These guys have like one song better than the 100th best Beatles song

These guys have like one song better than the 100th best Beatles song.

Shouldn't ever be mentioned in the same sentence to be honest.

Other urls found in this thread:

soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/oct97/arranging1.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Better than the Stones imo

Friendly reminder that Lennon/McCartney were at least 2 years ahead of Ray Davies as songwriters.

Get rekt Scaruffi

This.

No way he listened to the Kinks and found their songwriting more sophisticated. Most stuff sounds like a knockoff at best, although they did occasionally approach.

The Beatles > The Zombies > The Who = The Kinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Rolling Stones

>muh riffs
>muh proto punk

Beach Boys were better than any of those hacks.

USA beats UK once again.

britcucks on suicide watch

Wrong. Beach Boys had ONE great album. Don't give me that contrarian Smiley Smile and Surfs Up bullshit. If anything, the Beach Boys were better back when they were a singles band in the early 60s with Fun Fun Fun and Barbara Ann and etc.

They peaked with Pet Sounds and then lost the magic in a hurry.

nah have you heard sticky fingers?

>surf's up
>contrarian opinion
have you heard it or are you just memeing?

the kinks have some really fantastic music imho, village green and arthur are GOAT

zombies had some A1 tracks but odyssey and oracle has too many duds

On a solo road trip to Wisconsin last July, I listened to...
>Surfin Safari
>Surfin USA
>Little Deuce Coupe
>All Summer Long
>Today!
>Pet Sounds (which I had heard many times previous)
>Smiley Smile
>Wild Honey
>20/20 (which was awful)
>Surf's Up (which was better than 20/20)
>And a compilation of miscellaneous Beach Boys singles

Why Surf's Up is ever brought up in the same breath as Pet Sounds is beyond me. It came out the same year as McCartney's Ram and that was an amazing example of experimental pop. Surfs Up (other than the title track) is very forgettable. Plus the mixing on the tracks is really muddy and just not appealing.

Yes. The only okay Stones album is Exile on Main Street. Let It Bleed also was not bad, but big picture was pretty mediocre. I really don't care for their sound as a band.

>didnt listen to smile sessions

not even fucking trying

dont even bother with smiley smile

Moonlight Mile though. Sister Morphine, Wild Horses, Dead Flowers? Nothing?

>Ram
>experimental pop
what

I did. Not on that road trip. It was a pretty bloated and inconsistent compilation. Felt like the Beatles white album except nowhere near as good.

show me another album like that

>1971

>he prefers cute white kid smiles to lusty negro attitudes

I pity all plebs

>quotes Piero
>pities plebs

What a life you must lead.

Is that your basis for being experimental?

ok

>Long Promised Road
>Disney Girls
>Feel Flows
>Til I Die
>Forgettable

Thanks for removing yourself from credible discussion.

Also Sunflower is great.

Very well constructed refutation. Were you on the debate team in high school or something?

See
Tough to refute arguments that don't exist.

Enjoy your mediocre pop album. I can't stop you.

In 1971, Ram was one of the better examples of experimental pop in the popular music lexicon. Surly a much better example than Surf's Up.

>experimental
There you go with that word again.

not him but dude. you like RAM. literally granny music by the weed carrier beatle, McCartney has made an entire career of trying to be Brian Wilson. Even McCartney would tell you how much better BW was. Dont talk about "mediocre pop albums" man dont embarrass yourself.

>In 1971, Surf's Up was one of the better examples of experimental pop in the popular music lexicon. Surely a much better example than RAM.

I can not argue, too. It doesn't make either point more valid.

At some point will you stop using childish insults and actually make an argument?

everyone forgets that it was the beatles vs the dave clark five. and nobody else

>literally granny music by the weed carrier beatle
literally one half of a song is granny music

>McCartney has made an entire career of trying to be Brian Wilson
smile is brian trying to be sgt peppers so what who cares

>smile is brian trying to be sgt peppers
Smile was made before and during Sgt Pepper. Beatles received leaked tapes of the Smile Sessions while making Pepper and it messed Brian up. I doubt Sgt Pepper had any influence at all on Brian even if he was somehow able to hear it

you're alright

>Don't give me that contrarian Smiley Smile and Surfs Up bullshit
thank you god damn

dude Waterloo Sunset is the perfect song tho?

The Beatles are the single greatest pop act in humankind history.

NO POP MUSIC ARTIST SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME SENTENCE

Kys and save us all from your embarrasing posts.

You fags would swear by The Kinks if they weren't kicked out of US in around 1970, forcing them to stay in Britain. But you Amerifags would rather force your Beach Boys meme

You Really Got Me is GOAT. Face To Face is GOAT. The rest is good but no as good though

SMiLE is nothing but granny harmony tunes.

I'm from the US. I much prefer the Kinks.

hey mike wassup

Do you know what an experiment is? Do you also happen to know that "experimental" is not a genre?

I did. Please feel free to read the posts above about how the mixing was awful and the writing is forgettable.

You're the only one with good taste in this thread

Thanks bud

Ram is just Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations/Smiley Smile inflected with strong Buddy Holly influence, what are you talking about lol

>record one electric guitar chug chug hit
>subsequently release a ton of mediocre beatles copycat albums

how did this shitty band survive among the rockists for 50 years, and yet more talented guys like the hollies didn't?

>Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations/Smiley Smile
One fucking song. Dear Boy.

>Buddy Holly influence
ah so you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about

'uncle albert / admiral halsey' is a repeat of the 'good vibrations' modular 'pocket symphony' approach

'in the backseat of my car' is an obvious nod to wilson, bootlegs of the song from the 'get back' sessions has one of the beatles asking paul 'is that beach boys?' the song literally steals part of its chord progression and structure from 'i just wasnt made for these times'

'eat at home' is obviously a kind of buddy holly pastiche, as was the outtake 'a love for you'

'smile away' sounds a lot like anything by marc bolan from that periods

surely, ram is a unique proto-indie pop album, but mccartney has never been the type not to wear his influences on his sleeve. most of it is more or less a continuation of mccartney's more wilsonesque/singer-songwriter indulgences from the white album and abbey road.

>'uncle albert / admiral halsey' is a repeat of the 'good vibrations' modular 'pocket symphony' approach
NO NO NO NO NO NO

>'in the backseat of my car' is an obvious nod to wilson, bootlegs of the song from the 'get back' sessions has one of the beatles asking paul 'is that beach boys?' the song literally steals part of its chord progression and structure from 'i just wasnt made for these times'
never thought of that youre right

>'eat at home' is obviously a kind of buddy holly pastiche
maybe

>'smile away' sounds a lot like anything by marc bolan from that periods
yes can see that

>surely, ram is a unique proto-indie pop album
what the fuck

>mccartney's more wilsonesque/singer-songwriter indulgences from the white album and abbey road.
what the fuck are you doing

>Paul stole all of his talent from Brian Wilson

>NO NO NO NO NO NO

no what? good vibrations invented the concept of a pop song that goes through 'movements'

>what the fuck are you doing

'mother nature's son', 'i will', 'honey pie', 'rocky raccoon', all in the same vein as stuff like 'monkberry moon delight', 'heart of the country', and 'another day'. the biggest distinction ram has is to previous mccartney fare is that it's much rockier and glam-tinged, which makes it less clean, but the strong wilson (plus harry nilsson, holly, and not to mention the feedback loop coming from mary hopkins and badfinger) influence is still there.

>good vibrations invented the concept of a pop song that goes through 'movements'
I seriously doubt that

>rockier
cant forget ramshackle oh boy
>glam-tinged
idiot

what nilsson and badfinger influence? and how the fuck can it "still be there" if those artists legit would not exist if not for paul?

>I seriously doubt that

umm, ok? don't bother skimming the wikipedia article, i'll just wait for you to come up with a studio production that assembles many unrelated, disparate pieces recorded independently from each other into one whole pop song

>how the fuck can it "still be there" if those artists legit would not exist if not for paul?

as i said -- the 'feedback loop'. they were influenced by mccartney, and mccartney was in turn influenced by them.

>idiot
glam, power pop, not really hard rock. there was a definite air of it in 1970 that mccartney was very much into.

>don't bother skimming the wikipedia article
would be handy if there was a wiki page for songs that have a second bit

saying that good vibrations is the first pop tune to ever do that without actually knowing if it was just seems so dumb to me its like being as uninformed as to say that eddie van halen was the first person to shred; yeah, everybody knows him for it but nobody thinks that he was the first to do it in a hard rock format

>glam
no
>power pop
noooNOOOO
>hard rock
no

call it ramshackle vaudeville blues pop, my old boy

>i'll just wait for you to come up with a studio production that assembles many unrelated, disparate pieces recorded independently from each other into one whole pop song
was really wondering why everyone flips their shit over this song

I like The Kinks

you clearly don't understand how important and unique 'good vibrations' is. i mean it's not so much "a second bit" as much as the second (and *third*) "bits" have different keys, mood, hooks, instrumentation, and were literally recorded in different rooms with different orchestras. can you think of any studio-recorded song from before 1966 that does this?

dude if you don't see a link between power pop and mccartney i don't know what to tell you

yes it is hard for most people to understand why 'good vibrations' was an unprecedented work because we take shit like 'a day in the life' and 'bohemian rhapsody' for granted

>Typical pop songs of that era (or indeed any era) usually have a basic groove running throughout the track which doesn't change a great deal from start to finish. Not so 'Good Vibrations'; this is, in Brian Wilson's words, a 'pocket symphony'. It lasts just over three and half minutes but has as many dramatic changes in mood as a piece of serious classical music lasting more than half an hour, moving from the delicate opening verse (bass, vocals, and organ only) to the soaring vocal harmony sections on the chorus and bridge, and then, in the middle of the track, dropping right down to the simplicity of a church organ pad accompanied solely by a tambourine. Of course, much of the atypical structure is due to the way the track was recorded in completely different-sounding sections, and then edited together later.
>The exotic instruments, the complex vocal arrangements, and the many dynamic crescendos and decrescendos all combine to set this record apart from most pop music. In short, if there's an instruction manual for writing and arranging pop songs, this one breaks every rule.
soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/oct97/arranging1.html

Do you know what power pop is?

it's pop-rock, but heavier. badfinger and the raspberries are quintessential examples and they drew heavily from the beatles. mccartney helped sign badfinger to apple records -- he wrote their first hit. he liked what they did. the undertones of that association crop up throughout ram.

Just occurred to me I had never really paid attention when listening to it. Crazy how much there is in it. From my pleb point of view I've always preferred the far superior melodies of God Only Knows and You Still Believe In Me.