What does /mu/ think of the Beatles?

they're one of my favourite bands

>>73828197
very underrated

ever since i found out that john lennon mercilessly beat his wife and children on a regular basis i've been pretty disgusted by the hypocritical music.

>>73828197
They're good.

If your favourite Beatle is John you're a pleb.

Even Ringo is a better choice.

>>73828394
i heard he beat his first wife

The fact that

File: George-Harrison-All-Things-Must-Pass.jpg (188KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1000x1000px

Don't mind me, just the best post-Beatles album.

>>73828505
thats not tug of war

>>73828394
Ringo>Paul>Georges Martin>Georges Harrison>John

>>73828197
Literally who

>>73828505
George Harrison probably the best song writer after they broke up

>>73828394
John is the best Beatle by far

The only one who had any balls man

>>73828570
Eh, I think ATMP is the best solo album of theirs but you have to remember that much of it was written by George during the Beatle years, when John and Paul would hold him back.

Debatable in my opinion but Something and Here Comes The Sun were probably the best songs on Abbey Road too so I might actually agree with you.

File: apple-solo-127-Paul-Ram-Front.jpg (94KB, 495x500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 495x500px

>>73828505
uhm

>>73828394
t. Cynthia

File: 1498417111049.png (3MB, 670x3745px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 670x3745px

>>73828394
This

File: scruff.jpg (7KB, 209x204px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 209x204px

>>73828197
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.

File: scruffy scruffington 2.jpg (30KB, 548x308px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 548x308px

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. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

File: scruffs.jpg (20KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x400px

>>73830525
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

>>73830498
Who cares about a commie hack opinion?

>>73830415
This forever. The Beatles have amazing melodies and were great at pushing boundaries, but no one will ever rival The Kinks in terms of songwriting and general feel.

>>73830498
>>73830525
>>73830546
Wow all of their stuff sounds kind of plebby to me now.

File: le absolute aryan.jpg (23KB, 640x504px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x504px

>>73830525
>Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
wtf I love the beatles now

>>73830498
>>73830525
>>73830546
haha good job you did it again

>>73828223
nobody ever gives details. It's all hearsay at this point. I think he beat his wife. But how BAD did he beat her. Do we know if it was on a regular basis or not?

Beatles RULE!
Posters on /mu/ drool!

>>73830525
if they don't have lusty niggers they're not good

>>73830415
kek

>>73828394
Hey

File: 1499210457564.png (3MB, 469x3774px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 469x3774px

>>73830415
>not posting the full one

>>73831269
apparently he slapped his first wife once
people say he was really abusive to Yoko, but obviously she hasn't commented on whether it actually happened or not because she's making billions from his songwriting royalties
he was known to get into fights with people he wasn't related too though
and he pretty much neglected his first son for like 10 years so that was pretty shitty of him

Solid band but I would not consider them as the greatest of all time.

Beach Boys were better.