How could anyone hate The Beatles?

How could anyone hate The Beatles?

Is it just contrarianism?

Other urls found in this thread:

globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html
ninepointsmagazine.org/john-lennon-an-enneagram-profile-by-gavan-kearney/
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2010/12/08/5607578-john-lennon-a-man-of-absolute-contradictions
youtube.com/watch?v=RokLK8I61mI
youtube.com/watch?v=jenWdylTtzs
youtu.be/rYu3UsNIXMM
youtu.be/Eln3J6BxWN0
rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_mothers_of_invention/absolutely_free/
2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html
youtu.be/b-mZjnz7mTo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I hate THOSE Beatles. Post-Rubber Soul Beatles are the best

insert scruffy pasta here

are they wearing fucking wigs hahahhaha wtf

Black beatles is the best beatles song.

i can't decide which of these posts is worse

Their albums have no coherent sound at all, it just feels like a mess to listen to when the quality and just constantly shifts from song to song. And I dont really like their vocals and their Chord progressions and melodys just feels cheezy.

I remember Frank Zappa saying that he saw John Lennon and Paul in interview claiming that they were only in it for the money. I would really like to see those interviews.

>FZ, interviewed by Mike Bourne, Down Beat Yearbook, 1971
>On the day that that album was released, the thing that escaped everybody was the fact that it was designed to show that the Beatles were only in it for the money, not that we were. If we were only in it for the money, we'd be doing something else! I mean, to look at that cover and to see the people on that cover and say that these guys are only in it for the money . . . I thought that was the funniest thing we could have put together. But automatically everybody assumed that that was the exact truth, and nobody stopped to question for a minute the relationship between the Sgt. Pepper cover style and the title. You know, they never once questioned that the Beatles might be anything other than directly descended from heaven. And I personally felt for a long time that they were extremely plastic, and flat-out commercial.

In interviews*

globalia.net/donlope/fz/notes/We're_Only_In_It_For_The_Money.html
This is quite an interesting read.

cream seats in the regal

Based Zappa :'(

Who cares? They made a shit ton of money AND produced a great body of work at the same time.

>They made a shit ton of money AND produced a great body of work at the same time.
That being said, I can only appreciate them as great businessmen and not artists.

If they were in it for the money it would've made more sense for them to keep making their pre-rubber soul style of music which was more digestable to the average listener desu, this makes no sense

Why not appreciate them as both? Yes their original intentions for entering the popular music industry were mainly commercial (so was everyone else's at the time though) but after achieving commercial success they became the first band to turn pop/rock music into an art form. Even if you listen to their earlier stuff there are almost always nice little musical touches here and there that weren't really necessary for them to include in a "commercial" work.

What a hypocrite. Zappa didn't work for free either.

ninepointsmagazine.org/john-lennon-an-enneagram-profile-by-gavan-kearney/
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2010/12/08/5607578-john-lennon-a-man-of-absolute-contradictions
This doesn't make a lot sense, at least not for a man that's regarded as a peace promoter, public activist and a ''pure'' person.
He didn't make music for the sole purpose of making money, did he? And how did he finance his orchestral work (which required large orchestras)? By engaging in trade deals with Eastern European countries and not by making Top 40 hits. That's what someone with artistic inegrity does.

Anti-popular recorded music is a blissful ideal to me occasionally. Playing is beautiful but why keep it? I'm glad that I've heard this music but it feels like a mental strap sometimes.

(which required large orchestras and more people to get paid for their performance)*

integrity*
a lot of sense*

>He didn't make music for the sole purpose of making money, did he?
Did The Beatles?
>not by making Top 40 hits.
Not like Big Legged Emma or My Guitar Wants To Kill Your Mama?

From the exact same interview user quoted:
M.B.: According to the press, your group isn't supposed to be officially together.
F.Z.: Well, we were offered an extremely large amount of money to play a festival in England. I didn't think it would be such a bad idea.

>This doesn't make a lot sense, at least not for a man that's regarded as a peace promoter, public activist and a ''pure'' person.
Nice out-of-context analysis but The Beatles were four guys, not one.

>He didn't make music for the sole purpose of making money, did he?

neither did the beatles

If you don't think this is easily the best beatles album you're a fag with no taste

>Not like Big Legged Emma or My Guitar Wants To Kill Your Mama?
Do you also think that ''Harder Than Your Husband'' is a genuine country/cowboy song?
youtube.com/watch?v=RokLK8I61mI
I don't think you understand that Zappa did almost everything ironically song wise.
Got any proof of that?
youtube.com/watch?v=jenWdylTtzs
This doesn't seem satirical or ironic at all.

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.

>I don't think you understand that Zappa did almost everything ironically song wise.
Why can't this logic apply to The Beatles as well? Or is this just selective logic to make Zappa seem infallible?

in my opinion, it's blank and void. There's exceptions (Revolver and a few other tracks), but in a wider sense it doesn't try to surprise you. It's not a wonder to hear, just an output of the many repetitious emotions that inhabit themselves in the sphere of popular music.

In terms of quality, it's acceptable, maybe even alright in some cases. But, it's course is detrimental (This is not to say The Beatles are the main cause, just a symptom).

ok thanks for hearing my pretentious rant

Are you arguing that """authentic""" art must be ironic?

>but in a wider sense it doesn't try to surprise you
Are you the average listener in 1966?

DUDE ACID LMAO

Funny how you ignored the song I've linked. And no, music doesn't have to be ironic to be good. You know full well that the song I've linked is a genuine mediocre pop song. How I wish I could actually find those interviews I mentioned. Why can't that logic apply to Beatles? Please prove how. And how is any human infallible? This is not a valid argument.

Yes, i traveled through time just to make that post

>Funny how you ignored the song I've linked.
Funny you ignored my original point and evidence.
>Please prove how.
You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you that when Zappa was being commercial he was being ironic, but when the Beatles did it it was genuine.
Non argument.

why would you think i was making an argument?

Why wouldn't you have factual basis around your opinions?

because it's funner that way

So you admit to having shit opinions?

maybe lol

at least i dont like the beatles

What do you mean "by engaging in trade deals with other countries", was he representing the US government or something as an ambassador?

That's fine.

why are you still responding

Why are you still responding?

Why are you still responding?

Ya got me

Why am I responding?

I too am responding

plz respond

>You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you that when Zappa was being commercial he was being ironic, but when the Beatles did it it was genuine.
youtu.be/rYu3UsNIXMM - This is the interview in which he explains how and why The Mothers of Invention were formed. He, out of all members of the band wanted to make original material and didn't mind getting fired from bars for not playing what the audience wanted to hear and what was popular back then.
youtu.be/Eln3J6BxWN0 - This interview in particular. Do you expect a person who's interested in any kind of commercial success would make such statements on TV while being interviewed by someone from MTV?
Again, here's his second album (one of his earlier works).
rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_mothers_of_invention/absolutely_free/
If you've actually listened to it, do you think that it had any commercial potential? And not only that, but he also stated in interviews that the owners of record companies told him that his music had absolutely zero potential of commercial success. I'd like to hear something remotely similar to that by any member of The Beatles. Can you find such statements and interviews?

Here's your response. Why, I don't know.

>my analysis is...
Not relevant.

Please show us this proof.

>If you've actually listened to it
Its one of my favorite albums. it's OK to like both Zappa and Beatles
>do you think that it had any commercial potential?
I literally just gave you two examples of singles made solely to get a hit (commercial rock). Did he make non-commercial albums? Yes. He also made commercial material as well (see Chunga's Revenge, Apostrophe, etc).

Is revolution 9 a commercial Beatles song?

Quotes the words I never used in any of my posts and expects a serious response...

I don't expect a serious response form you anyways because you are using selective logic to put Zappa on a pedestal and take the Beatles down a notch.

Both artists made commercial and non commercial music. Get over it.

I have trouble understanding that myself, even if they aren't my favorite 60's popular music act.

>That's what someone with artistic inegrity does.
I spit out my drink.

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.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

>I literally just gave you two examples of singles made solely to get a hit (commercial rock). Did he make non-commercial albums? Yes. He also made commercial material as well (see Chunga's Revenge, Apostrophe, etc).
And yet, almost every single person on this planet older than 13 has heard of The Beatles. They're even in school books. How many of those people have even heard of Frank Zappa? And how many people would consider Frank Zappa a household name compared to The Beatles?

>Both artists made commercial and non commercial music. Get over it.
Funny how every single Beatles album is classified as pop rock among other genres.

You can argue that Zappa tried achieving commercial success and we're all aware that he didn't achieve it.

>YOU SAY YES AND I SAY NO
>YOU SAY STOP AND I SAY GO GO GO
>OH NO
>YOU SAY GOODBYE AND I SAY HELLO
>HELLO HELLO
>I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SAY GOODBYE
>I SAY HELLO

The difference is that Zappa didn't make any songs that had lyrics that literally could have been written by an eight-year-old. Even his commercial songs were intelligent.

Selling out and making commercial music are not mutually exclusive. Beatles sold out. Zappa didn't. Beatles gave away their artistic integrity in favor of making money. Zappa managed to hang on to both.

>How many of those people have even heard of Frank Zappa?
Tons, actually. Zappa was ridiculously famous for a long time.

This reminds me of that time a few months I saw some people here who were actually under the impression that King Crimson was some obscure find.

>All lyrics have to be literature

Vocals are an instrument faggot, lyrics are largely a nicety. Melody = 80%, Lyrics = 20%

according to the Beatles fans:
thinking that they are overrated and that they're not the greatest band ever = hating them

I do sometimes, opinions are a nuisance,

I like talking to you :)
Whatchalisteningto?

>implying the instrumentation/melodies on mindless pop sellout songs like "She Loves You" wasn't just as trite, simplistic, and childish as the lyrics

Most of the time they weren't even remotely technically impressive with their instruments.

2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html

Dreamed I was an Eskimo
Frozen wind began to blow
Under my boots and around my toes
The frost that bit the ground below
It was a hundred degrees below zero...

And my mama cried
And my mama cried
Nanook, a-no-no
Nanook, a-no-no
Don't be a naughty Eskimo
Save your money, don't go to the show

Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Ho, Ho"
And the northern lights commenced to glow
And she said, with a tear in her eye
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"

Please stop pontificating.

stop making zappa fans look bad. he's already half hated on here

>cherrypicking

I like and appreciate Zappa, but the dude was out of touch. The Beatles have a lot of artistic integrity and a lot of reasons to like them. Zappa was cynical (he was in literally affair besides his own music), and he thought the Beatles morphing genres to match the times was pandering and driven by lust of money.

And that's the thing with the Beatles. You can be cynical and think they were hacks, and hate them because they are (wrongly) considered the greatest band ever. Or, you can acknowledge that such a bold claim is pointless and appreciate their merits. Your call.

When you have three major talents competing their variety of styles on any output, the result is going to be messy. I'd argue that any post Revolver album is fairly coherent regardless and that is one of the most interesting things about the Beatles.

>posts amazing lyrics
>pretends they are on the same level as shit Beatles lyrics
???????????????????????

Notice how this user makes no engagement to actually criticize the Beatles. He said something about they're fans. When somebody criticizes a fanbase, it's the most obvious and shameful form of projecting.

>I would never like X, those who like X are Y...
>and I would never want to be a Y!

It's pathetic, and shows how insecure this user is. This is sadly the dominant form of rhetoric here on Sup Forums.

Zappa's humor is extremely tiresome. Also, the Beatles had efficient lyricism that got across the point.

SOOO BORING AND DATED

>Their chord progressions and melodies are lazy
What fucking albums did you listen to mate, their chord progressions are the smoothest I've heard save for the beach boys.

But user, Sgt pepper, revolver and rubber soul exist!

>tripfag
Opinion discredited. The Beatles are shit confirmed.

The "Post-Rubber Soul Beatles are the best" are the typical Pet Sounds circlejerk fans on Sup Forums. Though they might not go beyond Smile except maybe that one other album or just for Mike Love shitposting purposes.

>Beatles being famous implies beatles intended to be famous implies beatles were in it for the money

wew

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I think that their music is diverse enough that if anybody dove into their discography with an open mind they'd quickly be able to find plenty to like, unless they truly hate rock or pop.

Personally, early Beatles don't really do anything for me, but I don't understand people who actively hate the Beatles' later albums. Even if you don't like the entire albums, I find it hard to believe that someone could truly hate all of the songs when they managed to have such a diverse sound.

I guess you could do it if you were trying to be as contrarian as possible though, or, again, really disliked the entirety of pop and rock.

>among other genres.
He tried and failed. Not sure what to tell you on that. Perhaps he was jealous of The beatles?
See: lyrics for "Titties and Beer"

Prove it. Where's the famous interview (TV or magazine) that settles it?
I guess providing sources for your claims and valid arguments backfires many times. This is still neo-Sup Forums and it will remain that way.
>Tons, actually. Zappa was ridiculously famous for a long time.
Any proof of this?
>Or, you can acknowledge that such a bold claim is pointless and appreciate their merits. Your call.
The Beatles are the best band ever. Just believe it and stop questioning anything. This doesn't seem reasonable at all, not just in the case of them, but in the case of any band.

neither of the two choices he put up said that the Beatles were the best band ever or that you had to accept them as such.

Please refer to:
Does a man interested in commercial success insult the MTV in an interview? He could've reformed The Mothers of Invention as a hair metal band and cashed in on a growing trend, but he didn't.
>His lyrics are bad.
If you've watched a single interview with him, which contained questions about his music, you would've known that his songs are satirical and are simplistic or ridiculously complex for a reason. Here's an interview in which he's explaining why he made all those ugly songs on The Man from Utopia album:
youtu.be/b-mZjnz7mTo

>Prove it. Where's the famous interview (TV or magazine) that settles it?
Well, zappa is also famous. Wouldn't that logic apply to him as well?
>Any proof of this?
Were you alive in the 80s?

>Please refer to:
Please refer to >Does a man interested in commercial success insult the MTV in an interview?
Does a man interested in commercial success say they are bigger than Jesus?
>His lyrics are bad.
Quote me where i said this?

>He could've reformed The Mothers of Invention as a hair metal band and cashed in on a growing trend, but he didn't
Someone hasn't listened to Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar 3

When did Zappa said he was bigger than Jesus? It's a famous John Lennon quote. I'm still waiting for the famous interview in which they're repulsed by having commercial success.
It's an instrumental album comprised of live guitar solos.

>I'm still waiting for the famous interview in which they're repulsed by having commercial success.
why is this necessary?

No one has been able to refute what I said earlier in the thread, so it's not really relevant.

>I'm still waiting for the famous interview in which they're repulsed by having commercial success.
>why is this necessary?
For someone who's defending Beatles as purists and true artists and not someone who's hungry for success I think it would make sense. While I've provided many examples of Zappa being repulsed by commercial success and dissing and insulting MTV, record companies and the music industry as a whole, I still haven't seen anything remotely similar in the case of Beatles.

you know over the course of this thread I think I've noticed that you might like Frank Zappa

The Beatles RULE and anybody who disagrees with me is a racist Trump supporting Republican so fuck you!

>For someone who's defending Beatles as purists and true artists
Quote me where I said that.
>While I've provided many examples of Zappa being repulsed by commercial success and dissing and insulting MTV
And I've already shown examples of him motivated by money.
>I still haven't seen anything remotely similar in the case of Beatles.
Where have you looked?

Agreed

>Where have you looked?
Clearly not the same place you have, so, please, let's see an interview that settles it once and for all. If your example of Zappa selling out is 3 albums of live guitar solos, I don't know what to say.

Ooops you didn't answer the question.

where have you looked, specifically?

>If your example of Zappa selling out is 3 albums of live guitar solos, I don't know what to say.
probably start with "I didn't read the thread"

And I've already explained and provided proof that every non instrumental song he's ever written was being done ironically.

He was being ironic when he said that