Patrician:

Patrician:
>Ruber Soul, Magic Mystery Tour, Abbey Road

Contrarian:
>Revolver, Sgt. Peppers,

Plebeian:
>White Album, Let It Be, anything pre-RS really.

How is Sgt. Pepper contrarian, everybody and their mother loves that album.

>doesnt include the true Contrarian Yellow Submarine soundtrack.

>Patrician: Abbey Road
>Contrarian: Sgt. Pepper
>Plebeian: The White Album
Literally everyone knows and loves Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper.

>Plebeian: White Album

White Album = Abbey Road > Revolver > MMT > Rubber Soul > Sgt. Pepper > Let it Be > Everything Else

The Beatles never put out a bad album.
Everything is Patrician. Opinions are a matter of personal tastes.

Plebeian:
>Their entire discography

This. Even Yellow Submarine is great.

Lmao. Beatles fans think that music is subjective

>Contrarian
>Peppers

you'd be suprised

Music is subjective because art is subjective because life itself is subjective

Nothing can be quantified definetively since we are limited by our perceptions of the outside world
Which
Are dependent on the mechanisms of the mind

If you don't like The Beatles, don't bother wasting your time posting in a Beatles thread.

THIS!

>music is subjective

You made me just burst out laughing. Art as whole is objective. If an album is good, isn't decided by subjective opinion, but by objective facts and the way it sounds (which is also objective). Only music taste is subjective, and seeing that you plebs listen to Beatles it isn't really good

t. literal brainlet

If you want objectivity, you need to state the parameters first, that is, objective towards what ends?
Objectively "good" by what standard? Sales? Concert attendance? Unprecedented, truly original compositional technique? Scope of influence to the next generation of musicians?

t. soyboy numale hipster

Music is art, and therefore is subjective, and you just proved by offering an opinion about Beatles' fans i.e. they are "plebs". You only think they are plebs merely because you don't like The Beatles. Weather or not they are plebs is NOT a universal truth but a personal opinion, just like people's feelings about The Beatles and their music is nothing more than a personal opinion. Perhaps you think I'm a "Pleb" because I am a Beatles fan and enjoy their music, but your opinion of me and my personal musical tastes doesn't pay my bills, put food on my table, or keeps a roof over my head.

projecting

The last two that you mentioned are the main factors in objectivity. Sales or concert attendance don't have any impact on quality of the music. Beatles haven't done anything revolutionary or new soundwise. They just played it safe by making pop rock. If it wasn't for beatlemania (they were litteraly a media made up band just like Britney Spears is) we wouldn't be talking about this band more than we would be talking about bands like Turtles

A) you CAN rate music according to sales, if the financial outcomes of creating music is your objective.

B) I agree Beatles arent as revolutionary as people make them out to be. They borrowed A LOT (indian raga, baroque, american rock and roll and blues, musique concrete for the tape manipulations/collages). But the fact they brought them all to a mainstream pop audience's consciousness makes them "pioneers" in the pop world i suppose.

So yeah, their boyband beginnings established their popularity, and their subsequent artsy/psychedelic re-imaging won them over an entirely different demographic.

I agree there are more interesting artists of their era, but you cant deny they resonated with generations of people, regardless of their public's musical knowledge.

Finally a reasonable post