How come most "Innovative and groundbreaking" albums sound like shit? Is there one where it's actually pleasant to the fucking ears.
Groundbreaking =//= Good
The people making it didn't care about sounding pleasant/listenable
Define "sounds like shit".
Also, white light/white heat is outright accessible.
You can't make something groundbreaking that requires attention of the ear and also make it easy listening
Two opposite goals
>considers good music to be "pleasant to the ears"
you should take your trip's advice
I could tell
>Define "sounds like shit".
Well. to put it in my basic terms. not pleasant for my ears. Also.
Define "accessible" if you think 9 minutes of boring poetry and 17 minutes of noise is "accessible"
You can if you have the talents for it. If these bands have the "talent".
If you don't like them you don't understand why they're groundbreaking aka you're a pleb.
Then post an example of such a band because I've never heard anybody do it
Those two concepts are almost fundamental opposites almost
TMR is a load of nonsense and Faust is just a bunch of drugged up German hippies making cheesy carnival music. The sooner you realize this and get on with your life, the better.
FUCK OFF TO YOUR RADIOHEAD AND DEATH GRIPS THREAD
no
This, faust is garbage.
>TMR is a load of nonsense
While that's true, it is a very unique and enjoyable record in it's own right.
and WLWH is dog shit
just to reiterate
>Is there one where it's actually pleasant to the fucking ears.
Unironically Kid A fits this decription
>the gift
>boring poetry
The Beatles
[
Radiohead
Mozart
Beethoven
Velvet Underground
Miles Davis
Kanye West
Beach Boys
Literally kill yourself you uneducated pretentious faggot
But those are all great albums
>WLWH is dog shit
Ok autismo, the record that singlehandedly invented punk rock is shit. let's see you throw out better lyricism than the Gift if it's so bad.
Once this board became post contrarian and started worshipping the Beatles and hating any album Italian pedophile man likes the average intelligence of the user plummeted.
Ahahaha you do not understand what groundbreaking means at all do you
...
I have to disagree. What about Kid A is "groundbreaking". The concepts on that album and even Amnesiac were executed before Thom Yorke ever started playing around with bleep bloops
kek
>invented punk rock
HAHAHHAH
Good one for thinking VU, much less WLWH invented punk music.
whoops mixed up those replies but point still stands. Radiohead and Kanye West are groundbreaking for popular music maybe but not the kind of groundbreaking as in OP
Only good artist there is Miles Davis, and he isn't even that good.
It's not supposed to be pleasant to the ears, but to be intellectualy rewarding.
Not him but perhaps it's the fact that Radiohead was already a very popular band with mainstream appeal then started getting all weird bleep bloop
I agree that the content of Kid A itself is nothing new.
>he thinks groundbreaking means noise and harsh sounding music
Fucking kill yourself faggot. You have no clue about music theory and harmony do you?
This is either b8 or pure retardation
I didn't indicate that anywhere in my post but if you consider any of those mainstream pop/rock bands groundbreaking you need to listen to more music child
The Monkees self titled came out before WLWH.
>Mozart
>groundbreaking
He's awesome but no.
Tbph I sing along to all of the three you take as examples and I play several tracks of them with my friends. What's your point?
How so?
big woop
You seriously need to commit suicide if you think that The Beatles, Beach Boys, or Miles Davis weren't groundbreaking.
And that's basically what you implied. Because you clearly do not understand harmony
All 3 of those artists are much better and more innovative than what's in ops pic.
because youre a retard.
No it's just that hip hop existed 20 years before Kanye and he's not really doing anything that hadn't been done before.
>The Beatles and Beach Boys are more innovative and groundbreaking than TMR
nice b8
I'd find a better place than Sup Forums to learn English. Retarded does not mean 'disagrees with me'.
808's was pretty much entirely new and paved the way for artists like Drake. Really changed the landscape of hip hop artists and how they could now be viewed as "emotional"
If I can sing along to something, it defintively doesn't sound like shit. It just takes a little effort and passion in what you are hearing. And as someone above said, the point of those three records wasn't surely to be immediately accesible. Otherwise, stick to poptimism
But that's not bait you child. It's an objective fact. The harmonies and chord progressions that the Beatles came up with was far more innovative than TMR. You must be new here.
You must mean the landscape of hip pop.
Then explain how using your vast knowledge of music theory
Really user enlighten me
You mean the harmonies and chord progressions that they stole from niggers from the 40s?
I'd agree with you that those artists were fundamental to some of the successive currents of music. However, the ones you hate are too.
>calling chord progressions innovative after Schoenberg destroyed tonality around 1910
user
I can tell you have no clue what you're talking about and are pulling shit out of your ass now but please as said enlighten us
Why are you guys fighting ;(
>However, the ones you hate are too
I don't hate any of the artists in the OP. It's just a delusional claim that they were more groundbreaking and influental just because they are relatively "inaccessable" and noisy.
you do realize TMR was heavily influenced by blues and jazz right?
>spoonfeed me I'm a clueless retard
Scaruffi Please
Ah you truly had me there for a while. I actually thought you might know something about music theory
>Making huge conclusion on revolutionary music that can be dismissed by a Scaruffi copy pasta on a 60s boy band
>mfw I share a board with this person
Eyyyy miss you.
>You guys are idiot children the beatles is WAY more innovative dummies THE HARMONIES
>IM NOT GONNA EXPLAIN MYSELF NO SPOONFEEDING
I give you a 8/10 because I replied for so long
>Scaruffi
Ah yes, the "why can't I marry a 12 year old" man. And he gave Korn albums a 7.5 and 7/10 a 7/10. Which is basically a masterpiece in his eyes.
>IM NOT GONNA EXPLAIN MYSELF NO SPOONFEEDING
?
I literally gave you an extensive link explaining the complexity of their songs, if you're too musically illiterate to understand that link then that's on you bud.
The difference is that the Beatles took those influences and packaged it up nice and neat for mindless consumers, and Captain Beefheart took those influences and created something nobody had heard before. You're going to try and dispute this.
>Which is basically a masterpiece in his eyes.
Where do you think radio rock would be today had Korn not existed?
>I gave you a link
Something can be enjoyable without being immediately soothing to the ears. I don't want to listen to saccharine melodies 24/7.
My sweet summer child, you clearly have no harmonic understanding of music. You seem to think that dissonance and and noisiness = better music. Listen to the compositions and harmonies on TMR again, and compare it to A Hard Day's Night please.
>posted_it.jpg
>I GAVE YOU A LINK I AINT GOTTA EXPLAIN SHIT
kek
musictheory.okkid
Everything that I could possibly explain to you is right there in that link. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.
the fag four were all circlejerk faggots, the one direction of their time. radiohead just wrote whiny coldplay ballads combined with electronic music.
All the more reason you should be embarrassed then.
I wish I could have a music theory degree by posting google links
Is that how I get to be as smart as you?
easy
because the pioneers find new methodologies and modes which other people can later figure out how to work into pop structures, and both parties deserve praise for figuring something out
I knew it. And you're not even doing a good job of it.
youtube.com
Notice how the bassist is playing a mode, allowing the guitars to stay on the same chord without droning. Could your Beatles do that?
>>Ah yes, the "why can't I marry a 12 year old" man.
This is not a legitimate argument against a music critic.
Anybody can.
Wow so he's just ripping off Miles Davis. So innovative.
Yeah but did Miles Davis ever have his guitars playing at that jagged rhythm over a staggering drum beat to signal the approach of this barbaric woman? Did he even write songs about things?
I hope when people say Faust they only reference their debut. IV is accessible as fuck.
>posts the most basic and accessible track off TMR to prove his point
The guitar work isn't that notable.
Here
youtube.com
Notice how the beginning starts in a different key. Though as we'll see, this is not at all immediately clear to one's ears as it unfolds in real time. Not surprisingly, given such a tonally disorienting opening, the rest of the song stays very closely rooted to the home key without the slightest hint of a modulation.
Can Beefheart do that?
>slightly noticeable change of key
yes he can
key modulation, how pish posh. You know that stuff was around in classical music since polyphony, right? You'd have gotten biffed for playing your instrument like this.
youtube.com
The Beatles can't even make their spoken word interludes interesting, let alone make their instruments cry like bush animals.
No we mean on purpose, not accidentally
Ebm
If I fell in love with you
D
Would you promise to be true
Db Bbm
And help me understand
Ebm
'Cause I've been in love before
D
And found that love is more
Em A
Than just holding hands
D Em F#m Em
If I give my heart to you
A D Em F#m
I must be sure from the very start
Em A D Em A
That you would love me more than her
D Em F#m
If I trust in you
Em A
Oh please, don't run and hide
D Em F#m
If I love you too
Em A D9
Oh please, don't hurt my pride like her
G
Cause I couldn't stand the pain
Gm D A7
And I would be sad if our new love was in vain
D Em F#m
So I hope you'll see
Em A
That I would love to love you
D Em F#m Em
And that she will cry
A D
When she learns we are two
Gm C D
If I fell in love with you
Now analyze a beefheart song
The thing about "If I Fell" that sets it apart isn't particularly the modulation, though, but the chromaticism. Just to clarify, since there seems to be some confusion as to what I believe.
You first, music man.
Why would he do your work for you?
you didn't "analyze" anything with that post
Stop pretending you know more than the most basic of music theory
Dude. i'll fuck you up. So shut the fuck up pussy bitch.
You also realize Can and Faust were influenced by the Beatles? I can't for sure say Beefheart, but I'm sure he picked up a couple things from them.
Of course I didn't fully analyze, I just posted the chords and progressions down on face level. It's pretty complex stuff.
Beefheart fags BTFO, Zappa was better anyways
I'm sure he did when he had enough of being avant-garde and polished his tone for a consumer market.
The difference between Zappa and Beefheart is between classical and jazz. You can't make affirmations like that without revealing your criteria.
most of them dont sound like anything else so its more challenging.
>avant-garde means it's automatically good
>interesting harmony, melody, modulation, chromaticism, and chord progressions mean nothing.
Zappa was a better artist, it's that simple.
Lumpy Gravy is far ahead of any Beefheart's works
>I can't for sure say Beefheart, but I'm sure he picked up a couple things from them.
lol
White Light/White Heat isn't that difficult,it was literally my favorite album when I was 13
if you want to see the same idea being ACTUALLY inaccessible listen to '77 live by Les Rallizes dénudés
All those things existed for hundreds of years in classical music. Why don't you just listen to that? You have no reason to be defending a pop group.
What exactly is "lol"? The Beatles are objectively the most influental band of all time.