Are the Beatles really the greatest band of all time

Are the Beatles really the greatest band of all time

New to music here (never heard a Beatles song as well) but they're #1 in every ranking

What do you guys think?

Fucking newfag

Good but severely overrated.
Band wagon jumpers

>never heard a Beatles song as well

Couldn't you think of a better bait to post?

>New to music here (never heard a Beatles song as well) but they're #1 in every ranking
read better rankings then

:^)

HAN SOLO DIES

I guess the real question I wanted to ask was who is or what are some of the GOAT bands

Never liked the Beatles myself so I'm just wondering what actual favorites are.

When I was looking for some old albums to listen to I realized all the highly rated by critics are all British rock bands and 60s and 70s artists

What I'm wondering is who will be number #1 once the boomer gen dies and critics from other gens pick out their favorites

SPOILERS DELETE THIS

TFA was garbage. Only RLMfags thought it was good

The Beatles were a solid pop group with a good ear for melody and an ability to flawlessly incorporate then-popular trends into their music. They made a lot of innovations accessible to normies, and as a result have come to symbolize the ultimate '60s band to them, often being credited for innovations they simply popularized (rather than creating).

Piedo Memeruffy actually makes some good points about this in his infamous hatefic, but it's difficult to comb through his contrarianism and butthurt.

CARRIE FISHER DIES

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.

This is a popular copypasta on Sup Forums

It was written by what you on Sup Forums would call a "cunnybro" IRL

>Dying from a broken heart
Literal pottery. How the fuck did he do it

>Never liked the Beatles myself
>never heard a Beatles song as well
really makes you think

Bait or not I'm serious.

I'm looking for a new hobby since T-Mobile posting is permabanned on Sup Forums

So baiting mu is your new hobby?

I hated Beatles fans so much I refused to listen to their music.

Beach Boys were always my favorite and what I was introduced to first.

When I first came to Sup Forums years ago I saw other people who also agreed they were overrated so I never bothered and don't really want to

Based pasta

...

LOL

whoever made this is a genius and I own them a beer

You only need to listen to The Beach Boys, The Beatles are overrated garbage.

The Beatles were super important to the evolution of pop music and probably the most influential band ever. As for their actual music, I love it, but that's more a personal preference thing and I can see how someone might not enjoy it or get some kind of Seinfeld isn't Funny Syndrome thing happening.

>judging bands based on fans
That's a shitty thing to do and not representative of bands as such, really.

>and don't really want to
But why? All the people that rank them at #1 do it with reason. Try listening to their famous 4-album-streak a few times and you'll probably be amazed (especially since you like Beach Boys which means you like 60's music).

Not every band is for every person and everyone has a different taste but people that shit on Beatles on this board or on the Internet in general are simply idiotic and try to be cool. There simply isn't a person in this world who doesn't like at least one Beatles song.

And Sup Forums generally loves Beatles, I don't know where you found that people agreed on them being overrated. I mean, there are idiots in every thread, but what can you do, eh?

Brian "By New Years 2017 I'll be Dyin" Wilson is better

Goat band desu

Sup Forums is just jealous their favorite band isn't as famous

this is how the average person that hates Beatles looks like

Why were you banned from Sup Forums exactly?

The Beatles really deserved the fame, I mean it's hard to make music that lasts that long and is so perfect in harmony/complexity (you can thank George Martin for that, he is probably even better than Phil Spector or Brian). But even the simple stuff sounds great. Please Please Me is one of my favorite albums because it's so simple and catchy but has enough differences to stick to you.

If you genuinely haven't heard anything from the Beatles just get a copy of the Past Masters collection and hear a few tracks for yourself, then maybe listen to whole albums if you like it. Which is hard not to, because they made music usually objectively good. It didn't matter if you hated the lyrics, the look, or the fans. The music was made to please your ears. I personally think that's why a lot of people believe there were many different Beatles as time went on, because it's hard for the same 4 people to make such different music 24/7 and they all looked so different thorough the years, maybe it was just the drugs?

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.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

This
and CHECK'D

The music business only picked up because there was money involved. If record labels didn't jump unto blues in the 50's and 60's who knows what the fuck music would be (implying it's either really good or really bad). But commercial success will always dictate who is the best because it shows to these companies "this is what people want to hear, this is what they are willing to pay for" and they will continue to generate stars and capitalize on the next big trend.

The world revolves around money, and until that changes this just won't happen. Music won't be appreciated universally or really any craft without commercial success until something big changes.

They're 4/10 in terms of lyricism and technical skill tbqh. Aesthetically and historically they're easily an 8/10. Listen to them if you *really* want to. If not see pic related.

Fuck I hope not

One more in him

...

Very /fa/

Mod permabanned all mobile phone posters with dynamic IPs such as T-Mobile networks because of cuck and cunny spam