Is there anything more pathetic than taking 10,000+ words to say that you think the Beatles are overrated?

Is there anything more pathetic than taking 10,000+ words to say that you think the Beatles are overrated?

Other urls found in this thread:

listology.com/jazz99/story/dismissing-piero-scaruffi-views-beatles
starling.rinet.ru/music/temp/velvets.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

maybe posting about it on a korean finger puppet forum

WHY

>explaining your opinions on music is now considered cringeworthy or pathetic on Sup Forums
i'd like to think you guys could not get any worse than this but i know you'll find a way

>explaining your opinions on music
>saying that Revolver was unimportant because the songs weren't long
damn you're gullible

Liking the Beatles

getting a degree in music

Yeah it's pathetic to know what you're talking about.
Or at least that's what you've convinced yourself.

I don't actually believe that, just in case

Extended note from 2010. The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Jakub Krawczynski sent me this supportive comment in 2010:

I find it quite amusing that almost all of the Beatles songs have their own entries on Wikipedia (nothing wrong with that in itself, actually), even if they are not singles, and each of them is meticulously dissected as if there were transcendental suites exceeding human comprehension, yet bands like Faust or Red Krayola, etc. have biographies even shorter than just one article about any random Beatles song. Needless to say, none of their songs have any articles on them, yet I'm sure there would be a lot more to talk about. Moreover, if you had put any bad review of their album on the site with the intention to show the broader scope of opinions, you'd risk your "life" there, since such fanatics don't accept any single sign of trying to be objective. You are seen as public enemy number 1 to them. It is like your article is one giant cognitive dissonance to them and vandalizing your bio was the only way to reduce this dissonance.

LUSTY

NEGRO

ATTITUDES

we did it reddit

CUTE

I guess he's never met a Zappa fan.

Currently reading the whole Beatles analysis.

Good read, I recommend.

WHITE KID

>blatantly lying and making up facts, and prefacing it with bullshit claims of acclaim and accolades is considered good music criticism

....ow

SMILES

Who else is 99% sure that's just Scaruffi pretending to be someone else to fawn his ego?

Reminder that his analysis is literally won him awards.

What if you want to teach music or conduct. Gotcha faggot.

>blatantly lying and making up facts
[citation needed]

If it did then I'm sure Scaruffi would have more than a brief Wikipedia entry and a 10-year old NYT article as his legacy.

See

He has made some wikipedia users so mad that they delete his page and what's written on it pretty often.

I remember there was an autist here who actively removed scaruffi's reviews from wikipedia

the retard didn't even know that scaruffi hates wikipedia and has tried to get his page taken down lmao

>"Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason."

That's just one example, but a good one, because he also cites Pete Townshend as one of those British Invasions artists who is superior to the Beatles, when Townshend has said often that Sgt. Pepper's is one of his favorite albums of all time.

not one, but many
I remember seeing an archived page of the talk page of scaruffi and everybody was mad.

i think he means about artists that actually matter, and not just a "literally who"

>Townshend has said often that Sgt. Pepper's is one of his favorite albums of all time
He's speaking highly of that particular album, not the band in general. There's even a chance that it's the only Beatles album he likes. Even Scaruffi himself likes the album, despite his lengthy analysis, or he wouldn't have given it a 7.

he gave abbey a 7 too

Yes he did, further proving my point.

>Pete Townshend is "literally who"

trigfags everyone.

I actually read his memoir, and he does speak highly of the Beatles in general, because no one with half a brain would unironically believe that no contemporary musician praised the Beatles, and since you're the one defending Scaruffi, the burden of proof should be on you to prove him right on that statement.

I see you are not very smart

He's probably speaking of artists he praised highly (+8.5s), who some did indeed praise the beatles, but not most of them.

Sounds like hair splitting damage control to me
Scaruffi definitely knows the history of rock music and the artists he writes about, but when it comes to the Beatles he sidesteps actual research to present a narrative that supports his personal feelings, because he fancies himself such an expert critic and thinker that he can't be caught dead just thinking a certain way - it has to be the truth.

Yes, not many of the non-rock musicians. But in the rock and pop landscape of the day you can not only find examples of the Beatles receiving praise and recognition from their peers, but very apparent influence in the music itself.

>damage control

Literally where?

listology.com/jazz99/story/dismissing-piero-scaruffi-views-beatles

Even in the rock and pop landscape, not all of them spoke highly of them. Faust, Beefheart, Red Crayola, TVU, etc

>To generalize a decade of music is easier to do with, say today’s crap- its all crap. The 60s had a whole lot more going on than just experimentation and jamming out
>today’s crap- its all crap
No, thanks

>Faust, Beefheart, Red Crayola, TVU, etc
TVU did.

>Norwegian Wood, the list goes on...

beat me to it

?

??

Not understanding your reference. Sorry.

In that case, let's go back to >TVU did
When?

>the Velvets really weren't as contrary characters as legend sometimes has it, or immune to musical influences from fellow bands. In various interviews and writings from 1967 to 1970, various members express admiration for the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Kinks, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Phil Spector, Quicksilver Messenger Service, the Byrds, and even Bob Dylan.
Richie Unterberger, White Light/White Heat: The Velevet Underground Day By Day, 2009

I thought this was the Vietnamese Embroidery forum.

plebs think people like Wilson and Cale saying that the Beatles drove them to make better music means that they admired the music and not the commercial portion that the Beatles took up of the industry. Cale was quoted in full as saying "They were a driving force in the velvets, and made us work harder and got us on our bikes." but Lou Reed always fucking hated the Beatles, and i'm sure very few people around the band like Angus MacLise (first drummer) and Cale's friends in the Theatre of Eternal Dreams like La Monte Young and Tony Conrad gave a fuck about the Beatles musically.

Also
>'They were a driving force in the velvets, and made us work harder and got us on our bikes. Rubber soul was where you were forced to deal with them as something other than a flash in the pan. It was rich in ideas and i loved the way george managed to find a way to include all those indian instruments. Lou and i had tried to work with the sarinda. We were only playing it just to get a noise but i realised you could play melody on the sitar as good as Norwegian wood. Norwegian woond had this atmosphere of being very acid. I don't think anybody has ever got that sound or that feeling as well at the Beatles.'
-Jon Cale

Is that what you were referencing before?

>but Lou Reed always fucking hated the Beatles
But yet he covered Lennon songs.

Lou was a grumpy old man, even in his 20s.

starling.rinet.ru/music/temp/velvets.html

is this the VU equivalent of Scaruffi's Beatles rant?

>WL/WH: 2 stars
>Loaded: 3 stars

they don't have ENERGY, maaaaaaaan

Yeah

Personally, I don't trust that very much
It says
>In various interviews and writings from 1967 to 1970
But there is no evidence of those other than the very specific one posted above.
I don't know, seems fishy

It makes sense. I know that Reich said on an interview that he didn't care for The Beatles, so it would make even more sense what you say about the Theatre thing.

So did Zappa, yet he never thought of them as particularly interesting for reasons other than their commercial appeal.

Incoming new pasta

>Personally, I don't trust that very much
Oh did you read the book? (kind of like if you bothered listening to any Betales album before Rubber Soul or any other VU album other than TVU&N?)
>So did Zappa,
Which should tell you might have thought them pretty interesting, but it would not be advantageous to his image if he admitted otherwise.

jeez, that projection.

How so?

No, it's just my personal opinion and intuition.
>Which should tell you might have thought them pretty interesting, but it would not be advantageous to his image if he admitted otherwise.
So, there is no way he didn't thought of them as interesting, because if he says he doesn't, it's for image; if he does, your point is proven.
Great, user's first unfalsifiable claim

>Oh did you read the book? (kind of like if you bothered listening to any Betales album before Rubber Soul or any other VU album other than TVU&N?)

How is that projection?

BTW
>"I didn't hate them. I actually like two or three of their songs. I just thought they were ridiculous. What was so disgusting was the way they were consumed and merchandised. No music has succeeded in America unless it was accompanied by something to wear, something to dance or a hairdo. A phenomenon is not going to occur unless you can dress up to it. (Frank Zappa about The Beatles in Classical Zappa)

You brought it up. You have only yourself to blame.
Remember that he liked The Turtles and The Monkees.

adopting a trip and making a fool of yourself on an anonymous Weeaboo shitposting forum

You're assuming he hasn't read the book (whether he has or hasn't is unimportant) because of your own perception and fabricated stigmas eg. "He's a faggot tripfag", most likely because you would have been in the same exact position if you were him.

Now Playing:
ıllıllı [Howlin' Wolf - Moanin' in the Moonlight (1959)] ıllıllı

Whatever. I don't know why you keep replying to my posts then.

>Remember that he liked The Turtles and The Monkees.
If you knew that, then why did you say
>Which should tell you might have thought them pretty interesting, but it would not be advantageous to his image if he admitted otherwise.
Seems pretty contradictory, if you ask me

>You're assuming he hasn't read the book
I assumed nothing. I literally asked him. Did you read the thread?
>(whether he has or hasn't is unimportant)
He questioned the source without bothering to research it, purely because it disagreed with him.
>because of your own perception and fabricated stigmas eg. "He's a faggot tripfag", most likely because you would have been in the same exact position if you were him.
Now who's projection?
>If you knew that, then why did you say
If you knew then why would you say

Here's your answer, OP

Writing 20,000 words to rebut some italian guy's opinion on a band

Those words will be remembered, while your won't.

>He questioned the source without bothering to research it, purely because it disagreed with him.
No, just because it seemed fishy. Whether the source agreed with me or not I wouldn't care.

>If you knew (You) then why would you say (You)
Because it didn't seem like a convincing case of the beatles being a great influence on TVU. Even less because their music doesn't reflect very much on TVU's.

>Remember that he liked The Turtles and The Monkees.
If you knew that, then why did you say
>Which should tell you might have thought them pretty interesting, but it would not be advantageous to his image if he admitted otherwise.
Seems pretty contradictory, if you ask me

>No, just because it seemed fishy.
It seemed fishy because it didn't agree with you.
>Because it didn't seem like a convincing case of the beatles being a great influence on TVU
Not what I'm asking.
>Even less because their music doesn't reflect very much on TVU's.
Never relevant.
>Seems pretty contradictory, if you ask me
How so?

Test

>He questioned the source without bothering to research it, purely because it disagreed with him.

You're doing it again.

Doing what?

>It seemed fishy because it didn't agree with you.
Like I said, I don't care if agreed with me. There is indeed something fishy about "numerous 67-70 reviews", yet none of them other than the NW being available.
Plus, unlike the zappa quote I provided directly from zappa, yours is a quote from "the whole TVU" provided by someone who wasn't even a member of TVU, making statements based on some unknown interviews by the band. Me having read the source or not is irrelevant.

>Not what I'm asking.
It's still a relevant answer

>Never relevant.
Because you say so?

>How so?
>liking Beatles is bad for your image
>liking Monkees and Turtles isn't
I don't know, who knows?

>, yet none of them other than the NW being available.
You don't know that because you haven't read the book.
>Me having read the source or not is irrelevant
See above.
>It's still a relevant answer
How so
>Because you say so?
You apply this logic to whatever you say. But I can't?

Projecting.

>Faust

I'd love to see that source. They used a sample of All You Need is Love in their s/t. That may have been more of a statement, but still, why do you say Faust shat on the Beatles?

How so?

just list the fucking sources you wank machine

>use Beatles and Rolling Stones song samples that get drowned out and gobbled up by radio static

jesus christ this is like the most basic possible semiotic flourish and it happens in the first 30 seconds of the record. how are you this dense?

It's in the book you dummy.

>You don't know that because you haven't read the book.
Neither do you, or else you would say how.

>How so
think

>You apply this logic to whatever you say. But I can't?
There is no contradiction.

Stop trying to "win" this discussion, you are only making vague claims and make arguments based on the inability of other to prove you wrong.

>They used a sample of All You Need is Love in their s/t
I know, but that doesn't say anything about their admiration of the band. Maybe they used it just because it was a popular tune?
>why do you say Faust shat on the Beatles?
Read my post again

There are none, the book is self referential.

no one should ever type anything that's more than 140 characters desu

>implying i'm going to order a book online so i can fact check an anonymous poster on Sup Forums's lame attempt at discrediting Scaruffi for the billionth time

Stop trying to "win" this discussion, you are only making vague claims and make arguments based on the inability of other to prove you wrong.
>There are none, the book is self referential.
Oh have you read it?

>they used a sample
>therefore I KNOW EXACTLY what they meant
>im also retarded and should be asleep now

Kek try again, smartass

>my dad is faust and I asked him what the sample meant guys im serious :(

this is me again btw. I just thought I didn't express myself sufficiently the first time.

Since you can't give any evidence on the references used on the book to make the claim that TVU admired the beatles, we don't need any evidence to prove you wrong.

>refusing to address my other points

OK

All the edginess aside, we all know the Beatles are the bast band of the 20th century, and we all know no matter how hard we try, we can't change that.

PD: This is an excellent discussion for Sup Forums standards.

it's obvious these are both you because there's no way more than one person who listened to that album is stupid enough to not understand what a song getting drowned out by static before the propulsive opening of the song proper begins means. once again, you're a dense fucking idiot

Did you had fun trolling tonight?

I genuinely think Frank Zappa is a better artist than The Beatles, and I like the two almost the same; so, no, we all don't agree to your opinion.

This

>Did you had fun trolling tonight?
I would say a 7/10

But Revolver WAS unimportant. Song length was just part of it. It is incredibly unextraordinary even for it's time, and this includes Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows.

And I don't even agree with Scaruffi on the extent to which the Beatles are overrated. Revolver is just an unextraordinary album, even for it's time.

>But Revolver WAS unimportant
>It is incredibly unextraordinary even for it's time
How so?