Was he right about The Beatles?

Was he right about The Beatles?

no

Music is subjetive.

No

music is objective. music taste is subjective

Partly
They did make a lot of safe pop songs but they were far from unimportant as a band

not really. They are overrated for sure, but his critique struck me as a little bit personally biased.

i feel like scaruffi is full of shit to a certain degree. I think he has no aesthetic preferences and likes music that sounds "intelligent". Not to say intelligent music that he rates highly is bad, but to a large extent its just artsy garbage. Literally, anything you have to "get" is something scaruffi sucks off. It's like that toilet modern art shit. he cares more about the message and the theory behind the music rather than the actual personal gratifications that music gives. i personally prefer the latter when it comes to music.

i'm glad people are realizing this

LUSTY

They also made a lot of songs that were the polar opposite of "safe pop songs". Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Revolution 9, etc

>everyone should listen what they want >_< :)

No it's sounds and silences in time for the sake of aesthetic appreciation, no idea where you got the idea its definition was "objective".

strawberry fields is one of the best pop songs ever made

FYI Scaruffi did praise The Beatles for those songs.

He hates them for their bland, short catchy songs which is understandable.

Ok their first four ish albums were entirely safe pop songs and those songs are mixed with safe pop songs
They could have twenty avant garde pieces, but they have hundreds of songs in their discography that are very safe
And theres nothing wrong with that. To this day, the beatles sound is one of the most prized aspects of modern pop and rock.

I would say it's the number one best pop song ever made tbqh

Which makes up how much of their career? The first couple of years as recording artists? Just seems a ridiculous criticism when they were soon making If I Fell, Ticket To Ride, Yesterday, And I Love Her, I'll Follow The Sun, etc. Even stuff like I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You is miles ahead of any other pop music at that time. Dylan even described their chords as "ridiculous" in the early days.

Care to elaborate?
Wich is better?

There are some objectively wrong facts in there. However the overall feeling serves as a good antidotes to Beatlemania. He makes a good point that Beatles fans go crazy for 10 seconds of a trumpet but don't give a shit about other rock artists doing genuinely avant-garde things.

yes and no. yes in the sense that what he claims lies at the essence of the beatles's appeal is simply melodic sophistication, and in the sense they werent terribly innovative or avant garde beyond their contemporaries. no, however, by concluding that means they're "bad". music is made for visceral excitation, not social comment or ruthless originality. see: moronic application of his tenets on his political/philosophical articles.

>music is objective

explain how

He's not right about anything.

If I'm not mistaken, the folk musicians loved The Beatles because musically they were insanely creative (they've less than 20 songs that are diatonic), but the folk audience hated them for being too poppy. It's actually pretty funny.

Revolution 9 isn't even a coherent song. When I was in college we would haze our pledges by putting them in a dark room and make them listen to it for 5 hours on loop. Good times.

While the Beatles are the most influential band of all time they tend to also be praised as 'the most innovative band of all time'. Scaruffi does a great work with his analysis showing how they weren't the most innovative band (they weren't the first to use indian instruments nor they were the inventors of the concept album nor the first band to use studio effects; the Beatles get undeserved credit for all of this). The Velvet Undeground were the most innovative band, hell Sgt. Peppers gets praised as the first rock album to be artistic and avant-garde when in fact The Velvet Underground and Nico (the actual album that elevated rock music to art) was released months before Peppers.

how is music objective
this fucking board can't even seem to agree what its definition is

okay we are having this discussion again.

quality is way too hard to nail down. Things like authenticity, originality, energy, and emotion are objective and they all directly contribute to the quality of the music.

>emotion is objective

>music is objective. music taste is subjective

presence absence intensity authenticity of emotions. it is objective whether or not emotion went into making something. Not objective to the listener, but still. emotion is objective, but not to us.

what are you smoking bro

music is a bunch of soundwaves in air. its elements such as tone and timbre can be measured, recorded and replicated. how is that hard to understand?

>The Velvet Underground and Nico (the actual album that elevated rock music to art) was released months before Peppers
Sorry if this is derailing the thread a bit, but can we discuss this? It's actually a pretty interesting question
VU&N is hugely important, but I might argue Freak Out! is the first album to elevate rock to art

Interestingly enough TVU's album got pushed back even though it was completed in May of 1966 in favor of releasing Zappa's debut. (Their labelmates)

>books are just a bunch of words
>just interpret it how ever you want xD :)
You relativistfag. You wouldnt convice those people to get an abortion or fuck kids.

language and music are completely different things you fucking retard

And thats mean you are right, right?