were trying to imply, in which case you're really bad at communicating. Also, the guy who you were talking to never mentioned "music theory" explicitly, so why aren't you scolding yourself for that?
>>
>>73202332
>When your green-texting implied
Not what I'm asking. Try again.
>required for rock criticism.
For intellectual rock criticism, it is. That is what Scruffy pretends to be.
>Also, the guy who you were talking to never mentioned "music theory"
That's probably because he's ignorant of it
>so why aren't you scolding yourself for that?
Why would Is cold myself for bringing up something relevant
>>
>>73202303
Aren't you worried that you have an uninformed opinion?
>>
>>73202310
>only I say what is important
Go away
>>
>>73202495
bad post desu
you just got ur boipucci pounded friendo so just accept it ',:^)
>>
>>73202701
>desu
Stopped reading right there
>>
Jazz is overrated af only good thing to come out of it is afrobeat
Thread posts: 49
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4