ITT: bands with perfect discographies

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/62vtT3cLrJc
youtube.com/watch?v=1l0Fx1_rP9Y
2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

That HAS to be a fucking joke.

Their early albums are pathetic teen pop, their psychedelic phase is simply "okay" and their late experiments with art/prog rock as imperfect as it gets.

You start OP

only this lineup though

...

Since OP can't even do his own fucking thread right, I'll start us off properly.

You can't even dispute my choice.

>What is every album after Rust In Peace?

TAKE THAT BACK

Ooops

From all the albums you could pick (PPM, BFS, YS), you pick this? It's good.

...

Was about to post gorillaz until I remembered the latest album

>Hello me, meet the real me!

That was easy.

...

Noam Chomsky

Listening to a band's sound change over time is what makes for a great discography. The fact they started out in a genre you don't like doesn't make them bad, they were the best at teen-pop to the point they had stadiums of teenage girls screaming so loud you couldn't hear the music at their concerts.

...

Even I'm a huge Megadeth fan, but everything after pic related is trash (though they redeem themselves a bit with Endgame)

couldn't be more accurate

You are a perfect example of the plebeian filth spoiling this board with their sad obession with mediocre dadrock.

If you seriously think you have any understanding what actual musical art is you need to leave this board right now. Try Pitchfork or Noisey but not Sup Forums. This is a place for true patricians dont ruin it for us because your taste is underdeveloped.

Still on the fence on the new one

...

QOTSA is one of the best of this generation. All good albums, amazing live, and not slowing down any time soon by the looks of it. Just announced a new album as well IIRC

>This mad

Across all the albums they only have one or two songs I dislike. I'm assuming you've listened to Them Crooked Vultures too?

Not really, never got that far. Liked the single, though.
But Kyuss is a favourite.
Check out Mini Mansions. The current bassist in QOTSA plays drums and sings: youtu.be/62vtT3cLrJc

What songs didn't you like btw?

pleb

3 good albums more like

Incredibly overrated

Ehhh that's a stretch

No. Exhibit: early albums, Sgt. Pepper is overrated as fuck, White album is full of mediocrity and so on... Rubber Soul is great, Revolver is amazing, Abbey Road is wonderful and the singles on Mystery are good but that's about it.

Thanks man, appreciate the rec. This song really got me into TCV though: youtube.com/watch?v=1l0Fx1_rP9Y
Also I've never been huge on Burn the Witch, Run Pig Run is alright, but I definitely have to be in the mood for it

>It's good.
But not flawless
What do you mean?

>Sgt. Pepper is overrated as fuck
That is a flaw with the audience/you, not the music. The album itself is flawless

...

Shit starting albums and "ooh were so peaceful man" garbage later on. Fuck Beatles.

Super Collider exists.

Hello King of Limbs and Moon Shaped Pool

The Hunter and Emperor of Sand are their low points.

are you like
fucking kidding me

a record like HELP! in 1965 blew everyone the fuck away
also, fucking music videos

you're talking about "pathetic teen pop" as if they were another Justin Bieber who's ascending to fame in early 90s, but they invented that shit

I'll never get salty enough with people shitting on the Beatles
everything they did, they did it first

hell, at one point they just said "you know what? we won't play live anymore, fuck that shit" and usually that kills a musical career, and you know what they made? Peppers and Mystery tour in the same year

>protip:you can't

OK I can see King of Limbs but AMSP was a fucking beautiful album

Go ahead and embarrass yourselves.

p r e t t y g o o d

>Shit starting albums and "ooh were so peaceful man" garbage later on. Fuck Beatles.
Pleb opinions general?

heh, I guess you either love them or hate them.
but he sounds like one of those guys who never really bothered to listen to their work

the thing is, being the most famous band of all times makes you pretty overrated in the eyes of the plebs

they simply can't understand they were fucking gods
and maybe they listen to the stones, lol

wrong

correct

Repeat isn't that good

Correct answers

it's archival, so I'll let them off

it's still better than most of the beatles discography

New Order doesn't count

meat is murder exists

...

this man

the hell Damon was thinking, a featuring with Vince Staples?
I'm afraid Plastic Beach will be his last decent album

>pathetic teen pop
With a greater deal of musical sophistication

I agree but are you seriously questioning that people like The Beatles?

They might be the most respected band of all time, saying you DON'T like them is sacrilege

this is what beatlesfags actually believe

t. I don't know music theory

nice argument

The fucking Beatles?

I know a standard amount of music theory and there was nothing interesting or challenging about how their music was made. I was playing their songs in the 8th grade and it was remarkably straightforward

Please explain to me why I'm wrong

2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html

You must not be very good at theory if you missed this

...

Digable Planets

just wait and some beatlesfag will come out with bullshit like "the beatles brought microtonality to popular music"

Yeah bro you sure showed those hipster meanies. I mean you are right they were like literally the best literal band ever. Like they invented music bro
You Say Nicky Minaj I Say The Beatles
You Say PINK I Say The Who
You Say (c)rap I Say Rock
99%of teens forgot about good music

nice proof by verbosity
tl;dr

>explain to me why I'm wrong
>but please talk to me like I'm a child
Sorry the grownups are talking, g2b

t. I don't know music theory

The ability to play a song easily does not mean it is theoretically easy.

>King of Limbs and Moon Shaped Pool

King of Limbs is awful. A Moon Shaped Pool is great. You have autism for not mentioning Pablo Honey as a flaw.

You phrased that like there's one outstanding thing I missed about their music

The article is about 10 different talking points

>What kind of knowledge makes it possible to play a song by ear? How can a musician play a song that he or she has never played before, and maybe never even heard before?
By making it simple?

If that's intelligent production than so is every bargain bin pop song on the radio

>Considering the relatively few types of form parts, the amount of variation in the Beatles's music is striking. However, songs often start off with (intro)-verse-verse-bridge-verse (57 cases) or (intro)-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge (23 cases); they then continue in many different ways. A common principle seems to be to repeat something twice: verse-verse or verse-chorus-verse-chorus, and then follow this by a contrast, either verse-verse-bridge, verse-verse-chorus, verse-verse-solo, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge or verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo.
So their songs tend to be structured in different ways

That doesn't really make it inherently interesting. If you do that in a good way that's relevant to the music that's something I guess

The rest of the article is just like this. It just describes how their music is structured without explaining why that's supposed to make it good

If it really is so obvious why their production is good you should be able to briefly summarise it without just linking to something somebody else wrote.

For example, an album like Peppers introduced completely new technologies to a recording studio.
Magnetic tapes, moogs, all kind of experimentation.
"A Day in the Life" is written for an orchestra, probably the peak of pop music writing.
Peppers is the first concept album. They created this "personas" and experimented new soudns and harmonies in a way no one ever did before.
Harrison introduced oriental and indian music to the western audience.
Sgt peppers reprise is possibly the first hard rock track in history
Being for the benefit of mister kite is a complete trip, they recreated the sound of a late '800 fair with organs, chimes and all kind of crazy shit
Paul wrote When I'm sixty four when he was 16
Lennon took LSD while recording Getting Better, that track is crazy
the "Paul is Dead" shit

man I could go on all day and its just Peppers

Oh, also the Stones never really cared about Peppers
yeah, they didn't like it at all

I could go on all day

And being hard to compose doesn't mean it's good

Why is the production good?

THE FACT THAT

>It just describes how their music is structured without explaining why that's supposed to make it good
Sounds like you missed the point.

See: Exploding harmony

but Pink, she's actually good

Define "good"?

>Sgt peppers reprise is possibly the first hard rock track in history
jesus christ

>being hard to compose doesn't mean its good
A song with more complex musical elements is objectively superior and more interesting than one with simplistic ones. Unless you don't care about music...

Stop posting, you are making us Beatlefags look bad. nearly everything you just said is incorrect/misinformation

If you just keep saying "ur wrong" I'm just going to post the Scaruffi pasta

Interesting

>If you just keep saying "ur wrong"
I literally just told you what to look for. Did you not read it?
>Interesting
You find it interesting we can see through your circular logic?

"Good" is a subjective and ambiguous term. if one defines "good" as "I like it" then obvious it would be impossible to prove something if it's solely based on your taste.

You'll have to come up with a better argument.

>Sgt peppers reprise is possibly the first hard rock track in history
Imagine being a Beatles fag and never stepping outside your comfort zone

dude it was '66

deep purple, zeppelin, cream etc they came a little later

the only thing I can think about are Hendrix and the Stones, maybe the Byrds and the who
but I'm actually kind of serious

actually I'm the one posting some shit; I'm not even trying to make people change their mind, it's just that it's kind of silly to say they haven't influenced shit

but you guys are still posting stuff like "you're wrong" "no u" so whats the point anyway

>interesting

The Kinks, maybe

if you mean Hard Rock as in the strict boundaries of whatever you can classify as "Hard Rock" then maybe you're right

but proto-punk has been kicking since the very early 60's and they are (hard) rock tracks

>but you guys are still posting stuff like "you're wrong" "no u" so whats the point anyway
>a thorough theory analysis is just "no ur wrong"
please die

For example:
>dude it was '66
Sgt Pepper came out in 1967. Would you like me to break down more of your errors?

Not everyone will agree, but yeah

...

It's babby's first psychedelia. Songs like Lucy in the Sky, When I'm Sixty-Four, Mr. Kite, Good Morning are so incredibly lame that it stinks the whole place. You cannot possibly say those songs hold any sort of value compared to, say, I Am the Walrus.

>I literally just told you what to look for.
Yes. That is a thing that exists.

That's not an argument. An argument is explaining why it's supposed to be true.

>You find it interesting we can see through your circular logic?
This isn't "circular logic". If you're going to be an insufferable neckbeard at least understand what you're saying means.

>"Good" is a subjective and ambiguous term. if one defines "good" as "I like it" then obvious it would be impossible to prove something if it's solely based on your taste.
Astute observation.

Are you so stupid that what's what you thought I meant when I said "good" or do you not care and posted that anyway?

>You'll have to come up with a better argument.
No, the burden of proof is on you. But I'll provide an argument anyway to contribute something:

The Beatles were a remarkably generic boy band that completely changed their image for monetary gain. Their image and music was just a reflection of other pop artists at the time and their "experimental music" was just different for the sake of it and wasn't like that for any interesting reason.

A randomly generated sequence of notes is complicated. That doesn't make it interesting.

When something complex is interesting it's complex because it's accomplishing something notable.

yeah this is a problem for a lot of Beatles tracks for me.

a lot of it is just meaningless fluff and frills without substance

fuck you may be right, You really got me came out in '64

you're right, my bad
but then again, pretty much all the bands I cited before started playing some year later

but, sure please do, I don't want to sound cocky

I hate Good morning. Tomorrow never knows is THE beatles psychedelic song. Blue Jay way, flying and Walrus are good too.
also, baby you're a rich man, that rickenbacker

Unwound

honorable mentions
Deftones
Sunny Day Real Estate
Elliott Smith
Hum
At the Drive-In (new album pls don't suck)

>When something complex is interesting it's complex because it's accomplishing something notable.
*cough* *cough* non-functional harmony creating points of greater musical interest

Tell me the meaning of music...

>*cough* *cough* non-functional harmony creating points of greater musical interest
Oh, that's what it is. Silly me. The non-functional harmonies. It's so obvious you don't even need to explain why that's a good thing.

How is a board for discussing music so utterly incapable at discussing music?

is this bait?

...

>It's babby's first psychedelia.
Not an argument
>incredibly lame
Why? What's lame about them? Chart them out
>You cannot possibly say those songs hold any sort of value compared to, say, I Am the Walrus.
What value does that song have?
How do you measure "meaning"? What do you think it is? Did you research the song?
>An argument is explaining why it's supposed to be true.
Oh so you didn't read the link then. Try again and come back please.
>This isn't "circular logic".
If you are beginning with the notion that "they are not good" it's going to be a self fulfilling prophesy and any counter argument will result to "no that doesn't make it good". Nice try though
>Are you so stupid that what's what you thought I meant when I said "good" or do you not care and posted that anyway?
Still not defining "good", huh? Can you, or are you going to dodge the question some more?
>the burden of proof is on you
You were the first to claim they weren't good, it's on you actually.
>The Beatles were a remarkably generic boy band
How so? I don't think you know what a boy band is.
>Their image and music was just a reflection of other pop artists at the time
Like what?
>just different for the sake of it
Prove this. Have fun proving intent!

nah mate, the beastie boys are shit

Second

I win :^)

fucking wrong as fuck
most NIN records are weak

I love The Beatles, but you sound like the "music defener"

>Tell me the meaning of music...
>How do you measure "meaning"? What do you think it is? Did you research the song?

That famous Beatles-fans autism rears its ugly head yet again. You mouth-frothing tizzers.

You use one word with a subjective or abstract definition and these fuckers will jump on you as if they don't know what you mean.

I'm going to tell you now that a track like "For the Benefit of Mr Kite" is trite garbage. As is "When I'm Sixty-Four". Music theory unfortunately cannot dictate whether music is fucking boring and vanilla.