Were shit performers even when they did extremely simple pop stuff...

>were shit performers even when they did extremely simple pop stuff, had to rely on stage magic and good looks to cover up their mediocre musicianship
>had to quit live performances altogether to come up with any remotely experimental or creative music, since it would have been far too difficult to recreate their slightly-complex music live with their shitty musicianship
>later on, musicians like Genesis, King Crimson, Yes, Jethro Tull, ELP, etc. are able to flawlessly perform far, far more complex, experimental, creative, and progressive music live
Why do you fucks love the Beatles so much? Fucking talentless hacks.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kXieo_hfqbU
youtube.com/watch?v=yRZOI1y4M28
youtube.com/watch?v=bVI7UWa5K3E
youtube.com/watch?v=612806fJb_Q&spfreload=10
youtube.com/watch?v=NCtzkaL2t_Y
youtube.com/watch?v=BzwDS6jTtos
youtube.com/watch?v=T3D68KWfZOo
youtu.be/JBGFiEO1xu8
youtu.be/lgBbXVV7hxY
youtu.be/x7y_pA-L2ww
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

you try playing being for the benefit of mr kite live with girls screaming at you

>stage magic
what even?

Why are you so salty? They were good musicians and their music is pretty gud.

>hates the Beatles
>makes a thread about them

lol, thanks for keeping the memory alive bro

As in, you're too excited because "oh my God I'm seeing the motherfucking Beatles live " and get too caught up in the moment to realize that you're actually listening to ersatz shit.
The screaming girls drowning out the actual music also help.

nice bait

>quantifying creativity to compare creative bands from different eras

the fuck are you talking about? have you even heard any live beatles stuff? they sound fine

More experimental =/= more good

I mean, the White Album isn't an experimental album but it is very good

and Abbey Road is an experimental album, but doesn't rely on guitar histronics and masturbation to be good. It's just a perfect bit of pop

this. It wasn't just the music, but the obnoxious fans, too. At least prog bands don't have to deal with hordes of constantly screaming 12 year olds when they're trying to play.

>ersatz shit
I don't even like the beatles but you gotta step it up user

Neckbeards are too socially awkward to even clap after a live performance ends.

At least they're quiet when the band's playing.

Sounds gay dude

Scaruffi aside, is it true they were made popular because black musicians were getting to well known?

No, that's retarded.

It has nothing to do with quality. The Beatles literally said that the reason they stopped doing live performances later on in their career was to focus on their experimental "complex" stuff, since they were mediocre musicians and couldn't recreate it well enough live.

*citation needed

>>later on, musicians like Genesis, King Crimson, Yes, Jethro Tull, ELP, etc. are able to flawlessly perform far, far more complex, experimental, creative, and progressive music live

Jesus Christ rockists are so embarrassing how do you write this shit without cringing?

n-no u

this

A
LITERAL
FLUTE
PLAYING
FRONT
MAN

>"John [Entwistle] and I were listening to a stereo L.P. of The Beatles in which the voices come out of one side and the backing track comes out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippin' lousy."
How can one man be so based?

>inb4 "literally who" joke
>inb4 claims of child porn viewing, even though he was cleared of all charges and Operation Ore has been acknowledged as a failure that turned up many, many false flags

>Beatlesfag literally admitting that the Beatles aren't rock, but rather trite pop shit
You can't make this up, folks!

and?

totally unbiased opinion right there

True. Pete Townshend surrounded himself with excellent musicians, so from his perspective mediocre playing would be seen as even lousier than it is.

Not defending the Beatles just pointing out that you can't pretend garbage like that is any better than the Beatles

1. You have shit taste.
2. Like I said, it has nothing to do with quality or not, it has to do with complexity. The Beatles had to stop touring to make complex music. Other bands had no problem touring AND creating and performing complex music.

>prog
>complex

lmao, again rockists are just embarrassing

>Beatlesfags once again admitting that their pop shit isn't even rock
At least you acknowledge it. Your taste is absolute dogshit, but at least you acknowledge it.
Also, confirmed for not having listened to any prog outside of maybe reading a Pitchfork review for an album at one point.

they stopped touring because they couldn't hear themselves at their own shows.

>isn't even rock
You say that like it's a bad thing lmao.
btw prog is basically just there so rock musicians can pretend they're actual musicians, it's garbage for children.

(You)

Not bait, sorry you're such a pleb but maybe one day you'll find decent music to like.

If you're not baiting, then I am sincerely sorry for your mother. Who knows what she was dealing with throughout her pregnancy that could only be coped with through drinking all that alcohol.

youtube.com/watch?v=kXieo_hfqbU
>Paul playing that bassline while singing lead
Honestly, that's pretty incredible musicianship, especially for back then

John once said that at the Shea Stadium performance he had no idea what key he was even playing in because of how loud the crowd was

>DUDE ESPOUSE LOVE AND UNITY BUT CHEAT ON YOUR WIFE LMAO

>dude pretend to be totally like those cool leftie hippies but actually secretly worship Reagan and Thatcher

And being more or less able to perform music live affects the music's quality how exactly?

It shows that the musicians are inept.

Go to bed you scruffy wop!

Didn't they play live shows in Liverpool for like 4 years? How can you do that and be trash? OP makes no sense

Lol your mom

youtube.com/watch?v=yRZOI1y4M28

It's not about playing difficult things it's about playing well.

They burned their selves out doing all-nighters in Hamburg, full-scale touring only made it worse.

They were always game for film and tv though, 'cos obviously that's less taxing.
youtube.com/watch?v=bVI7UWa5K3E

I'm imagining "Fixing A Hole" at the Hollywood Bowl, lol.

i don't even see how it could be claimed the beatles made quality music.

like sure, they made social music as a backdrop for a time and had a solid foothold on pop culture

but claiming they were any better than their contemporaries when most of it was just copied off others or half-assed or immediately given attention just for brand awareness' sake is absurd

i hate the beatles, but this is a really shitty argument. the beatles aren't shit because they weren't a good live band. they're shit because they made shit music.

They're a shitty live band because they're shitty musicians. They make shitty music because they're shitty musicians. I don't see how it's a bad argument.

...

>eggscellent musicians
>The Who
He's got a lot of nerve to think The Beatles are overrated when he's been coasting by on the theme song from CSI for twenty years. Also, he's a paedophile.

bait

Proof that they were shitty musicians

>ersatz shit
go away scaruffi

Lol no, they'd play live and chicks would literally scream so loud that the equipment available to them in the 60's couldn't overpower them so they just stopped playing live.

It's just pop. People nowdays also listen to unambitious music, because it's a good background noise.

>beatles
>unambitious

John wasn't an asshole because he cheated, Yoko was complicit with all of that. She fucking rented John out to May Pang. That was her idea. The overwhelming majority of other rock stars of the period were the exact same way, although Yoko as a spouse is a bit of an extreme example. If there is any one thing I can excuse John for, it's fucking around a bit, because I think he was actually probably -better- than the average here.

John was an asshole for plenty of other reasons though, like being way over-the-top violent with people he supposedly loves, being way over-the-top violent with random people, screaming like a retard into Sean's ear so loud he caused permanent damage, neglecting Julian, you name it.

What does someone like you listen to?

L O L

You are a sad little man just way too angry at The Beatles for whatever reason and I pity you, I hope one day you find whatever you are looking for and be happy and let others be happy with their music.

>George Harrison
>mediocre

Not him, but if by decent you mean pop music from other decades, that's hardly decent or superior.

They may have been ambitious, but even their experimental songs were acceptable and catchy, rarely drifting from the pop song realm.

classical

What kind of a backwards fuckass argument is this?

During their touring years The Beatles had none of technological or even environmental pleasures seen by any of those other bands you listed. They were playing crowds that were so deafeningly loud that they often couldn't even hear what they were playing, and even still they were great performers.

youtube.com/watch?v=612806fJb_Q&spfreload=10

How can you consider that to be anything other than one hell of a performance? Not to mention that when they were placed in an environment where they could actually hear themselves, they could pump out studio level quality performances in one fucking take. Half of Let It Be album is taken from this one live show, and those are the best songs on the album.

youtube.com/watch?v=NCtzkaL2t_Y

I'm not saying everyone has to worship The Beatles, but why are their heavy detractors so consistently fucking retarded?

Oh, and one last note, just look at some of Harrison's or McCartney's solo concerts in the 70's. They are just as capable of putting on larger kinds of shows with more complex arrangements.

youtube.com/watch?v=BzwDS6jTtos
youtube.com/watch?v=T3D68KWfZOo

It's just beyond stupid to compare the performances of a prog rock band from the mid-70's to the Beatles in 1964 when there was a lifetime of musical progression and technological development between those two eras.

>they could pump out studio level quality performances in one fucking take
Go listen to Toto live recordings, nobody wants live performances to sound like studio recordings. How many fucking takes do you think bands get live?

Stop being willfully obtuse. The argument is whether or not they were competent as performers and I'm saying that it's blatantly evident they were due to the fact that they went up on a roof on a cold January day on a whim and nailed the performances so well that they put them on an album that is actually otherwise characterized by overproduction.

I'm not being willfully obtuse, your argument sucks. So what if they could play live at their usual mediocre studio level? That doesn't make them good musicians.

ya but chu stupid tho u think about that senpai? Bet nah huh

*christgau

Explain why their usual playing is mediocre.

He can't and won't, he is just shitposting mate, he doesn't have ground to stand on.

>musician A had no right to judge musician B because musician A would have one of his songs used in a popular TV show three decades later
Are you high?

>good looks

UK standards lmao

Meanwhile in the States...

How the fuck can op shit on guys who wrote songs like tommorw never knows, in my life, eleanor rigby, while my guitar gently weeps, and strawberry fields?

OP im not shitting on you but don't you feel like an ass saying the Beatles are hacks when they have accomplished more in 5 years then you would in a lifetime?

Yeah, I know. UK standards are absolute shit. But I said good looks because how else would you explain Beatlemania?

Hitler also accomplished more in 5 years than you would in a lifetime. That means literally nothing.

I wouldn't shit on hitler tho and say he was hack who did nothing

Not him, but that wouldn't imply that what he did was admirable or positive. However he is definitely one of the greatest orators in human history.

Not him, but here's a great live and a great studio band:
youtu.be/JBGFiEO1xu8
After all, you can't be anything less than an outstanding musician to ever hope to play with Frank Zappa.
Here's John McLaughlin in the 60's:
youtu.be/lgBbXVV7hxY
Soft Machine:
youtu.be/x7y_pA-L2ww

Who cares what the music sounds like when you fuck with it? The artist didn't intend to hear it that way so it's not fair to judge that way.

The idea is that the actual musicianship, the instrumentation, was lousy and they had to rely on vocals. Not agreeing or disagreeing.

>After all, you can't be anything less than an outstanding musician to ever hope to play with Frank Zappa.

u dun goofed m8

Holy shit, Zappafags BTFO.
I mean, I hate the Beatles, but I also hate Frank as well.

A cute

People here are confusing good musicianship with being a good instrumentalist.

Paul was the only decently virtuoistic one of all of them, but they were all legitimately incredible musicians. Who cares if you can't play wanky pentatonic solos when you have the ear for timbre and melody to put together something as divine sounding as the intermingling guitar parts in the bridge to You Never Give Me Your Money.

Damn. How will Zappa ever recover?

I think this is the main objection.

Who cares? Difficult material doesn't inherently mean better. The Beatles took ambitious concepts and crafted them in a way that remained true to their artistic sensibilities, which happened to also be palatable to the masses (and even that is overstated, they have plenty of songs that drifted away from pop standards to the same level that a number of the counter artists posted here did). But regardless I don't see how that can be viewed as anything other than an incredible success.

I don't dismiss their success, nor do I dismiss the success of Kraftwerk and their influence on synth pop, but those aren't the bands I'm interested in listening to. I think this is true for the majority of posters in this thread.

THE FAVT THAT

side 2 of Abbey Road is definitely perfection

And I tend toward the faster/heavier end of rock, but FUUUCCKKK

Its a blend of Buddy Holly; Chuck Berry, Mayfield, Paul Simon, Herb Alpert and Charles Mingus rolled into a sly emotation.