So they are the greatest band ever because of the great melodies right?

So they are the greatest band ever because of the great melodies right?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

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.

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.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc
This guy acts like they literally saved all of western music.

no, it's because of how T H I C C ringo was

they are the geratest band ever because the media said so

im talking out lf my ass here but for some reason i think that if you listen to a lot of music the beatles start to lose their greatness
all the people that i know that listen to a lot of music dont actually think they beatles are great, they just like them and dont think about them at all

What a clueless post. You're all mixed up.

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.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these posts on Sup Forums's Sup Forums about such a trivial band.

why Sup Forums thinks that just because someone listens to a lot of music they have good taste?
is it because almost everyone here don't know nothing about music theory?

people that have good musical taste usually know music theory and how to play instruments, and almost any serious musician know why the beatles are called the greatest ever

im not talking as a Sup Forums messenger im talking from my own personal experience
define good musical taste please and explain to me how that correlates with liking the beatles and playing an instrument

Fight me.

i don't fight children

George Martin. Why nobody mention?

I'm twenty-four.

Can you tell me what melody means to you? Because I feel the actual concept of melody is lost on fans of popular music.

mental children are still children

>define good musical taste
good musical taste is something you don't have

>i think that if you listen to a lot of music the beatles start to lose their greatness
so if I listen to a lot of music mozart, beethoven or coltrane would start to lose their greatness? what artists the people that listen to a lot of music find great? death grips and grimes?

Your words make no sense.

the sequence of musical notes in a song
is that the actual concept of melody?

>good musical taste is something you don't have
Not an argument sweetie, answer the question or shut the fuck up, btw i never said i have good musical taste
I said that in my opinion that happens with the Beatles because if you actually expand your listening habits you start to. Enjoy different things so your musical taste isnt locked in pop music anymore so the Beatles may start to lose their appeal, al least that happened to me and a lot of friends.
I dont know man you are the one that started equating good musical taste with liking the Beatles, i legit dont see the appeal in DG or grimes But please keep making assumptions.
And please tell me your top 10 since you keep implying that you have great taste

I respect a person that only listens to pop music but play instruments and know theory more than someone that listen to rachmaninoff and can't even read a clef, and I guess you and your frirends just want to be hip listening to "notpop" music and pretending to have a developed musical taste

>And please tell me your top 10 since you keep implying that you have great taste
I don't rate art

>I don't rate art
edgy

Nah thats a pretty generic Sup Forumscore beatles opinion

Well that's only one part of it.

You didnt answer the question again

>If you d-dont like the Beatles you are j-just a hipster
I never said that we have good taste But thank you for assuming our intentions.

Im out, you are going to keep dodging the question and making assumptions

>no technical innovations

are you fucking kidding me?