What makes them so damn good?

what makes them so damn good?

Talent

Years and years of pracitcing in dark cellars in port downs where you needed to be really good, then relentlessly writing new songs, while also having a fantastic ear for innovative ideas in pop music, such as heavy modulation, using and abusing modes and a constant desire to innovate, consuming all sorts of media.

LSD

lsd is pretty nice.

this along with competition within the group and the dichotomy therein.

An impossible level of talent. George was good enough to lead a band, and he was relegated to backup singer .

George was secretly the best Beatle, and his solo discography proves it.

Yeah, that pretty much played a huge part into it - The Beatles (especially McCartney and Lennon) always had that competitive streak between the two, and George's stuff needed to be good enough to go shoulder-to-shoulder with theirs.
Wasn't Ringo for the longest time the star of another rival band, even getting long drum solos? In comparison, in The Beatles he became a butt monkey to the point of "he isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles".

Yup. Ringo was a star in Liverpool long before the Beatles

I always find it funny George got 4 songs in the white album. Lennon-McCartney got 25

Nearly every song from ATMP was done by this point and any of them could have been on the white album. Yet they didn't, and Wild Honey Pie and Rev 9 did. No wonder George hated them by the end

The critics

Does mu like The Beatles now?

We always have.

I've noticed it being more positive towards them recently but there have always been Beatles fans here. People just took the scarruffi pasta way too seriously for a while even though it has always basically just been a joke.

Everyone likes the Beatles

As it should be.

The most impressive thing is that there was a period of time where The Beatles weren't liked on Sup Forums.

why does he have realistic eyes and mouth

because LSD

Don't Forget Sup Forums. Early Beatles is fucking goat. Help! is one of their best

Natural talent, hardwork, eclectic music taste, and George Martin.

jesus christ what a pleb thread. I'm going to chalk this up to the snow day cancelling middle schools. But this shit better be over by monday.

Well, they aint got no distractions
Can't hear no buzzers and bells.......

What am I listening for?

This is the first Beatles album I've attempted to go from beginning to end with, and it's so boring holy fuck.

How good were they instrumentally, considering after a while a lot of it was performed by orchestra etc? Also, who did the guitar solo on You Never Give Me Your Money?

Try getting high, first.

The Beatles are one of my favorite groups for numerous reasons. By the time of 1965, they were writing songs for them to challenge themselves. They also started to use the studio to their advantage to enhance their sound instead of relying on it. They took ideas from the avant-garde and gave them a pop sensibility that was digestible, unique, and unpretentious. They didn't just take modern influences from their time but they took influences from many periods of classical era.

One of my favorite songs by The Beatles is Strawberry Fields Forever, it's melody is beautiful and shows John Lennon as a unique and simple composer. I also love his lyrics, and that's something he's stated too where he's basically talking "That is, you can't, you know, tune in but it's alright. That is, I think, it's not too bad." And the final recording is really interesting, considering that was the first song they recorded of the sgt. pepper era. They would reverse loop, re-use a 4 track tape (turn one 4 track tape into 1 tape then put that through a 4 track to record on top of it), and they used two different takes in the final single. You can hear that too when it hits the second chorus. They cut the two recording tapes and slowed down the second tape so it would be on key and in beat.

After Sgt. Peppers, their focus was on more of arrangements. They still used studio tricks to enhance their records, but they really wanted to focus on their performance and arrangements as musicians, which is the point of Abbey Road and Let it Be.

John and Paul were very selfish and wanted all the songwriting credits to go to them, they wouldn't let George contribute much at all.

I would probably start with Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers

I think part of enjoying The Beatles is hearing them mature as artists and songwriters. I would continue with their first record and go till Let it Be.

LSD made this one fantastic and it sounds great on LSD too.

I'm Only Sleeping, Here There and Everywhere, and Tomorrow Never Knows are all god-tier.

agreed, early beatles extremely underrated

Dark times

are you trolling? You think the fucking beatles are underrated?

Can you read?

The Who is oddly underrated here.
Surprisingly good. Don't expect the extremely complex in the same way you'd think of Bruford or Squire, but the way they were able to get an unique sound out of their instruments - all of them - that's something really underrated. Ringo in particular is overlooked.
Early Beatles is by most people who don't know why their compositional chops were special. Especially given most of it sounds like bluesy mersey beat - because it is - it really just means that you're missing a lot of signs that they would go on to show in later albums, just done in probably their simplest instrumentation.

Threadly reminder that Let It Be... Naked > Help!

Get Back>>>

Now it's time to start liking Radiohead again. I mean I don't even understand why mu stopped liking 'em.

You can only talk about them for so long desu. Heck, they're the only act with 2 top Sup Forumscore albums (OKC and Kid A)

>considering after a while a lot of it was performed by orchestra etc?
kek