I have a theory on why the Beatles receive so much hate yet simultaneously

>>74364556
did you actually fall for Scaruffi's meme?

>>74364556
The Beatles wrote songs that are easy to understand, well played, immaculately produced, and immensely popular. Some people can't stand that - they prefer songs that are incomprehensible, sloppily played, lo-fi, and generally obscure. These people are not patricians.

File: ringo starr.jpg (75KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 450x450px

>>74364556
We all love The Beatles, some people just think they're overrated and they are, but it's not their fault. They did nothing but great songs, why would anyone hate them unironically? I can't think of any reason other than the fact that John Lennon beat his wife.

This is kind of what I've thought for a while - people aren't used to a band being both popular and good. Also, people need to understand that what's most significant and impressive about The Beatles was their ability to create music that was simultaneously popular and accessible to the masses while not sacrificing craftsmanship, creativity, experimentation, and exploration of a wide range of styles and influence. Of course there were bands, even at their time, that were more experimental, incorporated a wider variety of influences and styles, were more technically skilled, etc., but those bands' music was not simultaneously managing to appeal to a massive amount and variety of people to the extent that The Beatles' were. In other words, they weren't the most technically skilled musicians, they weren't the most experimental, they weren't the most adventurous, but they were skilled, experimental, and adventurous to a decent extent while still managing to be immensely popular, and if that's not one of the most impressive feats in modern music history, I don't know what is.
Plus, they got extremely lucky with the talent of people they worked with like George Martin and their sound engineers, who also deserve quite a bit of credit for their songs sounding as good as they did.

>>74366355
This

File: LustyNegroAttitudes.png (131KB, 293x308px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 293x308px

The fact that so many Americans still believe it should be illegal to marry a 12-year-old only tells you how far America still is from becoming a serious culture. The Europeans have long recognized that the greatest relationships of all times are between male adults and female adolescents, who are the most biologically fit to produce offspring, as well as the most physically attractive. Followers of the Muslim faith rank the highly controversial Aisha over all of their prophet Mohammed’s other wives, who were far past the prime age for reproduction. Americans are still blinded by puritan values. Adult females are more mentally developed than adolescents (not true, by the way), therefore they must be the greatest partners. Europeans engaged in relationships with adolescent European girls in the middle ages, radical Islamists engage in relationships with adolescent Muslim girls in the present. Americans are often totally ignorant of the virtues of relationships with adolescent girls, they barely know the biological benefits. No wonder they think that sexual-relations with 12-year-old girls should be criminalized.

>>74366355
On top of above average musicianship from the beginning, which is also really surprising (you can't truly diss their early songs, since there's genuinely some above average songwriting for a pop band there), they were studio forerunners in nearly every sense of the word. The way drums and bass are recorded today was something that first appeared in Beatles records, for example. There's also the fact that they explored music in rather unusual ways while still being very acessible, which is way more challenging than it seems.