I don't get it

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OPsL6dECQ38
stylusmagazine.com/articles/staff_top_10/top-ten-filler-tracks.htm
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>I don't get pop music

>tommorow never knows is ''pop''

Just turn off your mind relax and float downstream........

a bit more abrassive pop than your regular beatles song, but it's still pop

There's nothing to get, it's just Rubber Soul with higher peaks but less consistency

it's not even melodic and thus cannot be pop

It is psychedelic pop, yes.

it's supposed to really make you think

What do you think "melodic" means?

damn, really makes me think

there are melodic portions but thats besides the point

the song is built around one chord. most popular music is 3 or 4

You didn't answer my question. I think you're using the wrong word for the idea you want to express.
Chords fall under harmony. Something can have 1 chord or 20 chords and still be melodic.

yeah i know, im not the original user you're referring to, im just pointing out that its not a typical pop song beyond its structure

I deffinitely agree that it's not a typical pop song, if your bar for a typical pop song is whatever is standard in the top 40. It is very much a pop song though.

i don't understand why this triggers beatlesfags so much. the beatles wrote amazing pop songs, some of the best of all time.

>what is death grips

The only album I consider a 10/10.

>ignoring Side B

Rubber Soul is too folksy, Revolver tends more towards psychedelia.

It's a great album, probably my favorite Beatles album. But it makes more sense within a larger context. It's an incredibly refined version (bordering on experimental) of their older music, and they're basically reaching the limits of what could be considered pop music.

>not getting The Beatles
What the fuck. Just stop listening music all together, you imbecile philistine

I personally feel the two albums are just two sides of the same coin but I agree that they are the band reaching the limits of their style

I just feel like generally I'm more in the mood for the highlights of Rubber Soul over Revolver...like, where is there a song on Revolver as good as You Won't See Me or I'm Looking Through You...Revolver has good moments but it's like taking an album of fantastic demos showing off songwriter (Rubber Soul) and then adding a bunch of distortion to it (Revolver)

Both classics though, but Revolver has some duds whereas Rubber Soul's worst track is still fun

Oh yeah, definitely they're two sides of the same coin, they've said it themselves. Rubber Soul is far more Lennon-y (though the highlights go to Harrison and McCartney) to Revolver which feels like it has far more influence of Harrison and McCartney, and it's more electric rather than acoustic.

But yeah, probably their highlights. Maybe tied with Abbey Road for that album's peaks being some of their greatest, but quality as a whole goes to both.

Also, the only Beatles song to rival "For No One" in melancholic feels is "You Won't See Me".

Yeah, my main problem with Beatles fans on this board is their support of Sgt. Pepper's and relatively rare mentions of Rubber Soul, anyone who listens to their discography in order can hear they jumped the shark after Revolver and ran out of ideas for a few years before going out on one final relatively cohesive note with Abbey Road

Rubber Soul is great and if we're talking about the music they made that was actually influential in a good way, Rubber Soul wins by a landslide

hinges on a particular discernible progression of notes

so this is shitrating

Not really, it's just being honest, it's not unique to The Beatles...the low ratings for their early stuff is pretty normal for that era's pop music in general...like, even though the 60's has many of my all-time favorite albums, because the early 60's were so weak, my average for the decade is significantly lower than the others...pretty much all the others are above average

There's plenty of vocal melody. The Beatles were a pop band. It's a pop song.

the early 60's were great, bands were bands, they didn't just get high and fart around in a studio, they just played good songs

I guess if you're into the same two minute song played twelve times, then yeah, the early 60's is amazing

Next you're going to tell me the early Beach Boys albums were good

I guess if you can only discern one song from another through them featuring a string quartet or a sitar then they probably do all sound the same

I should mention I do like stuff from the early 60's but not really rock/pop, I mean that was more of a folk revival era anyway

But hey, Bob Dylan is my all-time favorite artist and I still rate an early album like his s/t poorly because I can be honest about that stuff...you don't have to just rate things highly because everyone else does

pop means popular music you fucking pleb. It's not classical music or traditional folk music, therefore it is popular music.

God dammit Sup Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=OPsL6dECQ38

We're talking about an era where popular artists could literally just have the same backing track with different lyrics on multiple songs on the album and it was normal

Maybe we have a different idea of what the early 60's, but please try to actually provide some examples of this music you cherish so much

What are these great bands from 1960-1964 that were playing rock/pop?

The Sonics
The Rolling Stones
The Kingsmen

its rock

Sonics are good but 1965, Rolling Stones pre-65 are garbage and really they are mostly mediocre until 1968...Kingsmen I've never listened to a full album, always took them as a one-hit wonder but I might check 'em out...thanks for making my case for me anyway

Sonics released their first and best song in 1964, the Stones were always great, Kingsmen invented the garage rock template with Louie Louie

Album rockism forgets that before 1967 rock wasn't built on albums, look for the singles

>ike, where is there a song on Revolver as good as You Won't See Me or I'm Looking Through You.

you are a fucking pleb, holy fuck

You don't judge the music on a compositional level?
>anyone who listens to their discography in order can hear they jumped the shark after Revolver and ran out of ideas for a few years before going out on one final relatively cohesive note with Abbey Road
They literally had more than 30 songs written for one album in 1968 are you deaf?

Fair enough, but the singles aren't that good either, at least not nearly as good as singles from other genres, you know.

The early 60's for other genres was putting out stuff like

>Sam Cooke
>James Brown
>Bob Dylan
>Iannis Xenakis
>John Cage
>Reverend Gary Davis
>Krzysztof Penderecki
>Sun Ra
>Charles Mingus
>Howlin' Wolf
>John Fahey
>Sandy Bull
>Bukka White
>Phil Ochs
>Tom Paxton

You Really Got Me, She Loves You and Louie Louie just don't cut it in comparison

Whatever helps you sleep at night

Filler are not "songs"

>Filler
What was filler on White album?
>are not "songs"
>only I decide what is an actual song or not
Nope

>Whatever helps you sleep at night

first tell me why you won't see me and i'm looking through you are highpoints?
two simple bad songs, bad lyrics, both just in one key(d major and fucking g major) with 6 chords

>both just in one key(d major and fucking g major) with 6 chords
Not him but why is this bad?
>bad lyrics
What's bad about the lyrics?

Well, in the case of Beatles, I usually use the word filler in the sense of completely uninteresting retreading of old ground...apart from some McCartney ballads and comical songs that are guilty pleasures, the only three good songs on the entire White Album are Gently Weeps, Do it on the Road and Helter Skelter, but Sgt. Pepper's is entirely filler

Is it true that 1965 was music's most revolutionary year?

>Not him but why is this bad?
both revolver and rubber have more complex and better songs, if you listen to music long enough you start getting tired of these shitty pop songs
>What's bad about the lyrics?
They are love songs for god's sake

The White Album is easily 30-40% filler. If they had condensed it down to a single album, it would have been their best release. Instead, we got the meandering, bloated mess that inspired Charles Manson and his Family to murder movie stars and old married couples.

derp

>I usually use the word filler in the sense of completely uninteresting retreading of old groun
Oh you made up your own definition based on your lack of musical intelligence? Not wise. You should have just said "songs I don't like"
>Do it on the Road and Helter Skelter, but Sgt. Pepper's is entirely filler
What's wrong with, say, Strawberry Fields Forever or A Day In The Life?
>complex
complex =/= better
>if you listen to music long enough you start getting tired of these shitty pop songs
Oh how long have you been studying music theory? Please use theory to tell us why they are shitty songs?
>They are love songs for god's sake
What's wrong with that? have you ever been in love?
>The White Album is easily 30-40% filler
How so? All the songs (except one or two) were written in advance.

I probably just listened to Strawberry Fields too much as a kid though it's not on either of those albums anyway, A Day in the Life is alright, but I can just listen to Admiral Halsey for that, Ram is a much better album than Sgt. Pepper's

It's definitely more of a passage year. Everything before that is mostly straightforward pop, rock or blues music. From late 1965 onwards, they really started experimenting and refining their own craft. It's when the notion of popular music as art starts appearing. Is it the most revolutionary year? Probably not. But it's probably one of the years that really marks the divide between pop music as a product and pop music as art.

>complex =/= better
most times a complex song is more interesting, captivating, intellectually stimulating and simply better than a 6 chords pop song, just listen to classical music
>Oh how long have you been studying music theory? Please use theory to tell us why they are shitty songs?
6 years, they are shitty songs beacause they consist of 6 chords during 4 minutes
>What's wrong with that? have you ever been in love?
"And I'm tired of all this talk about love
And the same old story with a new set of words"

Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da
Wild Honey Pie
Bungalow Bill
Piggies
Rocky Raccoon
Don't Pass Me By
Yer Blues
Mother Nature's Son
Honey Pie
Cry Baby Cry
Good Night

All filler.

Rocky racoons, cry baby cry, and mother nature's son might be filler but they're good

>I probably just listened to Strawberry Fields too much as a kid
The song hasn't changed; your listening skills have
>it's not on either of those albums anyway,
It's a song that dates inbetween Revolver and Abbey Road, which was the sample size
>A Day in the Life is alright, but I can just listen to Admiral Halsey for that, Ram is a much better album than Sgt. Pepper's
Can you offer any analysis beyond "I like this" or "I don't like this"? It's not useful
>most times a complex song is ____
How so? This can exist in simple songs as well.
>6 years
Ah! Then chart out the songs and show us how they are shitty
>"And I'm tired of all this talk about love
>And the same old story with a new set of words"
Oooops you didn't answer my question! Try again.
>All filler.
How so? They were all written in advance for this project, except Wild Honey Pie (which was a link track).

Who cares when they were written? They're weak songs. All they do is take up space on a bloated double album.

>How so?
if you can't understand how a complex song is more interesting, captivating, intellectually stimulating and simply better than a 6 chords pop song I feel bad for you
>This can exist in simple songs as well
show me one simple 6 chords song that is interesting, captivating, intellectually stimulating and better than ride of the valkyries
>Then chart out the songs and show us how they are shitty
I'm not doing this for a pleb
>Oooops you didn't answer my question! Try again.
fuck you

Ride of the Valkyries
Every time I hear that song, all I can think is, "I just love the smell of napalm is the morning. Smells like...........victory."

t. bitter cunt

>Who cares when they were written?
Oh you don't know what filler is?
>They're weak songs
What's weak about them?
>if you can't understand how a complex song is more interesting, captivating, intellectually stimulating and simply better than a 6 chords pop song I feel bad for you
Ooops you didn't answer the question. Try again.
>show me one simple 6 chords song that is interesting, captivating, intellectually stimulating and better than ride of the valkyries
La Novia
>I'm not doing this for a pleb
Oh so then you'll do it for me. Go ahead I'm waiting.
>fuck you
Ah, so you've never been in love?

I think it's you that doesn't know what filler is, my young, pleb friend.

>oops you didn't answer the question. Try again.
would you answer a pleb?
>La Novia
wrong answer
>Oh so then you'll do it for me. Go ahead I'm waiting.
no
>Ah, so you've never been in love?
fuck you

>I think it's you that doesn't know what filler is
Material written at the last minute to pad--or "fill"--out an album to completion.
These are pretty non-arguments for a "patrician" such as yourself. Kinda makes you wonder.

No wonder no one loves you

you're trying to hard plebus maximus, stop projecting this hard

Not an argument.

Try again or stop posting

stylusmagazine.com/articles/staff_top_10/top-ten-filler-tracks.htm

1. “Wild Honey Pie”- The Beatles- The Beatles

One of the most famous half-songs in history (simply for its inclusion on a Beatles album), the one-minute rant “Wild Honey Pie” was left on The White Album simply because George Harrison’s girl Patti liked it so much. Well, god bless you, Patti, because by no other logic (and on no other album) would this song have made the cut. It’s just 60 seconds of The Beatles shouting “HONEY PIIIIIEEEE!” at the top of their lungs over some painfully discordant guitar. But have you ever tried getting together with a group of friends and tried singing along to this piece of insanity? It’s an unparalleled experience, really. The White Album pioneered for the next 35 years the way bands would use filler to pad their albums, using half-baked ideas and songs that well, must’ve sounded good at the time instead of just lesser recreations of the good songs on the album. And there is no better example of this than “Wild Honey Pie,” the greatest piece of filler to ever clutter an over-ambitious double album.

See also: "Piggies", "Why Don’t We Do it in the Road", "Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey", "Yer Blues", "Martha My Dear", "Revolution 9", "Savoy Truffle", "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill"

>stylusmagazine
lol

Remember:
filler =/= "songs I don't like"

I googled "filler songs" and The White Album popped up as the first example. Imagine that.

>Imagine an abundance of people not know what filler is
Wow it's as if stupid people exist!

I always laugh at plebs trying to sound smart, hahaha

>everyone is wrong except for me

Well that article posted literally has a jou8rnalistic error. can you spot it? I doubt you can.

The definition of filler is here Almost every song on The White Album was composed in advance for the project. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. There's no filler on the album.
I would avoid reading your own posts then.

>I would avoid reading your own posts then.
prove I'm a pleb

You didn't chart out any song requested, and couldn't use any music theory terminology explain your position

>I googled "filler songs" and The White Album popped up as the first example
I did the same and didn't find any mentions of The White Album

I thought we were talking about rock.

>You didn't chart out any song requested
If you were a patrician like me you would know the places in the internet where you can find those songs charted. I don't have time to chart songs for Sup Forums kids.
>couldn't use any music theory terminology explain your position
I wrote that they are shitty songs beacause they consist of 6 chords during 4 minutes, are you illiterate?

>dat damage control