Prove that the beatles wasn't the GREATEST band ever

Prove that the beatles wasn't the GREATEST band ever

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tzxFZBDLLrs
youtube.com/watch?v=cxvzl9k-FXE&ab_channel=mattpopfavourites
youtube.com/watch?v=i61dl_ex0xs&ab_channel=omega125th
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

*weren't

sorry my english bad even dirty spics love the beatles

They were the best band ever.

/thread

youtube.com/watch?v=tzxFZBDLLrs

they allowed themselves to be destroyed by Yoko Ono. jesus, that's like being beaten at the Tenkaichi by Bulma's mother.

because the Migos exist

>Dream Theater
top fucking kek

Dream Theater used to be pretty good though.

That motherfucker's voice has ALWAYS grated the shit out of me; got even worse once it was wrecked though.
Everyone else in that band is god tier, however.

The Beatles were the best BOY band of all time, no doubt; but that's about it.

Images and Words was their best

How did a boy band influence every rock genre today?

Agreed.

I do think that if the discussion were "most influential band of all time" they would always have to be a part of that discussion. Their later years especially.

because the kinks exist

They were the first "boy" band; and existed in a very, very different area where you HAD to have at least SOME kind of legitimate instrumental talent to be able to do anything in the music industry.

They were the best boy band because they broke out of & away from that, & starteddoing their music as legitimate art. & because they actually had instrumental talent (and a fuckton of drugs), they succeeded at that.

*era; not area.

i don't consider them a boy band because boy bands are like one direction where they don't play instruments.

bunch of gay hippies

The Beatles' cultural influence is obviously immense - the greatest of any artists in the post-war period. The template of the rock group as self-contained entity came from them. As did the belief that one could write one's own songs, and perform them in the studio rather than being dependent on session musicians. They also developed the album as coherent artistic statement (most fully seen on Sgt. Pepper but developing from Rubber Soul onwards), where previously albums had been hit singles + filler. They took black R n B, soul music, and early rock and synthesised them into something even more exciting. They laid the groundwork for many rock cliches, such as "troubles with wives/girlfriends", "the beardy phase", "the spiritual phase", "the self-indulgent double album" and "I need to express myself (before going solo)". They made rock music the goal of suburban and working class kids everywhere. They made casual consumption the ideal for every new-rich the world over. They caused the first pop girl-fan hysteria. They annexed power from the Svengali manager to the artists (a feat sadly since reversed). They practically invented the western appreciation of Indian spirituality. They also inaugurated music videos, with "Paperback Writer" and "Rain", developing them artistically with "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane".

They literally invented the "boy band" genre.

Look at their first years; it was ENTIRELY cheesy love songs; they were heavily, heavily marketed to teenage girls. FFS, they decided to stop playing live b/c the amp technology of the time could not compensate for the high pitched wailing of the girls in the audience.
Look into it. Just b/c the genre's bar got lower & lower over decades doesn't mean that wasn't what they were initially; or that they didn't start it.

2. Artistic Innovation
The Beatles' musical development is stunning. No other artist has ever developed at such an astonishing pace, while never compromising their quality standards (well, maybe with Yellow Submarine). No act has ever brought so many innovations to popular music, in their ever-expanding range, developing studio techniques, colourful instrumentation and novel use of harmony. They utilised, often for the first time, techniques such as automatic double tracking, backwards guitars, orchestral instrumentation, tape loops, exotic instruments such as the zither in 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and the nai in 'Baby You're A Rich Man'. Lennon and McCartney constantly spurred each other on to greater heights. Yet what is also remarkable is the range and originality: it never fails to astonish me that the same group recorded songs as radically different as "For No One", "She Said She Said" and "Tomorrow Never Knows"... on the same album!

Yeah; give source rather than copy/pasting.

The impact of The Beatles on the music business is also profound. Elvis had never known merchandising opportunities such as The Beatles had during Beatlemania. They also refused to sing their songs in different languages after 1964, gained control for the artist over the record company for their choice of singles, album art and album sequencing (one now generally relinquished). They made albums the primary focus of the record company, rather than touring and singles. They were the first (I think) group to form their own company and release their subsequent records under it.

I wrote this in quora myself dude.

Yeah that is true, I do agree they had relevance to the 'boy band' term, but I do not think they were very related. Modern 'boy bands' and those back then have changed quite a bit.

Pic related, nuff said

We all live in a yellow submarine

Look; I'm not trolling. They were one of the first bands I started heavily getting into & studying as a teenager; & they've had a huge influence on me personally as a musician.
They're definitely one of the most influential of all time, no doubt; but that's primarily because of their position in history rather than them being the greatest band of all time. Most influential =/= greatest; nor does record sales.

Again, it's more about modern ones having less to do with it than they did.
Before Rubber Soul the Beatles were 100% Boy band.

nah, we dont.

Not all (in fact very few) of us have ever been on enough acid to hallucinate we lived in one.

There are bands whit way more talent its a fact¡.But the beatles where complete in all aspects of what a band should be.

I have a theory that anyone who likes pre-drugs beatles is either a girl or secretly wants to be one.

most people arent dumb enough to have a trip like that.

Who?

The best GIRL band is Spice Girls.

oh children

Subjective; very subjective.
Most people can't name more than a couple Who songs, if even that. Personally I've always found it difficult to really get into the bulk of their stuff.

>the beatles where complete in all aspects of what a band should be

With all respect; bullshit.
The band was always John & Paul jockeying for position & writing 90% of the stuff allowed to be released; even most often writing the other's parts (& sometimes performing them instead). Ringo couldn't really do much other than drum; but George could have contributed a lot more than he was allowed to; & stuff that they would've written collaboratively (rather than John & Paul taking shifts leading the creation of one another's songs) would've ended up being far better than what wound up coming out, as good as all that was.
A band is supposed to be a true collaborative effort; for them it never really was, or you wouldn't be able to tell easily which were John or Paul's.

No one could enjoy the Beatles live because thousands of teenage girls would blow your ear drums out.

>a fuckton of drugs
the stones thought all they had to do to copy sgt pepper was get really high, and see what happened

>The Beatles' musical development is stunning

They were too far out of their element; they couldn't have written something along the lines of Sgt. Pepper no matter what, because nothing like that would EVER come out of them (and that's not a knock on them; you just can't carbon copy someone else's muse without having the internal genesis of it to begin with. The Stones were a very different kind of band at heart).

and both bands were gay as fuck.

Example of a non-gay band from that era, please.

the jimi hendrix experience

>gay as fuck
way more masculine that the trash today

Good example. But Hendrix was from another fucking planet than EVERYONE else around then.

the beach boys.

The Beatles are a ridiculously mediocre band and the stones were pretty shit too they have like 3 or 4 songs that dont totally suck shit

africa is on the same planet.

>the beach boys
>non-gay
Nigga please.

Taste is subjective. Give something from that era as example of a "non-shit sucking" band, in your opinion.

Kek. Hendrix was only Black in skin color; he had no fucking clue "how to be black".

The kinks were better

They were always on drugs.

Fucking niggers always on top

stop reaching for greatness. who cares how many records sold? Obsessing over What is important is how the band connects with you. How true is the music to the people who composed it? And comparing artists? this isnt fucking sports, its the depth and meaning. Oh lord in heaven! do you people even get music?

Explain
whats a good band for you?
Nickelback?

one that doesnt write fucking gay as fuck "she loves you yea,yea yea yea yea!!!" shit.

FUCKING THIS

jesus you are fucking 12
do you even get the beatles?

My own personal best album of that era.
But it's all subjective.

>1964
I can't fucking stand the boy band period shit myself. But it was almost like they were 2 different bands between that & post Rubber Soul stuff.

How many Sup Forums anons were around for beatlemania?

Those folks are all 70 now.

All there is to the beatles is their legacy. The recordings. Which are nothing but dross 3 minute pop songs if we are being honest.

oh wow sorry edgelord go fucking listen to numb and get the fuck out of here

Fucking retard sgt pepper theWhite album Abbey roadWHAT¡¡¡¡¡

Rush exists.

My dubs say so.

>nothing but dross 3 minute pop songs
The vast majority, yes.
But then you have shit like "Day in the Life"; "Revolution 9", & "The Inner Light".

You are easily triggered user.

Even the albums you mentioned are just collections of pop hits. Sorry.

>Obladi Oblada

Sorry, had to do it. Paul just sucks, with extremely rare exception.

>But it's all subjective.
that's why you bots keep fighting ww3 over which band is best. You can point to a tangible number which determines greatness. Its only money, dude. Money. Measure emotion and convert that to money, but you cant dude. Your purely logical and empirical world collapses in the face of human emotion.

How is abbey road full prog rock album pop?

the beatles don't exist

Aww those guys are fags!

(Answer: because they weren't The Rolling Stones.)

two words for you:

PINK
FLOYD

Well their work does faggot.

Not really; they had poppy moments; but were largely experimental for their time. That most of the tracks on them have become standards doesn't make them pop in & of themselves.

Dude, weed; lmao.

>abbey road full prog rock album
Sorry man; The Beatles were not anywhere near "prog rock".

Abbey road was hard rock blues .But not pop lol

the beatles, even post-1964 were mainly a pop rock group. absolutely nothing wrong with that. they made some fantastic albums.

rubber soul, revolver, sgt. pepper's, magical mystery tour, and abbey road. not many artists can touch that.

work? haha

This is a lot closer for me personally to "best of all time". Widely influential & monetarily successful while not being motivated in what they wrote or how by the $$ factor; and some of the greatest & most original/talented musical art. Even if Nick Mason just fucking sucks as a drummer for the most part. Not Lars Ulrich bad; but they could've had so much better...

>experimental for their time

Sure. But in todays terms they just come across as a pop machine. Its all well and good to judge them by ancient standards but if you put nearly 95% of the beatles tunes into a modern mix, they would just get labelled easy listening pop.

Which is what they are once it boils down. Not progressive. Not particularly experimental. Not particularly innovative. Just simple pop formula.

One of the only bands that rivals them

yeah they aight.

It's a shame Don Lemon died so young

The Beatles are shit.

ha you are shit faggot nigger lover

You are dead wrong. You crearly never listened to the beatles.

Jean Jaques Perrey is the most progressive musician in modernity. He is the grandfather of electronic pop. You retards are all rambling on about acoustic bands that will get a footnote in the history books. But Perrey's concepts will be prevalent in the most popular music in the next 500 years.

Behold your god of music, Jean Jaques Perrey

youtube.com/watch?v=cxvzl9k-FXE&ab_channel=mattpopfavourites

>in todays terms
Currently on my playlist that I listen to 90% of the time is Black Dahlia Murder; Lamb of God; Babymetal; Behold the Arctopus; Secret Chiefs; Mr. Bungle; Dying Fetus; & Meshuggah. Don't really listen to a lot of older stuff anymore. So I get the "it not holding up against current stuff" thing.
But it really isn't fair to judge their experimental level & whether or not it counts as simple pop formula when the only reason there is a formula to begin with is because it's based off of their work & the work of others from that & slightly later eras. Experimentalism can only fairly be judged against the standards of the time it's made.

i totally disagree with you. nick mason fit the band perfectly. he's on the same boat as ringo starr. they're only decent on a technical level, but they knew exactly what to play for the song. that's what makes them great.

...

They were a bunch of commie degenerates.

...

everyone was commie degenerates back then. Well, I guess there's always Johnny cash.

What a load of absolute garbage.

I could literally make something better.

People were writing that formula in the 50s. Buddy Holly? Elvis? The beatles never invented the 3 minute pop song in the early 60s.

You give them too much credit.

Yes. I love how the boomers and gen x bitch about how shitty millennials are when they single handedly turned western civilization over to the kikes.

the point is that synth can do what acoustic instruments can do. so no, i dont think you could come close. But feel free to send me a soundcloud link, i would be interested on your take
youtube.com/watch?v=i61dl_ex0xs&ab_channel=omega125th

Granted; I didn't intend to lay all the credit on them. Stones, Beach Boys & others were part of that era too. Like even those from the 50's, their work was a continuation & morphing of those before them.
My main point was & still is you can only judge experimentalism by the era it's released in.

In all honesty, fuck Paul and fuck Ringo.

It is such a shame that we are stuck with them and John and George have left us. I often feel as though I was born into the wrong universe.. Imagine the shit they would have been getting up to nowadays? I cant help but feel like if those two, hendrix and morrison were still with us this world wouldn't have degenerated to shit nearly so fast - they simply wouldnt have let that happen. Which is why they were silenced...