Why does he hate The Beatles so much?

Why does he hate The Beatles so much?

"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."

...

The Chad who bullied him in middle school was a big Beatles fan.

>Chad
>Beatles fan
lmao

He has an IQ of 180

>implying everyone wasn't to an extent or another a Beatles fan around then

He went to school with the Beatles and they bullied him

yoo fuck the Beatles

This makes me so sad

Nigga The Beatles were the biggest boy band in the world, aimed specifically for young girls. No masculine man actually listened to The Beatles frequently.

Because they (and critics who praised them) ruined rock forever.

Maybe it was a gay Chad, which would be even more embarrassing.

wtf. his reviews are all in italian

>trying to act cool and tough on a japanese cartoon imageboard

This desu 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.

>this acting tough to user
Absolutely beta

He's a nerd. He can't relate with anything that most people enjoy. So he walks away from the party.
Shitting on anything mainstream is a proxy to shit on mainstream people. You know, the ones that realize he's an autismo nerd.
By going up his lonely GOAT tower he shittes on the peasants having a party at grass level. But the normies don't give a fuck. They even't notice him.

>Scruffy hates mainstream music
When this meme end?

Notice how Beatles' fans only defenses are those related to sex or dominance. They can't actually defend the Liverpool quartet from Piero's onslaught.

Not everyone enjoy the same things user.
Besides he's beyond contrarianism, so he probably doesn't hate them as much as he says.

I suppose chads in the 60s were beatles fans because 95% of the west was

You were there user? How old are you?

Ok, memes aside; he's trying to rebuke the false notion that The Beatles were the first to do everything, which is massively wrong, he's right when it comes to that. However, he then pretty much misses the entire point of The Beatles which is their mix between pop sensibilities and innovation on top of surprisingly complex songwriting. Not many people can sit down and listen to a Mothers of Invention album (and they aren't even that groundbreaking) because for them it's a bit too weird and hard to listen to. Comparatively, things like free jazz improvisation and 12 tone serialism are far too odd for the average listener. The Beatles bridge the gap nicely between silly pop songs and even some quite experimental stuff. But that's their entire point, and he kinda misses it when going on his tirade to refute something which very few people believe.

Oh, and then he proceeds to get facts plain wrong, like Tommy coming out in '68 or The Beatles not outselling basically everyone.

well not a Beatles fan -would love to have Ringo as an aunt tho-
but PS is unfair sometimes.

He goes about how a song is a song is a song and therefore is not a work of art and then goes on and say some doors' song is a masterpiece and gives a fucking type o negative album or a morphine one a high ra ting bacause who-knows-the-reason

Tomorrow never knows is a shitty experiment because tape loops and backwards was being done at academic music decades earlier -true- but loses all his shit about a 15 minutes improvisation around one chord -how innovatibe-. Or rants about nothing exceptional about a trumpet solo but loses his shit again about an amplified viola.

And things like that.

For attention. No one would care about him if he didn't have this opinion.

I'll be 67 in October.

The Beatles are not art.

>t. Someone who doesn't understand music

wich pop/rock artist is?

(you)?

>15 minutes improvisation around one chord
>amplified viola
These both could be very innovative depending on context

pop/rock can never be art.

exactly

what about art rock? i mean it even has art in the name.

Are you retarded? His essay is full of historical inaccuracies and facilities.