Honest question

how can you listen to them and not get bored/cringed out of your mind?

Other urls found in this thread:

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1482390647498.webm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because I have taste

same way i can reply to this post and not get bored/cringed out of my mind

if you think the beatles are boring thats one thing but i cant see any of it as cringe.

because sometimes i enjoy mindless pop

>implying the White Album isn't one of the more exciting rock albums of 1968
>implying Revolver isn't fucking mindblowing for '66
>implying the compositions and melodies on With the Beatles aren't unbelievable

>beatles
>mindless

>naming a song "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"
>playing sitars while being a pop british band is the biggest dude weed lmao thing ever
>hey jude

>mindless

they experimented hugely, revolutionized recording techniques and mccartney and harrison were extremely proficient musicians. anything but mindless really

U r cool

>>implying the White Album isn't one of the more exciting rock albums of 1968
harrison's songs make up for everything mccartney shits out. still, full of filler and mind-numbingly boring songs

>>implying Revolver isn't fucking mindblowing for '66
i really don't give a shit when it came out, blonde on blonde came a year before it and still holds up today

>>implying the compositions and melodies on With the Beatles aren't unbelievable
can't stand any of their early work so haven't heard that one in full

Are you just listening to their first album on repeat?

>can't stand any of their early work
Smart man here.

When will this "hey jude is bad" meme die?

>they experimented hugely
how can you sincerely say this when there were musicians like beefheart and zappa back then just to name the most known

u too

nah, i was checking out abbey road, revolver, and sgt peppers to see if i changed my mind at all

sure

being totally honest i've always cringed at the beginning of the song when mccartney starts singing, even before i went on the internet. i don't know, it's so tedious for me.

>how can you sincerely say this when there were musicians like beefheart and zappa back then just to name the most known
Because the idea that one artists' greater experiments automatically negate another's lesser experiments is a legitimately retarded concept to believe.

i'm not saying that exactly, i just wonder how can one say "experimented hugely" when all they really did was elevate pop music a little bit, which wasn't a solely beatles thing.

what i meant was that the actual experimental artists weren't them at all.

>>can't stand any of their early work
>Smart man here
Their first 3 albums were objectively among the best rock and pop albums of the early-1960s.

>Sup Forums listens to the Beatles
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1482390647498.webm

doesn't mean they were actually good.

this encapsulates my feelings

>when all they really did was elevate pop music a little bit

experimentation doesn't just mean switching genres and obvious sound/identity

the beatles tried anything they could think of when it came to song structure, layering harmonies, stereo mixing and sampling, EQ, different ways to record their instruments and countless other shit. their production effort was insane compared to what nearly every other artist at the time was doing

Is OP for real??

Gimmy an example of something enjoyable if you don't like Beatles....?

again, good for them, their actual compositions were dull, bland.

from the era? i don't know, dylan, zappa, can, mingus, davis, sun ra, basically any decent jazz musician, what became the smile sessions, even harrison's solo stuff.

Any era... Pretty much all those artists are one trick ponies.
Beatles have so much work, I don't know how anyone cant find them enjoyable. If you don't like them now, you will one day

>one trick ponies.
nice bait haha

This

Rock and roll, pop, ballads, folk, psychedelic, baroque, straight up rock, they covered it all. Not uncommon to love one album and hate another.

When the fuck did they play folk? Ballads is not a genre, and what the fuck does "straight up rock" even mean?

>When the fuck did they play folk
Norwegian Wood
>what the fuck does "straight up rock" even mean
Helter Skelter

I didn't say ballads is a genre

I knew you were going to mention just one song. God, please tell me you're baiting.

I just gave the first examples that popped in my head, of course there are more

Pointless arguing, either listen to them and see for yourself or save yourself the effort

because i'm not an idiot who thinks music that's old is cringe worthy or boring.

i never said old music, i said beatles

Go to bed you scruffy wop!

Because I started out listening primarily to music from 1900-1960, in addition to classical and folk/march, and worked my way up to modern times.

Really puts it all in perspective.

Because they aren't boring or cringe, just being overrated because of being famous doesn't count.

the beatles could actually write songs unlike zappa and beefheart
which was just musical wankery

>they experimented hugely
Bowie did too, but almost all of his early albums were pop, with the exception of The Man Who Sold The World, until Station to Station.

>Miles Davis
>Mingus
>Zappa
>Sun Ra
>Pretty much all those artists are one trick ponies.
Nice try.

>Using the word wankery as an argument
You sure proved him wrong now. I'm sure that having less and less technical ability on a given instrument made music better. Oh, wait. It didn't. We have time aligned drums, time aligned guitars and auto-tune.

i get that they "experimented" a lot but honestly all their music sounds the same and is boring to me

same

Just what I said. Fucking pleb that guy, thinks people can't distinguish bait from pure stupidity

>haven't heard band's early work
Then why the fuck should we side with your garbage opinion?

"in full"

and why the fuck would you listen to shit like "now shake it up baby now"

Because it is a harmless, fast tempoed pop song which is easy to listen to. Because sometimes good music is just that. Because it isn't some maudlin ballad or some contrarian composition. This is how normal people function, they're busy enjoying life instead of garnering some imaginary credibility by shitting on pop music.

How about this? Some people don't enjoy pop music and therefore don't go out of their way to listen to it. And not everyone is interested in collecting internet points on a Chinese cartoon image board.

you are

just like every middle to upper class white kid from 5-20

that isn't saying much. In the early 60s almost all rock music was really lame

oh sorry, I meant to say trivial.

>it is better to be mediocre at a bunch of different things than be extremely good at one thing

also, citation needed.

>music to complicated for you to understand
>must be wankery

Great response...

>all this masturbation in the comments
>unnhhh yeah the Beatles were so overrated
>mmmnhhhnnn just watch me list all the artists *I* know were more influential, prolific and talented
>nnnggguhhggg McCartney actually didn't have a good singing voice

Like fuck I get that the absolute worst thing you can do here is be a pleb but the other end of the spectrum is this thread where a bunch of anons stand around and jerk off about how mediocre the Beatles sound to their discerning, tasteful ears

Literally this. OP, are you autistic by any chance?