ITT - pop masterpieces

Both GOAT!

I thought we had all finally agreed that the Beatles were overrated

>>74830472
critical praise and popularity don't change the creative depth and range of their work... Paul and John were great songwriters, Ringo was a phenomenal drummer, George added jewels to their psych rock era albums. I think they get a bad wrap solely for being popular but they were a god tier band

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.

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.

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

>>74830719
Why are there age limits? why is it illegal to marry a 12-year old? Helen of Troy was 12. Juliet and Cleopatra were still teenagers when they became famous. Most heroines of classic novels and poems were underage by today's laws. Thomas Edison married a 16-year-old. Medical studies show that the best age for a woman to have children is between 15 and 25 (lowest chances of miscarriage, of birth defects and, last but not least, of the woman dying while giving birth); while the worst age is after the mid 30s. And the younger you are, the more likely you are to cement a real friendship with your children; the older you are, the more likely that the "generational gap" will hurt your children's psychology. Therefore it is much more natural to have a child at 16 than at 40. In countless countries of the world women have their first child at a very young age, and stop having children at a relatively young age. Nonetheless, in the USA it is illegal to have sex before 18 (but, note, only if the partner is over 18, which is like saying that it is ok to rob a bank if you are a banker), while it is perfectly legal to get pregnant at 40 or (thanks to medical progress) even at 70.

>>74830327
cba to download pics to use them once so ill just list in words -

United We Stand, Hillsong;
Tapestry, Carole King;
Forever Changes, Love;
Music From Big Punk, The Band;
Notorious Byrds Brothers, Byrds;
We Are Family, Sister Sledge;
Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen;
The Who Sell Out, The Who;
His Band And The Street Choir, Van Morrison

File: 2017-08-28-22-15-10-.jpg (14KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 222x227px

Fucking plebs

The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society.

>>74830756
The day Scaruffi dies will be the day /mu/ dies

File: 1503809617921.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

>>74830327
>>74830386
>>74830411
>>74830454
>>74830473
>>74830497
>>74830512
>>74830553
>>74830603
>>74830553
>>74830619
>>74830633
>>74830672
>>74830813
The Beatles were a crappy boyband with One Direction-tier lyricism. They innovated nothing, only became popular through sheer force of selling out and iterating dumb canned hooks.

They innovated nothing and their production and composition has the depth of a kiddie pool despite what musty old turds of "music historians" brainlessly iterate.

They're a very cut and clear pedestrian litmus test and it's evident that /mu/ is populated by faux-intellectual redditors.

File: Dude Guys Stop.jpg (6KB, 250x226px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x226px

>>74830849
>>74830854
Too many plebeians. Where am I? The Reddit website????

>>74830879
If the white album from The Beatles is the first legendary pop album that comes to mind, you just don't listen to enough music.

>>74830933
Quality > Quantity

I actually listen to mostly Classical. The Beatles are the best thing pop/rock has to offer.

>>74830969
Also generally classical, but if you this The Beatles beat out The Doors, TVU, Talking Heads, Dylan, Leonard Cohen, even Pink Floyd and Radiohead, although we've moved away from pop a bit, you have very bland taste. The beatles are psychedelia in its most sugary and digestible form. Their late albums were commercialized blatantly, and their art was more influenced by drugs and money than it was any actual ambition. All of the changes in sound to rock music in the past 40 years have been moving us away from the sounds the beatles introduced to us.

>>74830969
Also, you have to listen to a lot to develop tastes. The reason most people like Nickelback, or Green Day is because they haven't heard enough music. Listen to 500 albums of soms critical appraise, the 1001 albums to hear before you die has a lot of ideas, and your taste in music will change. Who knows maybe, after hearing 40,000 albums you'll transcend and realize that Panic! At the Disco are the greatest innovators of western music in the past 100 years, regardless. Listening to good albums on repeat doesn't make you someone with good taste. Itd be like me saying Mozart is the best classical has to offer, and when you try to show me Bach, Beethoven, Brahms or Schoenberg I turn away because I feel like I'll never enjoy anything more than the Gm symphony.

>>74831629
taste is just an illusion like qualia or consciousness. prove to me that taste is a tangible thing

>>74831499
>you have very bland taste
>more critically acclaimed bands
You could say that we're moving away from the sound that all of these artists introduced, retard.

>>74831908
Its subjective for sure, but if we all took the stance of "Oh well anon, we must just have different tastes :^)" this would just be reddit. That said, someone who has listened to 1000 albums has more credibility in musical conversation than someone who has listened to 20. Same with music theory and musicology knowledge. The more of music you've experienced, and the more you understand the inner workings of music, the more weight your opinions hold. If your goal is to just enjoy music, why are you on /mu/, the main purpose of the board is to discover new music, and debate and discuss records.

>>74832389
>the more you understand the inner workings of music, the more weight your opinions hold.
this is how you know someone doesn't interact a lot with people. Some of the most theory savvy people I know have had the absolute worst taste in music honestly. Your knowledge on something like music doesn't mean your opinion holds more weight, it just means you understand more of what you hear. The reason people think /mu/ has gone to shit is because everything has to be some "objective" psuedo-intellect bullshit.

>>74830854
>they innovated nothing
>one direction-tier lyricism
who are you trying to impress my man, if you actually did your research you'd realize that the beatles pioneered so much shit and that most likely your favorite artists hold them to high regard, you're not above anyone for thinking one of the best acts of the 60's is garbage.

File: 1493157648006.png (73KB, 1420x1635px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1420x1635px

>>74830327
Your favorite album.

File: talentless hack.jpg (69KB, 385x240px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 385x240px

>>74832610
They pioneered nothing. They hopped on whatever bandwagon was comfortable enough for them to make generic phoned-in pop songs. I say that very deliberately because there isn't some interesting or intangible delimiter here, they were just a generic band that innovated nothing.

What you mean to say because you heard this at some point through the grapevine is that their production was "ahead of their time". What this means is that while most people were making straightforward 4-chord musical progressions they were doing the same thing but they'd have about a dozen and maybe a little inflection here or there. It wasn't done well, it wasn't done interestingly and it was arguably worse than just having the song be straightfoward.

And not really. Musicians tend to respect other musicians and they respect legendary figures in music but the most respect they can confabulate is some generic statement about Abbey Road being "the best pop album of all time" without ever really justifying it and not even being able to defend a good majority of their career.

Zappa thought they were bloated crap

>>74833002
all you did was basically recite what you said earlier, you can deny that they didn't pioneer anything but you don't actually defame anything people have claimed they pioneered, so you didn't really accomplish anything. Many musicians also discussed how the beatles directly influenced their sound and how they composed music, remember zappa was one musician out of many that made up a generation of artists. Pink Floyd, King Crimson, The Who, many artists show their respect and how the beatles influenced them. You also say that no one can defend why people claim their albums are as good as they say but if you've actually ever read an analysis of their work maybe you'd realize that in trying to be contrarian you missed what made them special.

File: candy-o.png (111KB, 271x266px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 271x266px

>>74834064
quit feeding the troll and post moar good pop albums

>>74834064
>Many musicians also discussed how the beatles directly influenced their sound and how they composed music
No they don't. And if they do it's some ambiguous allusion that can't be intelligently justified.

The Beatles created almost no kind of original sound and piggybacked off a smorgasbord of musical ideals they thought they could use to make pop hits.

In fact, they explicitly went out of their way not to. Because were hack pop musicians.

>Pink Floyd, King Crimson
I'd be fascinated to hear the incredibly loose tangent people come up with when they claim King Crimson was influened by The Beatles. Because there really is no limit with Beatles fans.

If The Beatles influenced King Crimson then the TI-84 calculator influenced Steve Jobs to create the iPhone.

>>74830854
ok but it sounds really good

>>74833002
i guarantee you can't even play an instrument

>>74830854
>one direction-tier lyricism
you can't have these opinions if you haven't actually listened to them

>>74833002
>they pioneered nothing
Rubber Soul made rock/pop albums a thing. almost everythign you like in the 60s stems from it

File: rtrtuy.jpg (72KB, 526x552px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 526x552px

>this thread

>>74834971
Yeah that hilarious copypasta has been posted so many times you'd think atleast 1 person on /mu/ would be able to argue with it

>>74830854
reddit spacing, and beatles are /mu/'s band

File: taylor-swift-album[1].png (247KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 670x377px

/thread

File: R-1695716-1237958154.jpeg.jpg (116KB, 500x506px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x506px

This honestly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inzoL0NDsm0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mn2NgD1pbY&index=9&list=PLwnVBEp26ulAR2jbiQb9zF-7A_OkvUPuo

>>74835002
>beatles are /mu/'s band

ok /mu/'s prophet

>>74830854
What a sad life you must have to write blatant lies and shit over the internet

>>74833002
>Doesn´t like The Beatles
>Likes Zappa fucking awful discography
Dude, you don´t need to try convince someone else or yourself that you have good taste liking disgusting shit and shitting over good artists, if you don´t like them fine by me but don´t try to make facts out of thin air and claim shit out of nowhere.

>>74834624
Robert Fripp has actually spoken of The Beatles influence in him, so fuck you dumb cunt

>>74835133
Don't talk shit on Zappa, fucking dimwit.

t.beatles and zappa fan.

>>74835002
I can't think of a better archetype for a "reddit" band than The Beatles.

They're the most surface level and inoffensive of surface level pop bands that people appreciate entirely on the premise of phoned-in quotable hooks and they brainlessly iterate that it's a legendary band but can't ever explain why. Claiming it's better than "the crap on the radio nowadays" and thinking they're more cultured than 14 year olds with their Migos and Taylor Swift but just being the same amount of stupid with more pretension.

>>74835097
Not everybody does things because of their masculine insecurities. Some people just have opinions. About things like art.

Fuck off, bucko.

>>74835133
>my opinion > your opinion
Yeah astute counter argument.

You and the guy that came before you have convinced me that Beatles fans aren't idiotic children.

>>74835252
>AAAAAAND YOU HEAR WHAT THEY WAAAAAAAAAANT YOU TO HEEEEEAAAARR
What did he mean by this?

>>74835328
Pretty sure it's just "And you hear what you want to hear."


I guess if that's what you wanna hear though...

>>74832042
Literally better than any Beatles album

>>74835531
I've tried listening to it but there's so many versions and all the ones I tried listening to had terrible production.

>>74835537
yeah it's true, some of the versions really fuck up how well you can hear all the voices. but if you have the good version it's incredible

>>74835199
this, you can search this up
>>74834624
do your research you daft cunt

>>74835299
>can't ever explain why
>explored other cultures music with songs like within you without you
>Had densely layered songs like Tomorrow Never Knows
>Amazing arrangements like A Day in The Life
>complexly composed songs like Strawberry Fields Forever
>Even ventured into more avant garde territory with Revolution 9
>Popularized artificial double tracking
>literally invented the music video
>one of the first known uses of guitar feedback in a song
>invented the hidden track
>made 6 amazing albums in 4 years
nah i think they're pretty good

>>74830969
>Quality > Quantity
>likes the white album
>>74832610
they pioneered a few things but not enough to still be considered incredible today, their albums have dated so so so badly compared to other 60s records. sgt pepper sounds like a joke compared to forever changes / pet sounds
>>74835762
a day in the life and strawberry fields are incredible songs, but the rest of their output sounds shit in comparison
i genuinely can't sit through the snoozefest of abbey road

>>74835762
You don't understand how arguments work. Thanks for trying, anyways.

The closest thing to a useful argument that can be extrapolated from that are facts like "they made the first music video", which is neat but somehow I don't think it's because they were trailblazing visionaries.