Makes an album that is 90% fillers

>makes an album that is 90% fillers
>album is critically acclaimed
how did they do it?

filler for what? albums of nothing but singles are lame. this is an album that is just whatever they decided they liked. it's better this way. it's the only good beatles album.

No obvious hits, but no fillers either, it's probably their most diverse and consistent album of them

it's their best album

the beatles have always been shockingly inconsistent within the confines of an album, the fact that they embraced their inconsistency by being stylistically all over the place helped them produce something worth listening to

>>makes an album that is 90% fillers
What? There's no filler on the album.

The fact that this band got away with a bloated double album with no cohesion or consistency of quality whatsoever is proof that they're overrated as fuck.

I can accept people saying the Beatles are the greatest on the basis of their first pop singles breaking into the US, or Rubber Soul/Revolver/Sgt. Peppers, or Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever, or even Abbey Road. But the White album is honest to god middling as fuck, it's got highs but it also has lows, and for most bands that's grounds for a "meh" even among hardcore fans, but the Beatles can do no wrong so this album is considered legendary and super important and really great despite being decidedly and almost jarringly uneven. Beatles fans will literally defend it by saying "of course it's uneven, the band was falling apart, learn the lore bro!"

have you considered that other people genuinely like the songs that you don't?

the rest of their albums are just as inconsistent, the fact that they're loosely tied together sonically and thematically is neither here nor there, the white album just has better songs

>bloated double album with no cohesion or consistency of quality
who set the standard for an album needing to be that, why not release 5 discs and let a listener have whatever they made in a year. this notion of extreme tightness in quality and obsession over all tracks needing to flow etc. is part of the past. they were just doing what they wanted. you're closed-minded and stuck in the past.

>no cohesion
That's the point
>consistency of quality
All of the songs are great, or at least warranted
>it's got highs but it also has lows,
Like what?

Agreed.
This is a terrible idea. An album is meant to be taken as a whole. If it has multiple shitty songs it can’t rightfully be considered a great album. Acting like “albums are a relic of the past” or whatever meme people try to propagate on here is disingenuous. Virtually everyone who cares about music cares about albums.

i can listen to whatever i want and i don't need an album, bye bye old relic man. you're a sad loser

>context is only important when I saw it is

That’s why I said “everyone who cares about music.” You fall under the “people who view music as entertainment rather than art” category.

WTF does that even mean? Context is always important and that’s why albums are important as a whole.

I like most of the songs on the album, actually, its problem is largely that it feels like a McCartney solo album, a Lennon solo album, and a few Harrison songs were just smashed together onto a "Beatles" album.

Except the difference between something being inconsistent and having no cohesion, and something variety IS being tied together sonically and thematically. The difference between Revolver and White is that Revolver has a distinct psychedelic tinge; even though Lennon brings it out through odd time signatures, McCartney brings it out through morose baroque backing, and Harrison brings it out with traditional Indian classical instrumentation, it's all got the same theme and feel and production quality.

>who set the standard for an album needing to be that

Funny, the answer to that is largely considered to be the Beatles themselves.

How a collection of songs flows is part of the art behind making an album. If you want to compile a bunch of unrelated tracks, you call it a compilation album. I know it sounds rockist as fuck, but an album is like a symphony; part of the magic of it is how it flows, how it all ties together, how it begins and ends. Throwing a bunch of tracks together with no cohesion or consistency or overarching theme is a terrible and lazy way to construct an album, even if the material itself is good.

>That's the point

Exhibit A. This is what Beatles fans do when you call out the White Album for its flaws, they just say "IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THAT MAN". TWA was intended to be a roots album and ended up being a huge fucking mess of unrelated garbage and band members rarely all played together on the same tracks because of all the drama surrounding it. They did not intend to make some weird inconsistent kaleidoscope of sounds, that was Sgt. Pepper.

get off your high horse

>Exhibit A. This is what Beatles fans do when you call out the White Album for its flaws,
>albums need to be cohesive to be good!
kek
>How a collection of songs flows is part of the art behind making an album.
Is there a reason you are ignoring the art of how the flow was created on this?

>I like most of the songs on the album, actually,
>a huge fucking mess of unrelated garbage
So, you like garbage?

you're such a fuckin loser, how can you have time to type this bullshit and then expect me to care about your opinion

IT'S A TRASH ALBUM, I LOVE THE TRASHY SONGS, I LOVE TRASH AND I WANT IT TO BE BAD

>Except the difference between something being inconsistent and having no cohesion, and something variety IS being tied together sonically and thematically.

I'd rather they embrace and accept that some of what they produce will be trash and that some of it won't rather than trying to force cohesion under some grand unifying theme. I'd be much happier if they threw a barrage of totally unrelated songs at me and I could just pick which ones I liked, because I never cared for any of the beatles' subdued psychedelic purposes anyway. I'm in it for the pop songs themselves - I really don't care which themes or meanings they apply.

also revolver isn't a good example, imo it's the weakest of their "classic" albums

>>albums need to be cohesive to be good!

Quote me where I said this.

>Is there a reason you are ignoring the art of how the flow was created on this?

What I know: Lennon/Macca laboriously selected the tracklist they ended up using for this album and did not lazily slap it all together even though it seems like it's lazily slapped together

What I feel: they completely fucking failed. There's no theme, there's no coherence, there's nothing that indicates an attempt other than Back in the USSR -> Dear Prudence (lovely transition) and ending on Rev 9.

First, yeah, I like quite a bit of crappy music desu. Second, meh, bad wording, I wasn't intending to imply that it's all garbage, the idea is 1) it's a huge fucking mess and 2) songs are unrelated and 3) it's at least 35% garbage.

Alright, dude.

>Quote me where I said this.
on NO it's this autist again!!! dude, you live on here and must never leave the house. all you wanna do is fight. you're fucking nuts, fuck off

Tbh dude it seems like you just like the content on White more than Revolver, etc. so that's why you like it more. If it flowed cohesively as an album you would just like it even more. You don't like it BECAUSE of its lack of cohesion, you like it in spite of it. All you're saying in defense of it is "but I like more of it than I like of their more cohesive albums" which speaks nothing of how the album flows, what tracks went were, etc., it just speaks to the fact that you like the songs on White better than others, so your argument doesn't really have a place here.

People on here say "quote me where I said this" all of the time because people misquote on this website all of the time. I'm not "this autist", I'm "an autist". This is the first time I've posted on this board in like two months.

can you even see how much you're typing about a 1968 album that will be archived and lost in a day? holy good lord, get a life. people like the white album. what the fuck is wrong with you?

Their fillers were better than most people's singles.

>Quote me where I said this.
You just implied it was bad because it was not cohesive. Is that incorrect?
>What I know: Lennon/Macca laboriously selected the tracklist they ended up using for this album and did not lazily slap it all together even though it seems like it's lazily slapped together
So you are admitting it's supposed to sound like that? Now you are contradicting yourself
>There's no theme
Doesn't need to be
>there's no coherence
Doesn't need to be
>there's nothing that indicates an attempt other than Back in the USSR -> Dear Prudence (lovely transition) and ending on Rev 9.
Sounds like you didn't actually listen to the album then, if you missed this much detail and have facts wrong.
>1) it's a huge fucking mess
That's fine, that's the idea.
>and 2) songs are unrelated
That's fine, they don't need to be.
>and 3) it's at least 35% garbage.
Not really. All the songs are great or at least warranted.

Sounds like you have a problem with
>art should only be what I say it should be!

>which speaks nothing of how the album flows, what tracks went were
yeah because I don't listen to the Beatles for some kind of experience provided by track placement because guess what, for all the things they were good at, they were fucking bad at that.

The White Album to me is like acceptance that we don't have a fucking clue what we're doing in terms of a thematic idea or concept so here's a bunch of songs.

Just so happens I like a lot of those songs and they showed more bollocks in putting that out than they did with their "le psychedelic experience" act.

get a job

This board is made for having musical discussions. People don’t necessarily have discussions on here because they want other people to know/care/remember their opinions, a lot of the time these discussions result in honing your current opinions or even changing your opinions or making other people understand your viewpoint.

Done.

Now have an argument?

>muh cohesion

so sick of these faggots. stop trying to put a box around what YOU think an album should be. it isn't a legitimate complaint and the white album is the best beatles album

What songs would you trim from it?

no, because there is nothing to argue. i like this. you don't. bye

This is actually true. "Cohesive" albums aren't really a thing because every album ever made is just a collection of songs sold in one package for commercial reasons. Albums are not a cohesive experience the way films and novels are. Thinking so is pure rockist autism.

Alright, dude.

>You just implied it was bad because it was not cohesive. Is that incorrect?

That is one of the things that holds it back, yes, but I also said somewhere else itt that an album lacking cohesion can work.

>So you are admitting it's supposed to sound like that? Now you are contradicting yourself

Yeah, I'm saying they intentionally and deliberately selected this track list, and it's still a shitty track list. People are capable of mistakes, even based Lennon/Macca.

>Doesn't need to be (x2)

It sure helps tie together a collection of songs that have no consistency in quality.

>Sounds like you didn't actually listen to the album then, if you missed this much detail and have facts wrong.

Wow, I literally forgot that it ends on Good Night because I skip that trash every time. You're right user, I gave them too much credit, they didn't even have the sense to end this album on Rev 9. Holy shit what a joke.

>That's fine, that's the idea.

Exhibit B of Beatles fanboys thinking that they intended this album to be a fucking mess. They didn't, you're factually wrong, they wanted it to be a roots album and to be a "back to basics" group deal but they kept squabbling and fighting and as a result a lot of the album doesn't even have the whole band playing together like they originally wanted.

>That's fine, they don't need to be.

Sure helps if they are if you're making an album and not a compilation album.

>Not really. All the songs are great or at least warranted.

Nice opinions. Have fun convincing anyone that Wild Honey Pie fits on any album other than a throwaway on one of Ween's most lackluster releases, pal.

You're such a fucking trog lmao, you're responding to the wrong person. That guy agrees with you.

>complaint is not legitimate

lol, alright, disregard the fact that I said albums with no cohesion can totally work and be good.

Revisionist garbage.

>"Cohesive" albums aren't really a thing
I am not that guy but you are a fucking tool

look at the fucking heated autism in this shit thread

It's my favorite album of theirs.
I love every song (except wild honey pie which is the only meh song in my opinion).

It's only matched by abbey road in their discography

Don't bother replying to me if you have nothing of substance to say. "Concept albums" as you understand them are a myth.

>says old relic man
>while defending the beatles

get some self-awareness

Are you seriously the same dude just posting the same "haha i'm so apathetic guys stop talking about music on this music board and be apathetic like me" garbage over and over lol

>"concept albums are a myth"

By all means, I'll gladly stop replying to you, starting now, if it means I get to read less of your revisionist garbage. Enjoy living in your alternate reality, pal.

I'm not talking concept albums

I'm talking albums that share a cohesive sound

example here, and it's not something I deliberated over for long either

>concept albums
who even cares that label of it being a concept is all in the artist's head. all music is shit

> “Concept albums” as you understand them are a myth.
Explain what you meant by this.

>lol, alright, disregard the fact that I said albums with no cohesion can totally work and be good.
i stopped reading your over bloated shitposts long before you back peddled on muh cohesion. no one cares that that the white album went over your head, its confused and enraged plebs (16 year olds) for decades and will continue to do so for decades more.

QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID THIS

poopy poopy poopy. you really like the poopy

I’m not that guy. Also you have to be 18 to visit this site, user.

>i like this. you don't
What don't I like?
Did you reply to the wrong person?

>quote me where i pooped
you like the poop, that much i do know

I mean, that's fair, this website is too low effort for my reddit tier autism. I'm just pointing out that I've said something contrary to what you're accusing me of thinking.

>the beatles have always been shockingly inconsistent within the confines of an album
Are you high? The Beatles development of the "album as an artform" is one of their greatest achievements.

Didn't reply to the wrong person (every post I linked, I intended to link & responded to) BUT I did fail to link your post, yeah. With all the quoting I did I think it's clear I was responding to you, yes.

Autism has ruined an alarming amount of perfectly good threads lately. This might be the first Beatle thread poisoned by autism. Not a good sign!

Yeah I'll concede they were among the first to popularise it, but they were not any good at it at all imo, they could never keep their shit together over the duration of an album

go suck a beatle cock

>This might be the first Beatle thread poisoned by autism.
Try waiting more than a week before posting

>, but they were not any good at it at all imo
Well, most people would disagree with you. But you're welcome to your opinion

I'm here every day brother, and the Beatles are filtered to the top so I catch every thread. They're unquestionably the best and comfiest threads on Sup Forums. This thread is a sad exception

I just feel like that virtue of theirs has been greatly exaggerated, and has barely anything to do with the albums themselves and rather marketing, album covers and lyrical themes

With all the mistakes youv'e made, it makes sense that you can't objectively view The White Album correctly
Since you don't seem to understand who you are replying to, I'll answer you
>That is one of the things that holds it back, yes
Nice backpedaling
>It sure helps tie together a collection of songs that have no consistency in quality.
Irrelevant since White album is consistent in quality
>Wow, I literally forgot that it ends on Good Night because I skip that trash every time
Skipping songs, huh? Incorrect way to judge art. An album is meant to be taken as a whole. If it has multiple shitty songs it can’t rightfully be considered a great album. Acting like “albums are a relic of the past” or whatever meme people try to propagate on here is disingenuous. Virtually everyone who cares about music cares about albums.
>They didn't, you're factually wrong
Prove it
>they wanted it to be a roots album and to be a "back to basics
Explain how Revolution 9, Good Night, Honey pi, Savoy Truffle, Revolution 1, Dear Prudence, While My guitar gently Weeps, Martha My Dear, etc are back to basics.
>as a result a lot of the album doesn't even have the whole band playing together
Factually wrong.
>Sure helps if they are if you're making an album and not a compilation album.
All albums are a compilation of songs.

>you're welcome to your opinion
no fucking shit you psycho autists should learn there is no right and wrong and people have varying opinions. i just like some beatles songs here and there. my parents them on vinyl. how do you say they heard them as a whole when you had to flip that shit. what if i get up and pee and miss a song? did i ruin the experience? fuck the holy fuck off you psycho shitbeasts, it's only music.

>They're unquestionably the best and comfiest threads on Sup Forums
Maybe it's beacuse I haven't been on this board for a year and a half but that has never been true for any amount of time I've been here

Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but for me the music is just really good.

So one of the oldest rock discussions of all time:

My list:
Back in the U.S.S.R.
Dear Prudence
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Happiness is a Warm Gun
Martha My Dear
Blackbird
I Will
Julia
Birthday
Yer Blues
Sexy Sadie
Helter Skelter
Revolution 1
Honey Pie
Savoy Truffle

Taking in consideration track duration and side a and side b limitations of course.

>there is no right and wrong
How's 10th grade?

You haven't been here for a year and half and you're trying to tell ME what things are like? Sod off

Well, things didn't really change from 2011-2015 so it's probably redditors like you that changed it anyway

yeah mostly it's good

>With all the mistakes youv'e made, it makes sense that you can't objectively view The White Album correctly

lol, okay dude, I'm less qualified to argue about something because I didn't Sup Forums good, you got me

>Since you don't seem to understand who you are replying to, I'll answer you

I know who I'm replying to, fuckwit, learn how to read.

>Nice backpedaling

What backpedaling? I didn't say not being cohesive was its sole flaw anywhere itt.

>Irrelevant since White album is consistent in quality

Nice
Opinions
m8

>Skipping songs, huh? Incorrect way to judge art. An album is meant to be taken as a whole. If it has multiple shitty songs it can’t rightfully be considered a great album. Acting like “albums are a relic of the past” or whatever meme people try to propagate on here is disingenuous. Virtually everyone who cares about music cares about albums.

I agree with everything you're saying, Good Night is actually so terrible I filtered it out of my head. Now that you've forced me to remember it exists, you just reminded me that the White Album even worse. So good job.

>Prove it

I just said earlier itt that they intended this to be a roots album, playing together as a band and stripping away all the pretension and business of Sgt Peppers/MMT. That's not what this album is.

>Explain how Revolution 9, Good Night, Honey pi, Savoy Truffle, Revolution 1, Dear Prudence, While My guitar gently Weeps, Martha My Dear, etc are back to basics.

That's the fucking point, they fucked it up. The whole vision of the album collapsed among fighting and squabbling.

>Factually wrong.

Elucidate, go on.

>All albums are a compilation of songs.

But not all compilations of songs are albums.

I've been here since 2007 and have literally never posted on reddit. Have any other hot takes for me you stupid poser ?

this autist spacing green text madness is shit i will never read, get fucked

>you stupid poser
>I've been here since 2007
And yet somehow you think that Beatles threads have ever been friendly or productive. Really makes me think

Beatle threads were worse in the past but now they are great. I'm relaying the facts for you. I don't care if "le redditors xP" made it that way, that's the way it is. Now please, stop pretending you know shit. At least in the future don't admit to being disconnected from Sup Forums for over a year so I have to take you seriously. Now I have no reason to.

The variety is part of the charm. That's literally all you have to say. It has cohesion in how consistently inconsistent it is, and I don't mean that in terms of quality.

This is really a pretty simple thing if you just think about it for a second. The songs Helter Skelter and Long Long Long are right next to each other that album. If you don't see how the range and breadth of their abilities is expressed between those two songs that are seemingly miles apart then I don't know what to tell you. The reason The White Album wouldn't be praised is it were made by anyone but The Beatles is because The Beatles were the only people who could have pulled it off. People always talk about their versatility being one of their greatest features, and The White Album is the best expression of that.

i don't praise it, i don't think it's consistent, i don't think all the songs are good or cohesive, i don't care, i still like it. this thread really makes me hate you lunatic autist types rather than want to hear you out. you're psychotic about forcing someone to see a certain way as if it's all fact. we all poop different poops. stop trying to control my poop. stop examining my poop. i don't have an argument, nor do i want to make a point.

>Nice
>Opinions
>m8
Not an argument
>Good Night is actually so terrible
Why? What's wrong with it?
>I just said earlier itt that they intended
[citation needed]
>they fucked it up.
Or a simpler reason is you are incorrect, that was not the intent of the album in the first place, and you are confusing it with the following album Get Back.
>Elucidate, go on
Back in the USSR and Dear Prudence featured all the Beatles who were in the band at the time playing together; Glass Onion featured all the Beatles playing together; Obladi oblada featured all the Beatles playing together; Bungalow Bill featured all the Beatles playing together; While My guitar Gently Weeps features all the Beatles playing together; Happiness is a Warm Gun features all the Beatles playing together; I'm So Tired features all the band playing together; Piggies features all The Beatles; Rocky Raccoon features all the Beatles playing together. Should I continue? This is enough to show you are wrong.
>But not all compilations of songs are albums.
Example?

NOT AN ARGUMENT

NOT AN ARGUMENT

>NOT AN ARGUMENT

QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID THIS

THEN I CAN'T HELP YOU

rinse, repeat

Oh did I once catch you
1) making strawmen arguments
2) shitposting instead of having musical discussion

Sorry you are still upset about it

>taking Sup Forums seriously ever

yeah bruh cuz it's just s FUN to come here, i come for the HUMOR

You were asking why it's critically acclaimed and I told you why. I'm not saying you have to enjoy it for its variety, but most. Fuck off if you're gonna be a little baby about it.

Their filler is better than most people's best song