Piero Scaruffi

I discover this man:


Radiohead, the most hyped and probably the most over-rated band of the decade, upped the ante for studio trickery. They had begun as third-rate disciples of the Smiths, and albums such as Pablo Honey (1993) and The Bends (1995) that were cauldrons of Brit-pop cliches. Then OK Computer (1997) happened and the word "chic" took on a new meaning. The album was a masterpiece of faux avantgarde (of pretending to be avantgarde while playing mellow pop music). It was, more properly, a new link in the chain of production artifices that changed the way pop music "sounds": the Beatles' Sgt Pepper, Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon, Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, Michael Jackson's Thriller. Despite the massive doses of magniloquent epos a` la U2 and of facile pathos a` la David Bowie, the album's mannerism led to the same excesses that detracted from late Pink Floyd's albums (lush textures, languid melodies, drowsy chanting). Since thee production aspects of music were beginning to prevail over the music itself, it was just about natural to make them "the" music. The sound of Kid A (2000) had decomposed and absorbed countless new perfumes, like a carcass in the woods. All sounds were processed and mixed, including the vocals. Radiohead moved as close to electronica as possible without actually endorsing it. Radiohead became masters of the artificial, masters of minimizing the emotional content of very complex structures. Amnesiac (2001) replaced "music" with a barrage of semi-mechanical loops, warped instruments and digital noises, while bending Thom Yorke's baritone to a subhuman register and stranding it in the midst of hostile arrangements, sounding more and more like an alienated psychopath. Their limit was that they were more form than content, more "hype" than message, more nothing than everything.

scaruffi.com/vol6/radiohea.html

FAP FAP FAP

Other urls found in this thread:

scaruffi.com/vol5/neutralm.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Alcest's first album Souvenirs D'Un Autre Monde (Prophecy, 2007) turned out to be one of the great shoegazing albums of the time. The protracted crashing solemn agonizing riff Printemps Emeraude is the launching pad for a vocal melody that rises like a religious hymn, which in turn propels the guitar to intone an even more majestic distortion, one of the most uplifting shoegaze anthems of all times.

...

The mystical tones of the opener resurface in the nine-minute La Ou Naissent Les Couleurs Nouvelles, a case of slo-core with burning guitars, a piece that has time to evolve along a dramatic plot, with a burst (or, better, blast) of black metal and a pastoral intermezzo before the incendiary ending; the Stairway to Heaven of shoegazing metal.


Ouh my... thanks

As usual with Bowie, Blackstar (RCA, 2016), produced again by Tony Visconti,, is mostly image and very little about the music. The ten-minute Blackstar, that was supposed to be the centerpiece, is little more than a funereal litany a` la Doors with jazz horns that goes on five minutes too many. Bowie crooning melodramatic in Lazarus (from his Broadway musical about an alien who falls in love) or romantic in Dollar Days is either delirious and pathetic, certainly not entertaining. His tedious voice interferes with the driving jazz jam of 'Tis a Pity She Was a Whore and with the frenzied and tense Sue (a 2014 single). Even when the voice is not a distraction, the rest is hardly intriguing: I Can't Give Everything Away boasts an awful distorted guitar against syncopated beats and layers of electronic drones: not exactly genius. This is trivial "music" that any amateur could make, except that most amateurs would be ashamed to release it.

Bowie died of cancer in january 2016.

Oh, f... y..

About Anathema:

We're Here Because We're Here (Kscope, 2010) dispensed with the lengthy suite and focused on meticulously arranged mid-length songs. The best song is Thin Air, that mixes Pink Floyd-ian languor, existential spleen and King Crimson-ian grandeur. That is not a compliment in 2010. The rest of the album is a parade of tedious ballads like A Simple Mistake that simply constitute background muzak for yuppies, with synthesizer melodies popping up everywhere like confetti and metal riffs raining down on instrumental breaks, and occasionally bordering on new-age sensibility (Angels Walk Among Us) The closing instrumental, Hindsight, is a concentrate of pathetic magniloquence.

I laugh every time I read that last line.

I agree with him 100%. Radiohead is fucking boring

Most over-rated musicians/
Die am meisten ueberbewerteten Musiker/
I musicisti piu` sopravvalutati:
Beatles
Elvis Presley
Prince
David Bowie
U2
(1990s: Radiohead, Pavement, Guided By Voices, Beck, Moby, Aphex Twin)


Well, I agree with U2. I think Queen or Muse too.

I mean, I love the Beatles as much as the next guy, but they are vastly overrated.

I agree with scaruffi that it's annoying that Beatles fans go crazy over a 4 second trumpet solo in a Beatles song, thinking it's the most amazing thing done in pop music yet, but they tend not to care about what Frank Zappa or Pink Floyd were doing at around the same time.

scaruffi has literally never been wrong

To be fair, most Zappa fans masturbate over 4 seconds of a Zappa song and don't care about The Beatles.

Also aside form a one-off album, Pink Floyd didn't get good till after The Beatles broke up anyways.

Why would you fap to things that aren't true?

He was literally wrong in OP's post, for starters

scaruffi.com/vol5/neutralm.html

Scaruffi's notorious Beatles dissection actually persuaded me to finally listen to The Beatles (I know, I'm late). Listening to Abbey Road right now, with an objective mindset, mind you. This shit sounds like it was performed in front of a crowd of toddlers. THIS is what people are crazy about?? I mean, Kesha made catchy and easy tunes, we don't call her legendary now do we??? Fucking retarded music fans out there I swear to god. These are some of the laziest poppy love tunes I've heard ever.

>Listening to Abbey Road right now, with an objective mindset, mind you
How how long have you been studying music theory?

I would 100% agree with this in regards to the Beatles pre-Revolver. Anything the Beatles ever did with merit happened after 1965. They're still overrated af but Abbey Road is a great album

Scaruffi claims, “The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "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”.

Well, Beethoven is probably the most famous classical composer today; and even in his time, he was one of the most influential, successful, and well-known composers in the world.

Scaruffi writes, “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”.

That's not at all the reason why rock critics rank the Beatles as the best. They were very successful, but that's not why they were good, it's the other way around.

Scaruffi, “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”.

A contemporary rock critic who is reviewing the Beatles is reviewing the rock music of the past. And most rock critics tend to appreciate the 50s, 60s, and 70s as the best era for rock. Look at Rolling Stone's "500 greatest albums of all time" list: almost all the albums on the list were from the 60s and 70s. If the Beatles were a contemporary band that's successful, I could see this argument being made (those critics are just following success and don't know the classics of the past)... but the Beatles are the classics of the past.

Scaruffi, “No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved. In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention 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 one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him”.

Again, not true. Rock critics a) tend to prefer the classic stuff to modern music which they rightly deride as trash, and b) when it comes to modern music, they prefer obscure indie bands to the overproduced popular trash. Scaruffi might be looking more toward pop music critics, rather than rock critics... They're guilty of a lot of what he's saying.

The big difference between today and the 60's-70's era is that the bands that were good back then were also the successful bands. Some of the best rock music in history comes from very successful artists from the 60s and 70s: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Don McLean, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Eagles, Iron Butterfly, etc. Today, success and quality often seem to be inversely correlated, as can be seen by the success of Nickelback, Linkin Park, Green Day, and all their ilk.

Scaruffi, “Buddy Holly & The Cricketts invented the modern rock band”

"The Beatles were unique at the time as they were truly a "band." Unlike Buddy Holly "and" The Crickets or Bill Haley "and" His Comets, or Little Richard, Elvis, etc., etc. The Motown groups were singers, not musicians. They sang and danced to choreographed moves. The Beatles were "The Beatles." They wrote their songs (their best songs, IMO were better than their covers), they played their instruments. The Beach Boys had hired session players to play instruments they were supposed to play".

Scaruffi claims, "Love You To" as being vaguely Oriental"

"Nonsense in its application to pop music there was nothing like it. In "Love You To”, we find a genuinely Indian-styled usage of mode, melody, rhythm and instrumentation. Even the form, which otherwise maintains a "neo-classical" boxy rock form preserves the Indian convention of an out-of-tempo improvised slow intro".

What kind of fucking argument is that? Is that all you could think of? I don't even need a music degree to realize their songs consist out of the most basic guitar chords, in such an order to create the easiest listening experience possible. And for that they are named the best rock band to ever exist, pathetic.

Scaruffi claims "The Beatles lucked into folk rock".

The Beatles had a skiffle background which was very folk influenced. This was noticed by musicians like Roger McGuinn

"I had noticed that they were using folk-influenced chords in their music. They used passing chords that were not common in rock’n’roll and pop songs of that time. I remember listening to them, and thinking that the Beatles were using folding chord construction. That comes from their skiffle roots, they will have learned those chords in their skiffle days, and just brought them into their own writing.” Roger McGuinn

Scaruffi writes, "In 1968 Great Britain became infected by the concept album/rock opera bug, mostly realized by Beatles contemporaries: Tommy by the Who, The Village Green Preservation Society by the Kinks, Ogden's Nut Gone Flake by the Small Faces, Odyssey and Oracle by the Zombies, etc (albums that in turn owed something to the loosely-connected song cycles of pop albums such as Frank Sinatra's In The Wee Small Hours (1955), the Byrds' Fifth Dimension, the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds and the Beatles' Sgt Pepper). So, with the usual delay, a year later the Beatles gave it a try".

The concept album bug was highly influenced by the Beatles own Sgt. Pepper of 1967 which was a concept album of tracks linked togehter with artificial sounds. Sgt Pepper structure was unlike Frank Zappa Freak Out or Brian Wilson Pet Sounds. It influenced future concept albums with it's overture, reprise, finale, and the hidden track tacked on the end of the album. The point is the Beatles already went down this road before 1967. Abbey Road is not the first Beatles album to use a song cycle that would be Sgt Pepper. Abbey Road is neither a Rock Opera nor a narrative concept album. What it is a long song cycle in medley form in which the songs are segued into each other? It was also planned also, it should be noted that "You Never Give Me Your Money" was looped with "Sun King" and "Mean Mr. Mustard" were recorded as one song; "Polythene Pam" and "She Came in Through the Bathroom Window" were recorded as one song; and "Golden Slumbers" and "Carry That Weight" were recorded as one song.

>studio trickery

What did he mean by this? That they cannot perform their albums live?

Scaruffi writes, "Hey Jude (august 1968), a long (for the Beatles) jam of psychedelic blues-rock, in reality another historic slow song by McCartney, came out after Traffic's Dear Mr. Fantasy and also after Cream's lengthy live jams had reached peak popularity".

Of course this was not the Beatles first long song they recorded. "Hey Jude" is not even remotely psychedelic in it's sound. There are many other songs by contemporaneous artists which break the three-to-four minute length barrier, though the examples which come immediately to mind use a variety of techniques, none of which is used in "Hey Jude": an extended improvisational break in the middle ("Light My Fire"), the stringing together of several shorter songs, medley-style ("MacArthur Park"), or simply a long series of verse/refrain couples ("Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands").

The Beatles opt here instead for an unusual binary form that combines a fully developed, hymn-like song together with an extended, mantra-like jam on a simple chord progression, and extremely long fade-out. The track is known for it's
two different halves that complement each other,

>What kind of fucking argument is that?
Well you just said you were objectively listening, so I am wondering how much Music Theory you've studied in the past.

Based on your response, I'd say "none".

Scaruffi writes, "Sgt. Pepper is the album of a band that sensed change in the making, and was adapting its style to the taste of the hippies. It came in last (in June), after Velvet Underground & NICO (January), The Doors (also January), the Byrds' Younger Than Yesterday (February), and the Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (February) to signal the end of an era, after others had forever changed the history of rock music".

His statement totally ignores the Beatles albums that were before this like Rubber Soul and Revolver. It also ignores "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Rain" that was singles that were recorded in 1966. Also Sgt structure as a non-narrative concept album influenced many future concept albums. Sgt. Pepper structure with tracks linked togehter with artificial sounds. Sgt Pepper structure also was unlike Frank Zappa Freak Out or Brian Wilson Pet Sounds. It influenced future concept albums with it's overture, reprise, finale, and the hidden track tacked on the end of the album

The Beatles (Rubber Soul) 1965 Brian Wilson cited it as an inspiration for "Pet Sounds." This was where rock became a true art form. They incorporated different time signatures, new instruments, and other musical styles. This album also uses the studio as an instrument before Pet Sounds. "Think for Yourself" and "If I Needed Someone" has guitar tones and vocal harmonies closer to what would be the standard in the psychedelic movement.

The Beatles (Revolver) 1966 Revolutionary in early preoccupation with "psychedelic" effects as a studio instrument, including electronic/tape effects, sound distortion, influence of Indian music, and avant-garde.

The Beatles (Sgt Pepper) 1967 An album psychedelic classic with electronic music, avant music, world music, tape, Art SONG, reversed effects, varied time signatures with the songs that are in which the song are in either song cycle form or songs linked together.

Scaruffi claims, "1967 was the year that FM radio began to play long instrumentals. In Great Britain, it was the year of psychedelia, of the Technicolor Dream, of the UFO Club. The psychedelic singles of Pink Floyd were generating an uproar. Inevitably, the Beatles recorded Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

How ignorant is this comment. With the release of Revolver for example "Tomorrow Never Knows" in 1966 which pre-dates Pink Floyds singles by 9 months. Revolver was certainly important in opening up a commercial market for psychedelic music. It would have happened anyway, but that doesn't change history. Revolver was a very big record for psychedelic music in '66. Classic Rock Radio related to FM radio. The origins of the classic rock radio format can be traced back to The Beatles' groundbreaking album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which would forever change several courses of the rock and roll format, especially with the slow rise of FM broadcasting.

Scaruffi claims, “The Beatles had always been obsessed by the Beach Boys. They had copied their multi-part harmonies, their melodic style and their carefree attitude. Through their entire career, from 1963 to 1968, the Beatles actually followed the Beach Boys”

No one makes music without influence and while the Beatles were influenced by the Beach Boys it was the Beatles who influenced Brian Wilson to write a more serious album.

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys

"Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before".

Piero Scaruffi claims, “The sitar was used somewhere else in rock music”.

I guess he must have meant the Yardbirds "Heart Full of Soul". The Yardbirds hired a sitar player but the track was never finished. George Harrison actually played one on "Norwegian Wood" becoming the first rock guitarist to actually play one a record. George Harrison also would play the tamboura and swarmandal clearly influencing Brian Jones and other to play Indian instruments.

>Based on your response, I'd say "none".
Oh I'm sorry for being such a peasant.

But you mean to say I cannot start listening to a specific music act without any prejudice if I haven't studied Music Theory? That is interesting to say at the least. But yeah, enjoy your worthless degree.

Scaruffi claims, “The White album wraps up with a long jam, more or less avant garde, (Revolution No. 9, co-written by John Lennon and Yoko Ono) two years after everybody else, and three years after the eleven minutes of Goin' Home, by the Stones”.

The Rolling Stones track was recorded in 1966 and it's a blues jam. "Revolution No. 9” is a full blown avant track based on loops, sound samples, and unrelated voice clips. The track was not recorded in real time or nor does it have a melody or rhythm so it can't be considered a jam. The song “Revolution No. 9” was recorded two years later not three years as Scaruffi remarks. The Beatles did record a 14 minute avant track in January of 1967 “Carnival of Light”. Showing again Piero Scaruffi incompetence on the Beatles history. “ Revolution 9"? I have arguments whether the latter is a song or not, but NO ONE, not even Andy Warhol’s Velvet Underground had recorded anything like “Revolution No.9

>Thom Yorke's baritone
What

Scaruffi, “The Beatles were writing simple 3 minute pop ditties".

The Beatles from the start were more complicated then their mentors Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and their friends the Rolling Stones. The Beatles would use Bridge: a song's contrasting section [sometimes called the ‘middle-eight', regardless of the number of actual bars], often beginning in an area other than tonic and usually leading to a dominant retransition. They incorporated classic and world music elements to their songs (which helped the development of prog-rock and baroque pop and art rock. They experimented in the use of rare metric patterns and song structures (which helped the development of prog-rock. Songs like "Norwegian Wood" would include modes like Mixolydiaon and Dorian Modes in one song.‘Love You To’is clearly based on Indian modal practice: the tamboura drones sa and pa (tonic and dominant notes of the mode), the tabla sets forth a sixteen-beat tala (rhythm), the introductory improvisation in the alap follows Indian melodic practice, and as Harrison stated, he was trying to express himself in Hindu terms. This was a new turn for the Beatles and for rock music in general.

Scaruffi claims “The Beatles influence can not be considered musical”

The Beatles ability to marry studio experimentation with a strong pop song structure is such a profound influence that it's taken for granted. I'd say it's their most important contribution. It's the very foundation of how music is still made, so I'd say their influence is very much evident today, even if not everybody knows it. I still say to this day the most prophetic record of the Sixties wasn't "Yesterday" or "Satisfaction" but "Tomorrow Never Knows," which sums up most of where music has gone. Minus the vocals, it's virtually an big beat/techno and modern electronic record that's as much Public Enemy as it is Philip Glass. Today's music is mostly about sound texture and the group that got us thinking about it the most is the Beatles. Some love to dismiss "Sgt. Peppers," and especially "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," but I'll be damned if all that random splicing up of tape and punching it into a song for sound effects can't be found in Kanye West or many hip-hop crews of the last 25 years or so.

Whether we're talking Radiohead, Coldplay, U2, L.A. Reid or Raphel Saadiq, to mention a few, they still mention or show the Beatles' influence. The Smithereens recently covered the entire "Meet the Beatles" album. Phish has performed all of the "White Album" in concert.

>Oh I'm sorry for being such a peasant.
It's OK. I forgive you.
>But you mean to say I cannot start listening to a specific music act without any prejudice if I haven't studied Music Theory?
Remember it was you who made the claim to review it "objectively"m but then gave a subjective analysis
>But yeah, enjoy your worthless degree.
Enjoy your kindergarten-tier musical analysis

Scauffi writes, “In their songs there is no Vietnam, there is no politics, there are no kids rioting in the streets, there is no sexual promiscuity, there are no drugs, there is no violence. In the world of the Beatles the social order of the 40s and the 50s still reigns. Their smiles and their choruses hid the revolution: they concealed the restlessness of an underground movement ready to explode for a someone who wanted to hear nothing about it. They had nothing to say and that's why they didn't say it”.

The Beatles had many songs with a message. "The Word" and "All You Need Is Love" certainly have a strong message. You don't need riots, racism, LBJ, Vietnam, etc-just love. "Taxman" the Beatles are calling out the names of British politicians, and "Revolution" another song calling out politicians. The song "Blackbird" is about the civil rights movement. GET A CLUE a good song is not based on how radical the lyrics are but the Beatles did address some serious issues. Oh it's laughable the Beatles did not write about drugs "She Said She Said" is about an acid trip and "Tomorrow Never Knows" is about the concept of psychedelia.

Wow people actually believe Scruffy's shit? lmao

...

The Beach Boys started the fire: they fused the four-part harmonies of vocals groups like the Four Freshmen with Chuck Berry's rock and roll rhythm and a new genre was born. The Beatles, the Byrds and countless others copied the idea and the history of popular music would never be the same again.


The Beatles have some influences too.

>four-part harmonies
>The Beatles, the Byrds and countless others copied the idea
But The Beatles had three-part harmonies, not four.

>Scaruffi BTFO

I wonder why this guy likes Yo La Tengo so much
one of my favorite groups, but are they really THAT influential?

>GBV
>Pavement
>Aphex Twin
>overrated

it's true but I'm still a tad mad

The greatest American rock critic of all times, Lester Bangs, wrote: "Captain Beefheart is the most important musician to rise in the Sixties, far more significant and far-reaching than the Beatles, who only made pretty collages with material from the public domain, when you get right down to it; as important, as I said, for all music as Ornette Coleman was for jazz ten years ago and Charlie Parker 15 years before that, as important as Leadbelly was for the blues Cap teethed on. His music is a harbinger of tomorrow, but his messages are universal and warm as the hearth of the America we once dreamed of. That's a combination that's hard to beat."

Walk talk about over rating something

>"They were a driving force in the velvets, and made us work harder and got us on our bikes. Rubber soul was where you were forced to deal with them as something other than a flash in the pan. It was rich in ideas and i loved the way george managed to find a way to include all those indian instruments. Lou and i had tried to work with the sarinda. We were only playing it just to get a noise but i realised you could play melody on the sitar as good as Norwegian wood. Norwegian woond had this atmosphere of being very acid. I don't think anybody has ever got that sound or that feeling as well at the Beatles."
-John Cale

>"Sampling has been around since the Beatles they did it all. There is no difference between using tapes and digital machinery."
-Karl Bartos of Kraftwerk

>that 7.5

confirmed better than the beatles

>"When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again"
-Robert Fripp on hearing the Beatles Sgt Pepper

Does anybody have the rest of the newspaper

always took issue w this. he doesn't cite any "musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe"

He's right that beethoven was controversial though, doesn't preclude popularity or influence. Beatles were barely controversial during their time compared to the Stones

>"The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted."
-Bill Bruford, drummer of King Crimson and Yes.

>Revolver remains my favorite because that’s the first one where I felt that they stepped outside the normal four-piece band and started experimenting in the studio. That album introduces a lot of things that are firsts. Things like Indian music and orchestras playing with the band and backwards guitar, a lot of things that I still really love.
>Yes, there is so much in their music that is very avant-garde. Experimental songs, which first began as 20-minute jams, that a prog-rock band might do. I’m thinking of “Helter Skelter”, which I just read was originally a 27-minute jam! They edited that down to a three-and-a-half minute song!
-Adrian Belew, King Crimson

>too much attention to commercial phenomena

Yeah well they all pay to be in the magazines somehow. The music industry is a complete money go round irrespective of talent. This is why Scaraffi is unsuited to be a pop music critic. Its like he's critiquing pokemon powers.

Pop music is for feels and subjective, and to bet be overly analytical about it misses the point

His argument is that the Beatles were successful because of a marketing blitz by EMI, and that this led to critical attention which has led to their cultural inculcation, all of which is true.

>modern music which they rightly deride as trash
you're revealing your own lack of education or research into this topic

"We all studied in conservatories; we were trained musicians. We thought it was a fluke at first, but then we realized Brian was writing these incredible songs. This was not just a young kid writing about high school and surfing."

—Hal Blaine, session drummer

regardless, nothing close to the heights of folk synthesis achieved by Dylan during the same time period, who wrote songs of far greater scope and vision than anything the beatles attempted

>"They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. They were pointing the direction music had to go."
>"They were fantastic singers. Lennon, to this day, it’s hard to find a better singer than Lennon was, or than McCartney was and still is."
>"I’m in awe of McCartney. He’s about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he’s never let up... He’s just so damn effortless."
-Bob Dylan

>“I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before".
Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys

>Can's early rock influences include The Beatles and The Velvet Underground
Unterberger, Richie (1997), An Interview With Holger Czukay, Krautrock.com, retrieved 2010-06-16
> Initially Holger Czukay had little interest in rock music, but this changed, when a student played him The Beatles' 1967 song "I Am the Walrus", a 1967 psychedelic rock single with an unusual musical structure and blasts of AM radio noise.[5] This opened his ears to music by rock experimentalists such as the Velvet Underground and Frank Zappa.
"can - publications". Czukay.de. Retrieved 2011-07-06.

...

>"But times changed, and I changed, and I didn't feel that way anymore. The Beatles were happening. I think that was probably the main thing. The Beatles just changed the whole world of music".
-singer/songwriter Barry McGuire

>They were real important to everybody. They were a little model, especially the movies – the movies were a big turn-on. Just because it was a little model of good times. The Fifties were sure hurting for good times. And the early Sixties were very serious too – Kennedy and everything. And the Beatles were light and having a good time and they were good too, so it was a combination that was very satisfying on the artistic level, which is part of the scene that I was into – the art school thing and all that. The conscious thing of the artistic world, the Beatles were accomplished in all that stuff. It was like saying, “You can be young, you can be far out, and you can still make it.” They were making people happy. That happy thing – that’s the stuff that counts – something that we could all see right away.
- Jerry Garcia

>"The Beatles were why we turned from a jug band into a rock 'n' roll band," said Bob Weir. "What we saw them doing was impossibly attractive. I couldn't think of anything else more worth doing"
-Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead

>"The lift from the Beatles wouldn't have been conscious. Like every other band around at that time, bar none, we were hugely influenced by the Beatles. I'd never heard anything like them. The trick was to let your own voice come through as well."
-Rod Argent, The zombies

shut the fuck up beatlefags, you are so annoying

At least we are not historical revisionists

ITT
>professional musicians fall for hype and marketing campaigns too

How do you know Scruffy didn't fall for Zappa and Beefheart's marketing campaigns?

because they never had marketing campaigns

Wrong.

Stop the presses! A musician claims he was influenced by the most successful and popular band of the era!
So what? Even Elvis Presley influenced millions of people and he was merely a performer.

>So what?
Scruffy literally claimed the opposite. It's an example of him either lying or making an error

when scaruffi says "influential", he actually means "innovative"

He's still making an error, because The Beatles were innovative

He thinks Syro and ICBYD are the best Aphex Twin albums

>"But times changed, and I changed, and I didn't feel that way anymore. The Beatles were happening. I think that was probably the main thing. The Beatles just changed the whole world of music".
-singer/songwriter Barry McGuire

whatever makes you sleep at night, beatlesfag

Not an argument

I disagree about Pink Floyd. I think most of their best work was done in the 60's.

>I think most of their best work was done in the 60's.
Wish You Were Here and Darkside of the Moon was released in the 70s though.

>"So much of their song writing was from an era where songs were truly songs, that's why so many jazz artists have recorded Beatles tunes. Melodies, chord changes, and actual song structure. Because of that their songs will last forever because many of them are not trendy and time period based".
-Jazz musician Brian Bromberg

They're alright, especially Wish You Were Here, but they're not nearly as innovative as their 60's music. They were at their best, in my opinion, when they were still very strongly influenced by Syd Barrett, the real genius of the group. Once they kinda found their own style and became comfortable with that, their music got a bit boring. It is perhaps no coincidence that their best album of that later period was somewhat of an ode to Syd Barrett.

>but they're not nearly as innovative as their 60's music
What was innovative about it?

what was innovative about "dude weed lmao: the album"?

>dude weed lmao: the album
I hope that's not your argument

You're being stupid

dsotm is boring pop garbage, listen to more music

There is so much more boring pop garbage than DSOTM

Listen to more music

Well... take the studio half of Ummagumma for instance. Not only were the experiments there more "out there" than (almost) any rock band at the time, the result was incredibly emotionally powerful. Plus Piper at the Gates of Dawn and A Saucerful of Secrets contained some of the greatest psychedelic music ever made.
It can be a bit difficult to descibe what it is exactly that makes a particular piece of music good, though. In the end you just have to experience it yourself.

>Not only were the experiments there more "out there" than (almost) any rock band at the time
"out there" =/= innovative
>incredibly emotionally powerful.
They were pretty boring and directionless. The songwriting was very poor compositionally
>It can be a bit difficult to descibe what it is exactly that makes a particular piece of music good
If you can't describe it, then it's not true.

>"When I heard "Revolution," "A Long and Winding Road," and "Let it Be" I realized they were the first examples of pop-fusion music. The Beatles fused melodicism and harmony with the spirit of rock and roll. I was writing songs at an early age, so I incorporated this 'fusion' in my compositions. They paved the way for experimentation in the studio—whether it's Lennon doing a vocal track lying on the floor to create a different sound, they just let it be. When I'm in the studio, I keep that spirit of experimentation. Whatever goes!
>I see their body of work mirror the arc of great jazz musicians. Their music changed from song to song and record to record. The Fab Four has inspired me to keep high standards of creativity with every project that I undertake".
-Jazz musician John Beasley

>"out there" =/= innovative
Not if it's done ineffectively, no. It's just that our opinions on the album's effectiveness seem to differ.
>They were pretty boring and directionless. The songwriting was very poor compositionally
To some degree I can agree with it being directionless. The feeling I get from the album is one of total chaos, with no idea where you're going and nothing to hold onto. Which is probably what they were feeling like at the time. It's a very powerful expression of those feelings. Not boring in the slightest.
>If you can't describe it, then it's not true.
What I meant to say is that you can't really define what makes a piece of music good in general. I can quite easily describe what I like about something and what I experience when I listen to it. But, as evidenced by your post, another persons experience could be completely different.

>u can't really define what makes a piece of music good in general
So you misspoke then

I don't think I contradicted what I said earlier. I just clarified it.

Noboby cares about what Scaruffi thinks about shoegaze?

>tfw you realize that Scaruffi never had a deep long boner for dadrock was a 90s kid all along

>I don't think I contradicted what I said earlier
You didn't say Umma Gumma was good? >Noboby cares about what Scaruffi thinks...?
What instrument does he play?

>Beck and Aphex Twin