Thread replies: 21
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6
>They [The Beatles] were influential, yes, but on the customs - in the strictest sense of the word. Their influence, for better or for worse, on the great phenomena of the 60s does not amount to much. Unlike Bob Dylan, they did not stir social revolts; unlike the Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead they did not foster the hippie movement; unlike Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix they did not further the myth of LSD; unlike Jagger and Zappa they had no impact on the sexual revolution. Indeed the Beatles were icons of the customs that embodied the opposite: the desire to contain all that was happening. In their songs there is no Vietnam, there is no politics, there are no kids rioting in the streets, there is no sexual promiscuity, there are no drugs, there is no violence. In the world of the Beatles the social order of the 1940s and the 1950s still reigns. At best they were influential on the secret dreams of young girls, and on the haircuts of young nerdy boys.
Is this true? Did the Beatles really have hardly any cultural relevance in the 60s, despite being so relevant today?
>>
>>74770622
Dude I don't know but it's nice to see someone else who hates the Beatles as passionately as I do once in a while.
>>
Nope, Scaruffi's being blinded by a lifetime of contrarianism. The Beatles' radical influence isn't so much in their early years but rather what happens after - and that break with their early years. In addition, they also were really influential musically, revolutionizing recording techniques (the way we record drums and bass is still based on the way that they pioneered in 1966 for Revolver and its singles), as well as bringing new instruments and new sounds in general to the forefront of popular music. Oh, and having some surprisingly intricate songwriting, too.
The entire point of The Beatles is this cross between pop sensibilities, extremely refined songwriting and a willingness to experiment and go beyond in terms of musicianship and studio work. And that's ok if you don't like them, but that's their entire point.
>>
File: 1499242536732.png (100KB, 500x489px) Image search:
[Google]
100KB, 500x489px
>>
File: 1502751815887.png (191KB, 1774x627px) Image search:
[Google]
191KB, 1774x627px
>>
>>74770637
Do you hate them too? We are partners!
>>74770710
You are right when you said that the work of The Beatles can be divided in two, but I don't agree with your conclusion.
The most influential work of The Beatles is their early work: they, with a few other bands, settle the parameters of pop music, being this genre just one in a huge spectre of genres. Their second half of work were experimental, yes, but it was nothing that any other musician from the last 10/20 years has done before.
>>
>>74770622
doesn't that directly contradict his hate for David Bowie?
>>
>>74770942
Eh, I wouldn't say so, though you're right that their first few albums are them building up pop music and slowly experimenting with it in multiple fashions and deconstructing that built up of poppy rock 'n' roll that they had created in the early 60's.
As for the latter half of their work, the thing about The Beatles is that basically were the first ones to do it while uniting pop sensibilities. Yes, there was musique concrete, but for all it is Revolution 9 is surprisingly pleasant to hear, for example. Besides, it's kind of the point where everything comes from. We still do string sections in pop songs mimicking Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby, mainly, either that or things like fiddle-esque violins. And that's sort of their entire point; they were able to bring many sounds which we wouldn't expect into their base of blues and rock 'n' roll with a high pop sensibility and stellar musicianship (no, seriously, check out McCartney's basslines and how his songs are written, there's way more to it than what you can get at first glance) to create their albums; and the fact that everyone sorts of drinks from their fountain, in a way. It's rare to not end up taking inspiration from them.
I completely understand if you do hate them, you need to comprehend that sort of mindset and to put yourself in a view where doing what they're doing is the endgoal.
>>
>>74770827
This.
>>
File: smug-zappa.jpg (66KB, 594x600px) Image search:
[Google]
66KB, 594x600px
>muh riots
>muh hippies
>muh drugs
>muh sex
>unironically falling for the '60s meme
>>
why do people only post two pics of this guy, the one in the OP with the elevated shoulders and shit eating grin and the one with him sitting in front of icecream with him holding the utensils in the air
>>
File: scaruffy.png (52KB, 379x429px) Image search:
[Google]
52KB, 379x429px
>>74772300
>>
>>74770964
his hatred of bowie is much funnier than the beatles
he basically hates his entire existence on principle and is completely incapable of accepting anything he did as legitimate.
even when his merits are undeniable he just credits visonti or eno
>>
>>74770622
>they didn't fall in with MUH EPIC HIPPIE 60S so they're for NERDS
what the fuck, I don't even like the beatles that much but this is full of shit
>>
A L P H A
L
P
H
A
>>
>>74770622
it's weird when scaruffi talks realistically about LSD and its influence while also saying that puffing a weed makes you permanently retarded
>>
>>74771915
My point is that only their first works were influential because they settle the structure to pop music; their second kind of work is like any other "experimental" musician from that time.
Revolution 9 is no pleasant for the mayority of people. In fact, I've talked to Beatles fans and I've told them: "revolution 9 si the only song of The Beatles that I like" their answer? "I hate that song".
>>
>>74772471
so what you're saying is, he's literally just a contrarian
>>
>>74772431
Hes a FUNNY guy!
>>
>>74772431
The fuck is he doing with his left arm (camera's right)? Looks like something a solid beta would do.
>>
>>74772517
He's one fucked up reviewer!
Thread posts: 21
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6