Why were they so big? What made them so special?

Why were they so big? What made them so special?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/lZ8zYI6ZQGI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

their hair gave them supernatural powers

it would make more sense to you if you knew music theory

Right place at the right time

they were good at making pop songs and incorporating somewhat experimental ideas into those pop songs

I know music theory. Still don't get it

The day the music died produced a hole, a vacuum in the nascent American pop industry. The Beatles were simply the most successful of the Merseybeat exploiters that rose up in inspiration from the first American rock & roll/rockabilly acts.

THE FACT

can we not have this discussion, it's pop music

Oh which Beatles songs did you chart out?
>it's pop music
So?

1. Marketing
2. Going """"""""""""experimental"""""""""""" later on

>""""""""""""experimental""""""""""""
Why is this in quotations? They made experimental music

Explain yourself

For you

What do you want to know?

They made shitty songs about hand holding and love for 2 or 3 albums to get popular before they decided to start making good music.

>implying their first albums weren't great

What's shitty about the songs?

How skilfull were each one of them?

Compositionally or technically?

They weren't to me.

A first album of stale, boring love songs done by decent vocalists. Half of them were covers anyway.

In comparison the second album was an improvement but nothing special.
Third album was when the backing instrumentation got more interesting and they started getting better.

Keep in mind this is just my opinion, I'm not trying to be a dick to anyone who likes their early stuff. It's just not my taste.

Just lucky I guess.

both

>I don't like it so it's bad
Not how it works

fair enough famalam

Well why do YOU like it so much?

Technically, Paul was very skilled at many instruments. John and Ringo were fairly skilled at their chosen instruments. George was average at his, and took the length of their career to become skilled.

Composition ally speaking, they were very advanced for their context.

Quote me where I said I liked it.

its hard for bands since to match their best records compositionally

Which song do you think shows how good they can be?

Then why defend it in the first place?

When people bitch about covers they bitch from a modern perspective. In '62, almost all albums were cover albums. Writing your own material for an entire album from start to finish was unheard of. Hell, Lennon-McCarthy writing half of an album... was quite innovative for the period we're talking about. When you look at the Billboard 200 number ones for '63/'62, they are almost entirely comprised of cover albums or soundtrack albums.

It's just a bygone era. In those days, you were expected to record lots of covers in the same way you're expected to write most of your own material today.

So what changed?

George Martin

You Never Give Me Your Money
If that was true, all the other acts he produced would be as big as The beatles.

That wasn't my main complaint though, they've done covers well. It was just an uninteresting album and doesn't hold a candle to their other works.

Again, just my opinion, not knocking anyone for enjoying it.

Quote me where I defended it

nothing changed, talented groups just dont form that often

Would that actually be true? Or do you think that may be a logical fallacy?

Lol

Okay so you may or may not like it and you're not defending it....
Then why comment on it in the first place??

Ok, I used 'bad' instead of 'I don't like it', my mistake. If that was your end goal, there you go.

Do you actually believe George Martin made them special or is that a logical fallacy?

Why post your opinions on music when you are not qualified to do so?

George Martin, Brian Epstein etc certainly helped the Beatles on the path to success but they would have been world famous without either.

Remember that Martin himself downplayed the "Fifth Beatle" claims.

So you'd say that's their best song?

And I'm not qualified because...?

>George Martin, Brian Epstein etc certainly helped the Beatles on the path to success but they would have been world famous without either.
So your answer is "no" you don't believe it?

>qualification to write opinions on music

>A first album of stale, boring love songs done by decent vocalists.
>In comparison the second album was an improvement but nothing special.
>Third album was when the backing instrumentation got more interesting and they started getting better.
Hmm...

Are you not bias?
Do you like opinions on heart surgery by plumbers?

>heart surgery is comparable to taste in music

Get out.

They were talented artists who made good music that resonated with many people.

Is Tame Impala really that good???

Thanks for having my back.
This guy's been giving me a lot of shit.

...

why did you quote me? I didn't even reply to you.

Why isn't it?
You avoided answering. Try again?

That post doesn't mention the Beatles at all. Nice try.

4/10 because I replied once

I'm not biased. I just dislike the one album.

The reasons were
>love songs
>I'm bored
>covers
Anything substantial? Feel free to use your knowledge of music theory to construct your answer

no, Tame Impala wrote three shit boring albums

...

...

who the fuck are you

They were able to perfectly blend musical experimentation with accessibility.

Nice

they were unique. no one could do what they did.
thats why their special. just like every great band.

>apply 25 layers of flanger
>mono just for the fuck of it haha
>damn is this a sparkly guitar sound effect?*CLICK*

they sure did experiment

if you think their third album supersedes their first two you are legitimately retarded famo

My degree is in music. Music theory has nothing to do with explaining people's tastes. It's totally beyond the scope of the field.

Similarly, there's nothing particularly unique about the Beatles that would explain their popularity except perhaps that they genuinely did branch out a whole lot towards the latter half of their career. They appropriated stuff from all over the place and put it in a Western context. I mean, jazz and WAM composers had been doing that for years (Debussy etc.), but it was basically unheard of in the pop space. However, they'd already had a massive platform by the time they started experimenting, so their experimentation can't explain their popularity.

It probably, then, comes down to other factors besides just music.

Records consisting entirely of originals date back until almost the inception of records.

None of the four Beatles demonstrated any particular technical wizardry at any point in their discography. I know this because I have listened to the whole thing and play pretty much every instrument that's ever appeared on a Beatles track except the sitar and whatever horn is on For No One.

Ringo is known for playing some weird fills, especially on A Day in the Life, and George is probably the best guitar player in the band, but technique is not a strong point for the Beatles. McCartney couldn't even read music.

How would "charting out" -- I assume you mean transcribing -- some of history's most transcribed music help you? There's fundamentally nothing there that screams "wow, no wonder this was popular".

>expected to write most of your own material today

>No covers
>Getting a bit more experimental harmonically

They were cute and got girls' pussies wet

>My degree is in music
>there's nothing particularly unique about the Beatles
pick one, faggot

honestly this

thanks for the high effort post in a sea of shitty zingers

It was still pop music though.

>It was still pop music though.
You are a retard if you think albums like "The White Album" and "Magical Mystery Tour" are """"pop"""" albums.

The Beatles explored multiple genres, buddy. It's unfair to call them pop.

You're correct in regards to ''The White Album''. Genres:
Pop Rock,Rock
Psychedelic Rock,Blues Rock,Art Rock,Experimental,Hard Rock.

I'm correct in regards to all of their experimental music.

Could be. When I think of making interesting music and still being influenced by pop structures I think of Brian Eno's Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy), the bands like Caravan, early Soft Machine. Here's a great documentary in which Richard Coughlan (Caravan) and Robert Wyatt talk about how they were influenced by the Beatles and similar bands, but didn't make mere pop music:
youtu.be/lZ8zYI6ZQGI

The Beatles were great in the scene with a lot of great bands. They are so regard as the greatest band because they knew when to stop, most of the others 60's acts end up making awful albums in the 70's and 80's.

They didn't choose to stop, they just bitched at eachother so much in their final years that they got fed up with each others BS.

The Beatles were a pop phenomenon at first. It turned out that 3 our of 4 members of the band were also great songwriters. Then they adapted the "cutting edge" for a popular audience.

They certainly aren't the best band in the world. But they certainly do have many fantastic records and a lot of talent.

There are plenty of unique qualities of The Beatles. There aren't many bands where 3 out of the 4 members write vastly different music and still have it be cohesive for the album (which at the time was not a common practice to create music for an album context). Plus, all three took many different genres and styles of music and perfectly blended it to pop (which, again, was not a widely done thing at the time)

If you are going to judge the music solely by theory and composition, not only are you going to look like a dork, but you are going to miss out on a lot of what makes music fun.

please get off the board lmao

Yeah, but The Stones also hated each other

Mixture of these.

>giving Ringo a "fairly skilled mark" but giving George an "average"

Fuck off. George was literally the most valuable instrumentalist in the Beatles solely for his sitar playing. Introducing that instrument is one of the few actual innovations the Beatles brought to the pop landscape of the mid to late '60s.

>George Martin, Brian Epstein etc certainly helped the Beatles on the path to success but they would have been world famous without either.

Hell fucking no. They wouldn't have broken America without Epstein and Martin and other audio engineers contributed at least 75% of their "innovations". It was always "This Beatle has an idea but can't actually execute it, let the audio engineers do it!" or "This Beatle wants some arrangements but has zero compositional ability, let George Martin do it!"

Get real. The Beatles would have been fantastic without them but not world famous, or even famous. Nor would most British bands because the British Invasion wouldn't have happened. Even if it did, the Beatles would be roughly Kinks-level, probably. Their early stuff would have soared on the charts because it was all about being catchy and Martin didn't play a big role in that, but starting from Yesterday in 1964 to A Day in the Life in 1967, George Martin was the single most invaluable producer on the fucking planet and contributed a ton of ideas and executed the rest.

The beatles succeeded in making experimental music that didnt sound like absolute pretentious slop like those who came before

experimental songs which could be enjoyed by ALL and not just music nerds g (ie. noise, test patterns, etc) and had social meaning

THE

read a book about it

>George was literally the most valuable instrumentalist in the Beatles solely for his sitar playing
He only played that instrument on a handful of songs. His chosen instrument was guitar, and he was sloppy and uninventive until about 1968.

they broke America in 1964 because they played the Ed Sullivan show and blew the minds of an entire generation

I think the choice of a 12-string alone on Hard Days Night which got the Byrds started on the whole folk-rock phase was pretty inventive

He was playing rudimentary chords.

No shit sherlock.
>implying that could have happened without Epstein

Yeah, okay.

This.

Who cares? He basically laid the foundations of an entire genre of music. He was a very important instrumentalist even if he wasn't technically very proficient which I never claimed he was.

>Who cares?
See >technical ability