What does Sup Forums genuinely think of the Beatles?

What does Sup Forums genuinely think of the Beatles?
Don't give me the Scaruffi pasta.

Other urls found in this thread:

scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html:
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Good
Not great

The fact that OP is not considered a faggot shows you how far shitposting is from being a serious artform

62 - 65 < 66 - 70

They were good until they went to India and lost their minds.

who?

(not true, by the way)

>sh
I HATE EVERY NERD ON THIS BOARD

Honestly, how can you not like the Beatles?

Literally invented poptimism.

Unironically my favorite band

Their influence can't be denied but their quality is incredibly overstated. I got into music through them so I'll always give them daps for that, but there are a lot of better alternatives from that period. Revolver doesn't have dick on Oddessey and Oracle, for example.

meme

WERE SGT.PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND!

More 60s than austin powers, they're below the beach boys, my number one, but above NMK, my number 3 band.

The

FACT

THAT

SO

MANY

PEOPLE

I wouldn't doubt their influence and I don't think they're the worst band ever, but essentially:

>early stuff = twee boyband pop
>later stuff = druggy hippy nonsense

They have some good songs in between tho

Holy shit way to fuck it up
Anyone have the image of Scruffy rating all their albums 0s and how it's an acheivement in reviews or something like that?

scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html: Why are there age limits? why is it illegal to marry a 12-year old? - Piero Scaruffi
Why do people take this guy seriously?

I have not listened to them

Why do people think this honestly? Revolver is in my mind quite clearly a far more advanced kind of psychedelic rock with not only more variety but more consistency too. I agree that there are some gems on Odyssey and Oracle but they don't reach the highs of Revolver and there are more duds on there than on Revolver. The only explanation I can think of is that since you grew up with The Beatles, like so many of us, you've been desensitized in a way as to how good and constantly interesting their music is. Imagine if The Beatles' entire discography had been somehow unknown to you until today and you listened to them now entirely fresh. You would not be arguing that Odyssey and Oracle is as good as Revolver, let alone better I reckon.

Greatest band of all time hands down. Could make a 100 song list of 10/10 songs they wrote. Couldn't do that with any other artist I know.

>druggy hippy nonsense

revolver is a giant jewel, a shining diamond that dominates the crown of rock'n'roll.

Strawberry Fields, Hey Jude, Here Comes the Sun, Let it Be, Across the Universe, Julia, Helter Skelter.. Twist and Shout, Please Please Me, I Want to Hold your Hand.. Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, Something, While My Guitar Gently Weeps.. Dear Prudence, Back in the USSR, A Day in the fucking Life...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg

Help, All My Loving, I've Just Seen a Face, We Can Work It Out, Sexy Sadie, Baby's in Black, All I've Got to Do, Do You Want to Know a Secret, Hey Bulldog, Penny Lane, Tomorrow Never Knows

I could go on but you get the point. They wrote better music than anyone and they did it more consistently than anyone in the history of music.

I laugh in the face of people who say they don't like the beatles.

You have no idea what you're missing out on.

>Don't give me the Scaruffi pasta.

Nigga, there's always a thread like this on Sup Forums, it's as meme as the K-pop threads or the Death Grips general

You should, only people I've known to dislike the Beatles had horrendous taste. Literally Nickleback fans

didn't recognize some of those songs, so I gave them a listen

can you explain the appeal of Hey Bulldog and Do You Want to Know a Secret?

i feel like i'm missing something, maybe it's something in the lyrics, but i just don't understand how people can love the beatles so much

O&O is very underwhelming.

>Revolver doesn't have dick on Oddessey and Oracle, for example.
pretty sure anyone that says this should be cut out of your life immediately

Hey Bulldog is catchy as shit, pretty sure Oasis got their entire career from the "you can talk to me" section

Do You Want to Know a Secret is a good song, but I think Hey Bulldog is given recognition because it is the least shit song on Yellow Submarine.

Their music is boring as shit. Give me the stones any day.

You can have both

went on a roadtrip with my roommates - three straight hours of the fucking beatles. they didn't have revolver

now every time i hear the beatles i just get angry

The Rolling Stones may well be the most inconsistent band of all time. On top of this, they stuck too strongly to their blues rock style which makes them pretty dull after extended listening I feel. Obviously they've got some good songs but on the whole, Lennon was right when he said The Stones were never on the same level as The Beatles, music-wise or power-wise.

most Stones albums suck but the Hot Rocks Decca comp is a powerhouse - great singles group.

I listened to Abbey Road for the first time a month ago and I thought it was shitty pop rock garbage

i personally love them

solid. decent. white. christian loving music.

Magical mystery
Revolver
Sgt, Peppers
Yellow Sub movie is groovy AF

pretty solid band
will listen to again

try some of their other albums, they're even worse

They stuck to making aesthetically simple, well constructed songs instead of using tacky studio effects over every song. The same is true for Neil Young. Revolver is a great example of ok songs made 'revolutionary' with studio effects that have aged awfully.

It's this sort of psych-aesthetic fetish that beatles fans love, and stops them respecting aesthetically plain but far better written psych albums like Forever Changes

>christian loving
>not knowing lennon was an athiest and harrison was a hindu

I dislike the Beatles and love Forever Changes, but what makes you say that Forever Changes is psych?

CHRISTIAN APPROVED MUSIC

I don't realize why everyone loves The White Album so much, it's got a few good songs like While My Guitar Gently Weeps and Blackbird, but other than that it's mostly filler. That period was a creative struggle for The Beatles so it's understandable why the album turned out that way. That being said Sgt Peppers and MMT are fun albums.

forget the term 'heavy-psych', psych is just short for psychedelic music, and forever changes at its core is psychedelic: it's dreamy, it's melodic but not catchy.
the songs fiddle around with instrumentation constantly - where most would have a psychedelic break for 20 seconds Love spends half a song falling into gorgeous unmoving instrumentation - all still working with pop / rock ideas of choruses but never full rock song structures.

On top of that the lyrics are fully psych-y stream of consciousness philosophy and loose ravings

Ah, I was conflating heavy-psych and psych. thanks for explaining

it is just the definition of generic. It was kind of cool when I was a kid, but now all of their songs are very uninteresting.

The Beach Boys is better.

Their ok, some of their stuff like lonely hearts club band and rubber soul is amazing (imao), some people on Sup Forums will call them generic but these people probably listen to grimes and Taylor.

Both here part of the Hare Krishnas cult.

Listening to Abbey Road again and it's such a disjointed mess; random loud sounds, 'funny' gimmick shit, sudden speed and chord changes that don't work in the song... Come Together is a jam though.
Basically, most of their albums are about 80% filler.

I, honestly, appreciate how they exposed the normies of their time to more unconventional music, i.e., the sitar and Indian based rhythms and with their popularity, they managed to somewhat make experimental music more mainstream.

they're generic in terms of pop rock, i like paul simon and steely dan and the church but not the beatles

Nope. Stop trying to come up with excuses that sit well with you. Revolver is a very good album but it's almost totally lacking in cohesiveness or consistency. O&O is a living, breathing, consistently moving suite of richly detailed, pastoral psychedelia. Also the idea that O&O has more duds than Revolver (what with Taxman and Dr. Roberts and Yellow Submarine) is absurd.

Face it, pal, sometimes popular things aren't the absolute best things on the planet.

>Beatles
>Rock 'n Roll
Kek, Doors s/t trumps anything they've done, not to mention Strange Days. Plus, Morrison Hotel and L.A. Woman easily Trumps the Beatles watered down attempts at being an actual rock band.

George was the best one

tfw autocorrect capitalized trump

They're good.
Ignoring all the parroting "dude they changed music lmao" (which they did), just taking them as a band shows a quality bunch of songwriters. Paul's pop sensibilities with John's mental illness made some enduring music, and having George thrown in the mix gave them another edge.

Paul >> George = John >> Ringo

other than tomorrow never knows the experimentation isn't really there, other than through badly aged studio effects like backwards guitars. People grew out of that shit quickly.
i guess it's a good stepping stone for people, but that's all it should be regarded as - people overstate it's value a lot.

Honestly, I believe other bands of the era had more influence, like The Kinks, The Who, and The Stooges. Beatles were undoubtedly the most popular of the era, but even commercially didn't do anything that they didn't take from Elvis's business model.

(Not him) I can't agree with you
The Doors were good, but their music isn't comparable. The Doors were a straight-forward rock band with a frontman who pushed artiness forward. Psych-era beatles were a pop group who created earworm music whilst having an edge to them, which is near impossible to do well (see the countless "art pop" shit nowadays)

Can't agree with the stooges, they were like TVU; they played music which predicted future genres, but they had little contemporary influence.
Also The Kinks were beatles worship man
I prefer the beatles to all of those bands personally.

This

>straight-forward rock
I don't think that's right. Although Doors were blues rock at their core, it was their insane musicianship that elevated their sound. Masters in jazz and blues, with a myriad of other influences, such as flamenco and use of eastern scales.

I like them, their music ranges from not very good to very good in my opinion, as I said yesterday.

Yeah, I somewhat agree desu, even though it goes against my initial post. They mostly popularized already done studio techniques.

the reason they're looking for a new roommate is because piero drove the last guy out with his eccentric behaviour. I know the last tenant through friends of friends.

apparently scruffy was always labelling things - not his own things like his food or anything, but almost every item he could find. a lamp would have a sticky note on it saying '6/10 - illuminates corner of room well but does nothing to advance what lamps have been doing for at least 100 years. Pleasing glow but repetitive'. he'd also wake everyone in the house up at 6am sharp to partake in a hike of the hills around the house. he'd carry nuts and water in his backpack but only allow the others to eat or drink if they correctly answered prog rock trivia (of which the answers were all his opinions).

he once caught my friend whistling the opening melody to hey jude and for the next three days he had restricted access to the food in the kitchen. he was allowed bread, rice, pasta and potatoes but was entirely banned from any seasonings or sauces. scaruffi said it was because he 'seemed to be happy living without taste so far, so why not carry on that way'

Kinks still ended up with their own sound, despite that. The heavily distorted power chords that are commonplace now in rock music were used by these groups heavily, where Beatles commonly stick to open and barre chords that were more of commonplace in popular music since the 50's.

>is a living, breathing, consistently moving suite of richly detailed, pastoral psychedelia

If you unironically describe albums like this, I'm not surprised you think its better. Face it pal, sometimes popular things are the best.

I haven't given up if you haven't but I feel like that was you having your last word.

not the user you're arguing with, but you haven't really defended those bad songs on revolver, you've just insulted his slightly pretentious ramblings

I feel like the amount fans have you justify the boring songs on revolver - "the start was so experimental, it needed balancing for the middle and also last third" proves how it's reputation is slowly crumbling

The White Album has probably the most songs that define The Beatles for me (ironic because its not them working together as a group I know) and that's why I really like it. There are way more good songs like the two you mentioned though I mean Dear Prudence, Obladi Oblada (don't you dare), Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Sexy Sadie, Long, Long, Long, Martha My Dear off the top of my head are all brilliant and everything else is just as good or a little worse but even so, its sequenced so brilliantly that I don't think I've ever been bored listening to it which is quite a feat with a double album.

I didn't bother because I've spent a lot of time in the past writing shit that just gets ignored so that they can continue to tell me that The Beatles are overrated. I could go through the songs but honestly, is there much point at this stage? If you're so adamant to say that the songs that are good are actually just "generic", "dull", "uninspired" etc. then there's not much I can do, is there? At some point people who hate on The Beatles will realise that they're missing out by trying to have an "interesting" opinion and I know that sounds like it could be quite unfair but with this band especially, I think that is almost definitely the case.

...

I think that's patronising - I'll stop replying after this, I get your point - but despite not liking the 'beauty' of the Beatles songs, I love 'Love', the beauty of Nick Drake, Neil Young - all those simple beautiful songs I adore. If it's the beauty I'm missing out on, I have enough, and the stuff I have feels more heartfelt and real - and more gorgeous because of it.

I don't believe the beatles mean what they say, so I feel nothing while listening to it.

Still, the album is at least half filler, and listening to it I just felt like they could've done so much better. It also has some songs that just drag the whole album's quality down. That's just my opinion, though.

>"Ringo Starr: Y Not(2010), 10/10"
ay

I don't think I was patronising actually, I meant exactly what I said which is that I have no desire to explain things to people who don't actually want to hear the answer. If that's not the case then I'll happily write things to try and convince you but experience tells me that people like that who genuinely want to be convinced are few and far between.

Also, I don't care for your idea that you wouldn't care even if you realised that The Beatles make great music because you already have enough "beauty". I think that's a bit stupid frankly, you'd lose nothing by listening to another great band who make great songs.

let me guess...they are your number 2 band.

Really? Why do you think they could have done so much better, are you comparing it to their previous work or other bands'? I have to say that relative to their peak stuff, the lyrics are pretty poor and admittedly, there are weak songs that were thrown in but in all honesty, I think it works so well overall. And also, people whinge about "Wild Honey Pie" as being such an obvious throwaway filler track but it's less than one minute long! It works great as a transitional track I feel and does absolutely nothing to slow down the momentum of Side 1 (which I think is almost flawless really).

How can you enjoy such vapid music with such fervor

I don't think it's vapid at all. The tunes are constantly and even undeniably engaging throughout almost all of their work, their quality control being the greatest of any pop/rock band I know of. There's not one album they've made where not over half the songs or of a very high quality standard. People find it hard to believe when people say that about The Beatles but have you considered the fact that that is exactly why The Beatles are so highly regarded? Because they are almost unbelievably good compared to the other bands in their field?

I love the Beatles but personally I like Paul's work after the Beatles up until his newest album NEW
Plus he never would have been able to make Temporary Secretary with the other Beatles holding him back from showing his true song making potential

They have a few good songs but they've never released a consistent album

listen again to any album past 1964, you'd be surprised

Paul released multiple consistent albums after the fact though

PAUL IS A HACK, SUCH A HACK THAT THE NSA TRIED TO HIRE HIM

xD nice meme!

You John-babies are just mad that your precious little Johnny boy was never able to recover after the Paul's masterpiece Too Many People