Why are they widely considered to be the greatest band of all time?

Why are they widely considered to be the greatest band of all time?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7UjvdZm-Tu8
youtube.com/watch?v=4Vm7lQ3EheY
factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

THE

Because they made Tomorrow Never Knows in the fucking mid-sixties

People feel that they are supposed to like the Beatles even if they have never heard them. Entry level pleb shit. They were average at best but people with no musical knowledge feel that they have to say they are the greatest because they have heard so many other plebs say that. It's pathetic. The Beach Boys & The Band are the only true great groups.

What's it like never having sex?

xD

@71838495
>I only know Yellow Submarine and Hey Jude: the post

I'm in my thirties and have had no problems with my love life.

this is sure to be a great thread full of original ideas

why do all their albums have so much filler? makes it difficult to get into them to be honest

come on man i know you think its cool to disagree with the majority, but the beatles kill both of those bands, hell brian even went insane trying to copy the beatles

Because they invented heavy metal, punk, rap, prog rock, indie and whatever Foster The people are

>copy George Martin

ftfy

I don't think it's cool. I have no hatred for the Beatles but I only consider them an average pop band. Brian Wilson is a world away in levels of talent from the whole of the Beatles. The Band are one of the most musically gifted groups of all time, the Beatles not so much. A few catchy tunes and an annoying fanbase does not make a classic band.

Because Ringo is a pussy slayer

if you listen to the early 'Real Love' Demo tapes by John Lennon, the part where he sings "why must we be alone?" then you'll understand. Real Love, in general. is the best song ever written by a former beatle.

>so much filler
Bit of an exaggeration tbqh. Let's take a look at the filler starting from Rubber Soul:

>Rubber Soul
none
>Revolver
Yellow Submarine
>Sgt Pepper's
When I'm Sixty Four, Good Morning Good Morning
>MMT
Hello Goodbye (I guess)
>White Album
Okay granted there is a fuckton of filler here
>Abbey Road
Maxwell's Silver Hammer, (maybe) Oh! Darling

Their most critically acclaimed era (i.e. the streak of albums I just listed) contains very consistent albums in my opinion. The White Album is the only one with excessive filler.

looks

...

>averagepop band
>A few catchy tunes
I get the impression you've not actually delved fully into their material. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. But they were definitely more than simply pop. Did you know for example they arguably invented heavy metal and doom metal, played some pretty heavy psych/acid rock, made trippy experimental stuff like Tomorrow Never Knows? They even put an 8 and a half minute long avant garde sound collage on one of their albums. The most commercially successful band of all time exposing their fans to that...

It's just nonsensical to call them an average pop band. Even ignoring the stuff I just mentioned and focusing solely on their pop stuff, they pushed boundaries even within that section of their discography. The first use of the sitar in a western pop song, the first intentional use of feedback, experimentation with time signatures, and as Dylan put it, chords which were "outrageous, just outrageous".

If I'm right and you haven't properly delved into their post-Rubber Soul albums, don't waste any more time. If you genuinely know all their albums well and hold that opinion, I don't even know what to say. But whatever, I know not everyone can love every band.

Just one filler on Revolver?

Good Day Sunshine
even worse than Yellow Submarine

Doctor Robert
a tuneless nothing of a song

Got To Get You into My Life
dude weed lol. tacky horn arrangements.

>arguably invited heavy metal and doom metal
Redditors get out and listen to Street Singer by Clear Light from 1967!

>made trippy experimental stuff like Tomorrow Never Knows?
Frank Zappa made tippy experimental stuff like Help! I'm A Rock.

>They even put an 8 and a half minute long avant garde sound collage on one of their albums.
Frank Zappa put a 20 minute long avant garde sound collage in one of their albums before The Beatles did.

The most commercially successful band of all time exposing their fans to that...

>The first use of the sitar in a western pop song
An idea they copied from The Kinks (Yeah, they didn't use a real sitar, but the sound was roughly the same).

>the first intentional use of feedback
Frank Zappa did it first.

>experimentation with time signatures
I take it you don't listen to classical music.
Also, Zappa did it earlier.

>and as Dylan put it, chords which were "outrageous, just outrageous".
That's fair.

Plebeian: The Post

He's right, you know?

well sound collage comes from modern classical, it wasn't anything new even in the 50s

cavemans bashing rocks together and listening to the sounds of birds and water were doing "free improv" and "musique concrete" before anyone. meh

Zappa and Beefheart didn't have an audience that included hordes of stupid screaming teenage girls and old folks. That's what makes their experimenting (in terms of pop) radical, they crossed demographics with it.

*the Beatles' experimenting, I mean

I attribute it to being agreeable. They were pretty popular for the time, and frankly it's probably nostalgia goggles. Parents liked it in the era, told their kids about it, kids hadn't really heard anything before it, so it became the standard for quality music. That goes for a great deal of the GOAT bands. Same thing but I grew up on Queen, Kansas, Boston, Journey and a lot of late-era classic rock. That's just theory though.

>

This guy gets it.

My taste is rather good.

The other guy isn't isn't arguing that Beatles did these things first (except for the intentional feedback part, which may or may not be true), but that they weren't your average pop band which the other guy claimed they were. You bringing in comparisons to Frank Zappa actually strengthens his point because while Zappa wasn't an unknown, he was considered pretty avant-garde and edgy.

Stones > Beatles

>Redditors get out and listen to Street Singer by Clear Light from 1967!
Ticket To Ride planted the seeds for heavy metal and that was recorded 2 years before Street Singer. Helter Skelter is also heavier anyway. Interesting that you didn't have an answer for the doom metal part though. But that's besides the point anyway, whether they invented heavy metal or not is really a sidenote, the point is that is clearly not pop music either way. And you called them an average pop band.


>Frank Zappa made tippy experimental stuff like Help! I'm A Rock.
And? I don't care. Did I say they were the first or only to make trippy experimental stuff? No. I simply pointed out that they did make it, once again proving they are not an average pop band.

>Frank Zappa put a 20 minute long avant garde sound collage in one of their albums before The Beatles did.
See above

>An idea they copied from The Kinks (Yeah, they didn't use a real sitar, but the sound was roughly the same).
Thanks for literally proving my point

>Frank Zappa did it first.
>Also, Zappa did it earlier.
Zappa Zappa Zappa. Your argument seems to be "Zappa did x first so The Beatles were an average pop band for not getting there first". Makes no sense.

Plagiarists that were obsessed with appearing edgy to hide the fact that they were an average pop band. Riding on the coattails of every fad.

In addendum, the Beatles were marketed to be successful. They were unique, had a great pop sound, they were lighthearted for the most part and fun to listen to and the end result was a lot of people really digging on the sound. Especially in America, Americans are suckers for British boys, always have been. I can't fucking stand the Beatles and think they're the most overrated garbage I've ever heard, but I can understand why so many people like them.

Riding the coat tails or standing on the backs of giants?

>My taste is rather good

You poor thing.

I'm only saying the Beatles were not the firsts like the other user was implying.

He also said they invented heavy metal and the rest is implied by his post that they were the firsts at those as well.

If ticket to ride is anywhere near metal (lol) you might as well claim The Witch by The Sonics to be a better and earlier precursor.
Helter-skelter is not metal. It's hard rock and garage rock.
I'm not the one who called them a pop band.

You fucking idiot, I'm not the person you originally replied to. I'm arguing against you claiming they did some things first when it's clearly not the case.

>@

They are certainly the best band that everybody's heard of

>hell brian even went insane trying to copy the beatles

Literally not what happened. He went "insane" because he wasn't mentally stable to begin with, had a terrible childhood, was dealing with immense commercial pressure and familial pressure, and on top of all of that, did a little too many drugs.

The Beatles having anything to do with his breakdown is one of rock history's greatest red herrings. It's a load of complete shit.

Wait I'm curious, how did the Beatles invent doom? Really want to hear that.

They were so heavily marketed and managed that it is pathetic. A novelty boyband that made average music and had moderate wit. A cash cow with a few good songs but mostly embarrassing filler trash. A cycnical marketing ploy to sell records to Americans.

>The Beach Boys & The Band are the only true great groups.

lol.

Why should I trust some random 15 year old on Sup Forums over widely published information?
SPLHCB was obviously part of his break with reality.

This guy gets it. The Stones were better at that time than the Beatles, plus they had longevity as they made good shit into the 70s and early 80s.

Someone post the pasta

>i wunna do a sgt ppr album like the beetles!
>it will be the gretest rock album evar!
>oh wait i already used all my talent on pet sounds
>insanity ensures

its what happened mate

This is simply not true and as the other user states, is a myth pushed by the media.

>They were so heavily marketed
Only pre-1965. Sure, they started out as a well marketed boy band singing sugary sweet love songs. But then they stopped touring to become a more serious band, and went on to create a string of albums now among the most critically acclaimed in history. How anyone can call them a boy band post-1965 is beyond belief. Do One Direction play hard rock, psychedelia, blues rock, or avant garde art pop?

Their early boy band status allowed them the platform to experiment heavily and not have to worry about sales. They had absolutely huge creative freedom towards the end, because they earned it. The band who released the White Album and Abbey Road were far from "marketed". They even regularly went against their record label and ignored attempted interventions.

They didn't, Clear Light did.

How gullible.
Who would have thought about it anyways? That Beatles fans would fall for marketing schemes?

>>the first intentional use of feedback
>Frank Zappa did it first.

Did he? When? I consider myself a fan of Zappa but I never knew this. I didn't even realize he recorded very much before '65.

I assume he means I Want You (She's So Heavy). I've heard it described as doom metal once or twice on here.

You are clearly a zealot that would defend the stink of Ringo's shit, but you are deluded and the hype machine has clearly worked on you. It's not your fault, it was a very convincing marketing campaign. Learn some musical history, broaden your horizons from meme bands and grow the fuck up!

I feel so bad for you. You're stuck in your edgy phase. You'll make it through hopefully.

>not actually responding to any of his points
truly epic

Whereas you are still stuck in the musical infancy phase. Don't worry, you'll find some good bands to like soon. Bands that are actually good and not ones that you are told you MUST like.

Literally not what happened. Read a book, revisionist.

>everybody else is just following the crowd but my equally common opinion is correct

>Do One Direction play hard rock, psychedelia, blues rock, or avant garde art pop?
Literally all 60's groups were doing this, most of them doing it much much better.

I don't even listen to the Beatles lmao.

Not him but for me it was the opposite. I used to be an edgelord who called The Beatles a boy band for old people, although I only actually knew Hey Jude, All You Need Is Love, Yellow Submarine, and the like. I finally listened to Abbey Road one day wanting to dislike it in an attempt to prove my point, but came out hugely impressed. Then I moved on to their other albums like Revolver and MMT and found them to be even better.

I don't even listen to the Beatles lmao. I didn't reply to you because I'm high as fuck. Dude

>The Beatles were just a well marketed boy band
>The Beatles played hard rock and psychedelia like literally all 60s groups
Make your mind up. Are they a boy band or not?

I have listened to their albums ad nauseum. I am not a teenager. They are not my cup of tea and I find them very average. Not one song of theirs has taken my breath away or made me reconsider my opinion that they are a well marketed boyband.

how does it feel to be 15?

youtube.com/watch?v=7UjvdZm-Tu8
>this kills the scaruffi drone

Boybands can play any style of music you retarded cunt

He even has musique concrete recordings dating back to 1963.

>well marketed boybands would release songs like Revolution 9 or Tomorrow Never Knows
Yeah, I don't believe you've listened to their albums ad nauseum for one minute. Lying on a Mongolian watercolour enthusiast imageboard is pretty sad, user.

>tfw Beatles are one of my favorite bands ever but I don't think they were even the top 5 bands of the 60s
Who else plebtrician here?

But those aren't great songs. Just fluff and you are blind to their mediocrity because you are a Beatles fan. The worst kind of fan just behind an Everton or Liverpool fan.

>when you realize the beatles were actually patrician

That's sweet! I wasn't aware. I knew he composed stuff in high school for a movie, but I didn't know that. When did he use feedback though? Cuz I'm mad curious and I can't find anything.

Cucamonga (or something like that was called, an archival album).

TMK is a sublime song in my opinion. But that wasn't my point anyway, I never said they were great songs. I actually think Rev 9 is dogshit. My point was that no well marketed boyband would be allowed such weird music. If they were some sculpted boyband on a record label's leash, carefully crafted only to wet the panties of teenage girls, do you really think they would be permitted to release avant garde sound collages or a song like TMK which was was as far from pop as you could get when it was released.

That was all part of the campaign! To attract the edgy music students and 'non-squares'. Jesus.

Good mental gymnastics, user. They were a cutesy boyband playing average pop, now they were an edgy artsy band playing avant stuff for music students. Simultaneously, apparently.

Well how long have you been studying music theory?

Fucking hell, a Beatles song on JewTube. Truly a miracle.

I wasn't around during their prime, so I'm not really a firsthand source but to my understanding that's the case, it seems like they were positively paraded around by managers and what have you, but I don't actually know a whole lot about them, I'll be the first to admit

>They were so heavily marketed and managed that it is pathetic.
>A cycnical marketing ploy to sell records to Americans.
What 60s band wasn't?

Not a reasonable critique

No idea but some of their songwriting melodies are mindblowing.

youtube.com/watch?v=4Vm7lQ3EheY

They began as such, but became really quite independent after not so long. They literally chose to stop playing live permanently, despite filling stadiums with ease previously. You really think managers and record labels would be happy with that? They made a conscious decision to leave behind the massive cash cow that was Beatlemania and concentrate instead on studio mastery and experimentation. There was an attempt by a businessman to reunite them post-breakup for a huge fee on the condition that they played live, but he was unsuccessful. I wouldn't say they were paraded around by anyone but themselves in the second half of their career.

>Frank Zappa made tippy experimental stuff like Help! I'm A Rock.
Was Zappa a Pop Artist though?
>Frank Zappa put a 20 minute long avant garde sound collage in one of their albums before The Beatles did.
Not originally
>An idea they copied from The Kinks
Oh were they on the Help! movie set? Not really.
> (Yeah, they didn't use a real sitar,
Then it's not relevant
>Frank Zappa did it first.
In 1963? Got a citation?
>I take it you don't listen to classical music.
But we are discussing pop music. Nice goalpost shifting though

Yes

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

It is relevant. It was a raga rock song.

Cucamonga

t. musically illiterate

factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/

/thread

I'll take your word for it. What exactly did they do differently in the second half? As in around the release of Revolver? I'm not well acquainted with their sound but to my understanding that's when the drugs kicked in and they started doing some pretty interesting stuff.

>Yes
Not correct. I very much wanted to be a serious artist, which is where Lumpy Gravy originated
>What do you mean?
See above.
>What do you mean?
Harrison came up with the idea in 1965, on the set of the movie Help after seeing a sitar player. It predates "Eight Miles High" by a year.
Also, Norwegian Wood was released in December 1965, and Eight Miles High was released in March 1966.
>It is relevant. It was a raga rock song.
See above. The Beatles beat them
>Cucamonga
There's guitar feedback in Cucamonga?
>t. musically illiterate
>projecting

Not him but they started creating songs that were basically studio creations rather than just recording live-band arrangements in the studio.

An example of this would be the song "Tomorrow Never Knows" which is just a droning bass and heavy beat, with the vocal being played through a spinning Leslie speaker extracted from a Hammond Organ. The instrumentation is basically a series of tape loops of backwards and sped-up guitar (the first use of tape loops in a rock song btw). This is not something that could have been replicated live, nor would they have been able to come up with the arrangement if they were mentally anchored to a "live band sound"

>Whereas you are still stuck in the musical infancy phase
Write a harmonic analysis for one of their songs circa 1964 please.

white patriarchy & ideology/capitalism rules!

This Tomorrow Never Knows was posted in the thread earlier if you haven't heard it yet: Strawberry Fields Forever, Rain, Happiness Is A Warm Gun and A Day In The Life are other examples (among many) of songs which were meticulously crafted in the studio and would not be suitable for live performance.

>implying the best use of a style is when it's first used and not when it's applied for maximum artistic effect

I'm this guy Here's some more bullshit about these songs you mentioned
>Rain
This was a pretty -live band sounding recording. But then they slowed the whole song down a step (from the key of A to G) to make it more dreary (because it's about rain, get it?). It also made the drums sound more heavy. Also, the final verse as the song fades has John's vocal played backwards; John accidentally had recorded a demo of the song backwards while high, listened the next day and thought it was great and insisted it be in the final song.
>Happiness is a Warm Gun
Surprisingly this is actually a more live-band recording, as at this point in time, John was more interested in live sounding stuff. The Beatles even tracked it as one song, contrary to what you'd believe. But the interesting thing is the constant time signature shifts. The first section of the song is in 4/4, but the second part is in 11/8 (3+4+4), then to 6/8 with the first in triplets, and then back to 4/4 at the end. Proto-mathrock?
>A Day In The Life
Another studio creation that wouldn't exist if the Beatles were anchored to their early years, the basic song was tracked as a live band (piano, acoustic guitar, vocals, percussion), but then the actual drum track was overdubbed later (which is pretty difficult). Then the entire middle section was left blank because they didn't know what they wanted yet. Later, Paul thought of adding an orchestra slowing playing one octave of E, but each individual instrument would play upwards at their own pace, separate from the others. The effect creates like a dissonant crescendo. This was very difficult, because orchestral players are trained to follow each other, they naturally did not play independently. The final piano note was like three pianos all striking the same chord simultaneously.

So, the Beatles suck? Okay.

>Strawberry Fields Forever
The quintessential Beatles song that only exists because they abandoned the anchor of being a live band. The first "final" take featured bass, drums, mellotron (an early tape-based sampler keyboard) and a swarmandal (an Indian zither instrument). After thinking it was complete John wanted to completely redo it, with more a darker and orchestral feel with strings and horns, with The Beatles overdubbing very heavy drums and percussion all through it. Then John decided he liked both versions, and they decided to use the first half of the first version and the second half of the second version. The problem was that they were in different kets and tempos, so they literally had to slow one down and speed the other up, just so they matched. Somehow it worked. But it simply never would have existed without The Beatles abandoning the notion of being a band who played live.

Exactly

Interesting stuff, user. Reminds me of that hilarious line in the Scaruffi essay where he unironically claims there were no recording innovations made by The Beatles whatsoever. None.

Also I love what they did to the drums in Rain. They sound fantastic, and it's probably Ringo's best performance on any Beatles record to match.

Didn't HIAWG take something like 70 takes in order to figure out the time signatures? I may be wrong on that, but if it did, that's arguably not a song which could feasibly be played live, at least not completely faithfully.

They were the most popular emulated band of their era, and one of the only bands to ever do a 180 artistic flip without turning into dogshit. They also made very creative songs while still being able to turn them into commercial, accessible successes.

Strawberry Fields is a masterpiece too.

In the end what really mattered is that they were really good song writers who could write music that effected a large variety of people, I say their early pop success gave them a bigger platform for reaching people but if they weren't good song writers they wouldn't have been nearly as talked about today.

Not bad actually.

They had the perfect balance between poppy/catchy and avant-garde/experimental. The best of both worlds unless you're an edgy music snob.