50 years ago today, the greatest rock album of all time came out

50 years ago today, the greatest rock album of all time came out.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XyhmDYLXFto
youtube.com/watch?v=N9Kpk6kEexk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

we've either wasted 50 years not topping this album or convincing ourselves that it cannot be topped.

no matter the reason, that is sad

.gniksamkcab fo esu eht mubla siht noitavonni tsetaerg ehT

I know. I'm listening to Dr. Robert right now, and my God those harmonies are so fucking great.

Plus the lyrics. Lennon was a fucking genius.

>there will never be a band as good and revolutionary as The Beatles in your lifetime

>ywn expirience Beatlemania

Not even a "wrong generation" fag but fuck. They were more than just a band, they were a culture, and it sucks to have never expirienced that. They were the most important musicians since Mozart and Beethoven and no one has topped them culturally or musically yet.

not even the best beatles album

More like 60s psychedelic rock in general, but this

You know, that's what's so great about them. They have like 6 albums that could be considered the greatest ever. Can't think of many other bands where that is the case

If you haven't heard "Tomorrow Never Knows", get the fuck off my board.

Radiohead

Oddly enough, now that you say this I've noticed solo artists often have better streaks than bands. Coltrane, Davis, Dylan, Young etc.

Yea, they're one of the few bands where "signature song" and "signature album" doesn't exist. The closest they have to that is probably "Hey Jude", but you can easily make the argument for She Loves You, Let it Be, A Day in the Life, All You Need is Love or Yesterday.

I want Reddit to leave.

honestly you guys need to realize this is literally how people will talk about Death Grips in a few hundred years. Autechre and Aphex will be seen like classical music and DG will be seen as the group that brought high culture music to the internet masses.

kek

...

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.

The Beatles have been Sup Forums approved since 2012 newfags.
I know this is bait but the thing that makes The Beatles so amazing from a personal level is that they went down the artsy path when they were at their most mainstream level. That'll probably never happen again.

He's right though. Maybe not those specific artists, but that's inevitably going to happen

jej like clockwork

Music's not as relevant as it was in those days.

>the thing that makes The Beatles so amazing from a personal level is that they went down the artsy path when they were at their most mainstream level.
yeah just like DG released government plates.

I know it's bait and pretty bullshit, but it's also true in a very palpable sense.

DG are the beatles of our age. listen to more than the fairy and think about it and you will realize it's true.

>yeah just like DG released government plates.
Nothing like GP, actually. Or tell me, were Death Grips number 1 on both the album and the single charts at the time?

The equivalent to The Beatles would be Chris Brown or Selena Gomez getting serious about music and maintaining their popularity.

Even at their "artsiest" they still made beautiful music that everyone likes. Only other artists I can think of like that is probably Beethoven, Mozart, and Miles davis. Even at their poppiest, their harmonies were out of this world.

see - if i fell

The most overrated band of all time.
>muh melodies
>muh feelsy lyrics
>muh "we are not pop mom, for real!"

Whether you like him or not, Kanye is doing just that.

If anything DG would be like the velvet underground. Semi popular and acclaimed in their time. But now they are revered on another level

this

It's not like they are even bad, they just get blown out of proportions so much

I want Scaruffi to leave.

>Or tell me, were Death Grips number 1 on both the album and the single charts at the time?
no you fucking moron, but they were at the highest mainstream popularity they had had at that point which is exactly what you had said. It's obviously not gonna scale to the same size of beatle mania, but if you don't understand the paralells in the music and culture you don't understand either. Also if you are looking for that just listen to Miely Cyrus, Yezuss, or Speeding Bulet to heaven

>in a few hundred years

See their complex harmonies. Guitarwork etc... listen to if i fell and sun king

Also they dont have feelsy lyrics. Thats a myth

>muh dissonance
>muh "realist" lyrics
>muh "we are not angsty mom, for real!"
Look, I can do it too.

lamo, as if their time is over.

They are only getting bigger and bigger.

and that's a poor comparision to genin with. You are making the same mistake as the other guy and judging based popularity because your actual knpowledge of art is inadequete

Can this please be a serious discussion that doesn't devolve to reaction images?

It should have been obvious I was talking about a band as mainstream as The Beatles were in their own time. No, a semi-underground band with a large following taking a left turn is nothing like what The Beatles did, especially when that band was considered left to begin with.

And here's the difference between all the bands/artists you mentioned and The Beatles: The Beatles' music rose in quality and their popularity stayed exactly the same when they went down their artsy path. That's only true for Kanye out of the groups/artists you mentioned.

No it's a perfect comparision. We are talking about what artists will be talked about in 500 years from now and how they will be seen.

that wasn't clear from the begining because I approached this conversation as if I was speaking to an equal, that is someone who wanted to speak about the music. You are not speaking about music you are just talking about the fickle public. If you get off so much on this fantasy go listen to Radiohead or better yet just go start following Donald Trumps campaign cause it's basically the same willful destruction of public expectation that apparently gets your non musical dick cummy

I am talking about the public because this conversation is directly related to the public.

And if we're going to make this a dick measuring contest, please, do enlighten me with your music knowledge. Here's some old-time country throat singing in the meantime:
youtube.com/watch?v=XyhmDYLXFto

>the greatest rock album of all time came out.
That isn't "Heroes"

Radiohead, Dylan, Bowie,

>Radiohead

Gaydiohead

That's before Revolver you twat
This is when they became actually good

damn you got me

Literally no one gives a shit about throat singing rednecks. Fuck off . He's not only culturally irrelevant, he's musically irrelevant as well.

Get some real arguments and stop pulling shit out of your ass

>radiohead

They'd been good-to-great composers since AHDN.

I'm not pulling shit out of my ass, I'm directly refuting your idiotic statements. A band that was already considered out there stepping one foot more to the left is not comparable to what The Beatles did. It is, however, comparable to what another 60s band with a famous song about Heroin did.

I'm waiting for you to enlighten me btw. You're the one who has the knowledge, supposedly. Put your money where your mouth is.

>they weren't good before revolver

This is the true pleb opinion, AHDN is their best album. Their harmonizing was the best.

youtube.com/watch?v=N9Kpk6kEexk

How bout I put my weiner where your mom's mouth is?

Nice to see the knowledge of Death Grips' fans in action.

nah, his music is mediocre and his fame is nothing comparable to beatlemania

We are just copying them, aren't we?

You're a few months late

Good to know I've won this argument then.

>asked for evidence to back up his claims
>makes dick joke
Sure thing m8. I hope your next semester in community college does you well.

you don't understand what mad the beatles great.

yes it as all the talent and shit but there were other talented and more talented people what made their music actually as great as it is is the groundbreaking production techniques (stemming in part form niche art music of the day) they used in a pop format. Today death grips is doing that very same thing, taking from art music techniques (yes ae type shit) and using it to make pop songs. No one else (for some dumb af reason) has used instrumental performance and computers in the same way DG has.

This is the basic reason they are the comparison is apt, but you have to actually know about music to realize it so you probably will just spout more dumb fuck ass shit.

What's this argument even about anyways? I'm the guy that said that DG is probably comparable to VU if anything.

Nigger, A man can't rock out to the Beach Boys, cunt.

hey dickhole over here

I didn't make a dick joke you daft cunt. I made a weiner joke. Can you not read?

>pleb opinion
It's just objectively better music

They never even wrote a song about anything other than boy-girl love songs before Help!

Everything before Rubber Soul had a maximum of 5 instruments

Sure the harmonies on AHDN were nice but it was just lifeless music to sell to screaming girls. (If I Fell is alright tho)

If you're using the argument of production then George Martin's the person you should be lauding.That might be pedantic, but the moment Martin stepped down as producer (Let It Be), there was a noticeable drop in quality not just related to the songs themselves (which technically has nothing to do with Martin) but the sound quality as well (which was completely in Martin's hands).

I'd still disagree specifically about production being the thing that made The Beatles great though. It was certainly ONE of the contributing factors but I don't know if I'd call it THE factor. Their use of melody and harmony was arguably the greatest contributing factor and how they managed to take in their influences (on Revolver it was specifically Dylan and the Beach Boys/Wilson) and make something fresh from it.

Instrumentation and subject matter aren't the objective factors into what makes a piece of music great.

That movie though.

Paul's charisma just radiates & John being beautifully subversive.

>OH MAN! I CAN'T WAIT TO ROCK OUT TO FOR NO ONE!!! :DDD

Yes they are

Yeah the movies were funny

They are though

Happy 50th to the literal GOAT.

Here There and Everywhere > God Only Knows

one of my favorite beatles album, if not my favorite all together

I believe they pushed the ambition even more from rubber soul and really achieved beyond pop.

Saw this thread and listening to it again now and it never fails to entertain.
Even people who hate them should at least be able to songs off this

Subject matter has literally nothing to do with the quality of a piece of MUSIC.

Ok but if you write about the same thing over and over and over again then it just gets boring and lifeless

>their harmonizing was the best

you haven't listened to other music from that time period, have you?

Maybe that's just my taste tho

>you haven't listened to other music from that time period, have you?

Of course I have and nothing comes close to the Beatles harmonies, not even the beach boys. But if you want to give an example then go for it

You are right, but a song as a whole is judged as a work of art and not just an instrumentiona; piece. Therefore lyrics, subject matter do matter

byrds

the beach boys did everything better. also i want reddit to leave

lets see, I see first a paragraph of you regurgitating shit everyone knows that's completely irrelevant, and then a paragraph of you demonstrating you neither understand what I wrote or musical history.

The fact remains what what actually separates those albums from others is the production. Music has had vastly more complex melodic content of all kinds for centuries comparable to the beatles, yet the hadn't been the same level of mixing, arrangements and expensive studio magic sounds before them. At no point did I diminish the fact they were talented composers/performers, and that aspect obviously had to be top notch to make them important, but without the production they aren't actually at the same level of historical importance.

You are so fucking shallow and stupid. You keep gushing over the idea that all you friends would be talking about the beatles and everyone would be so shocked they did experimental shit, like you are sad you missed out on shitposting about it back then or something, when in fact you don't appreciate the actual remarkable facets. You don't understand that someone at the time this record came out would hear tomorrow never knows stone sober and be compeltely amazed as if they had heard literal magic, because they would have no idea where all these crazy sounds came from or how they were made cause they wouldnt have know shit like that was even possible. They would not have a frame of reference or any of the desensitization that we as lifelong hyper media consumers experience on the daily.
Get fucked.

that's not abbey road

Haha "no"

is that why brian wilson cites the the beatles as an influence?

Paul McCartney sites the beach boys as an influence too though

Both of your moms cites my dick as an influence too.

>The fact remains what what actually separates those albums from others is the production. Music has had vastly more complex melodic content of all kinds for centuries comparable to the beatles, yet the hadn't been the same level of mixing, arrangements and expensive studio magic sounds before them. At no point did I diminish the fact they were talented composers/performers, and that aspect obviously had to be top notch to make them important, but without the production they aren't actually at the same level of historical importance.
And everything you said should be credited to George Martin instead of The Beatles. I'm agreeing with you that it is an amazing feat but the fact remains that it wasn't The Beatles who made it. It's completely relevant because you're bringing up a point that's not technically applicable to the band known as The Beatles yet applying it to them.
>You don't understand that someone at the time this record came out would hear tomorrow never knows stone sober and be compeltely amazed as if they had heard literal magic,
Quote the post that implies any of this. All I'm seeing you doing is needlessly insulting me after I refuted your claims that The Beatles are not comparable to Death Grips. Because I've heard virtually nothing by Death Grips that could illicit reactions such as what you wrote about someone listening to Tomorrow Never Knows for the first time, which I should remind you is what this argument was originally about.

the beatles cite him too you are a dumb ass shit so is he you all suck

If you really want to know who the unsung hero that invented all this is it's Frank fucking Zappa.

Pet Sounds is better

>Frank fucking Zappa

Is an irrelevant hack

>Because I've heard virtually nothing by Death Grips that could illicit reaction
It's not the reactions that make them the same it's the same innovative application of art music technique in pop music that does as I have stated previously you retard.

>t's completely relevant
how the fuck is George Martin compeltely irrelevant to the beatle? you fucking retard. You are arguing about music he helped make. You are either so fucking stupid you music have assistence typing this dirvel or you are defending your position in the most asinine foolish way you can think of to troll. Holy shit. I reiterate; get fucked.

Sgt. Pepper is literally the beatles version of Freak Out. You are retarded.

>>t's completely relevant
>how the fuck is George Martin compeltely irrelevant to the beatle?
You can't even read the post you're quoting and have the nerve to call me a retard.

Not even the best beatles album.
That honor belongs to Rubber Soul

I was the one who brought up George Martin yet I'm calling George Martin irrelevant, yes, that works out logically.

>Sgt. Pepper is literally the beatles version of Freak Out.
Qualify this statement.

The most important musicians since the classical and early romantic fucking era? seriously? no mahler? strauss? schoenberg? what about jazz? what about blues? no it goes beethoven, then music sucked then beatles. fucking god damn it. you sound like my grandparents.

no, the fact you have the nerve to act as if my misread of your post didn't yeild the same fucking meaning as the correct reading does and that my response isnt still relevant is laughable though retard.

Again, it does not matter that george martin 'the fith beatle' is not a member of the beatles in this fucking argument

>implying my rock outs aren't specially timed after taking an ambien & your mom "go proing"

>We considered Sgt Pepper our version of freak out
-Sir Paul Mcartney

You guys are fucking embarassing holy christ. You all know so fucking little.

Saying something is completely relevant actually has a very different meaning than saying something's completely irrelevant.

>compares DG and Beatles

Only on Sup Forums