Excuse us. Just being the most important thing to happen to music in the last 100 years

Excuse us. Just being the most important thing to happen to music in the last 100 years.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
youtube.com/watch?v=s5FyfQDO5g0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

not even the most important thing in the 60s

what music act was more important than the Beatles during the 1960s?

Last 100 years have been a fucking shameful decline, all told.

>Excuse us. Just being the most important thing to happen to pop in the last 100 years.

Not even the most important thing to happen to music that was named The Beatles

>Literal who composers are more important than the Beatles

This. The other 3 didn't matter.

the beatles suck and nobody really listens to them people just say they do to look cool

>most important thing to happen to music
How so?

>pop
>important
maybe if you're a pleb degenerate

...

I like how blissfully ignorant you are.

Not an argument

lou reed fucked the beatles without trying

Not an argument

Not even sort of. Lou Reed was just a tryhard.

>if i fell in love with you would you promise to be true

>as the moonlight turns to junelight

>her baby buys her things you know, he buys her diamond rings you know

>my love don't give me presents, I know that the's no peasant

holy shit LOL

You don't have to like them but that's no excuse to be an absolutely delusional moron.

Is this your first time listening to pop music?

>people implying that anything but pop music is important
music is made to make money
pop makes the most money
pop is the most important type of music

This. No musician of the 20th or 21st century comes close. He would still be in the top 5 if you incorporated 17th, 18th, and 19th century musicians.

It's ridiculous how little this board knows about music. I've been watching them for years. They never change. New year, same snobbery.

>Is this your first time listening to pop music?
yes, and it's infantile garbage, good god

>lyrics
kys

Boy I sure love our great soulless consumerist culture.

>music is made to make money
Fucking shoot me.

What do you listen to?

>but m-muh classical was so much more free
all classical was made for rich fucks and they got paid to make it
music is made for money and it's always been made for money unless it's propaganda

>artists should refuse payment

Not listening to 1st century grunge pop punk.

trolling stones
bowie

There's a big difference between wanting something in return for your "services" than a decadent consumerist cultured fuelled by money-crazed fanatics and schemers. But alright.

>all classical was made for rich fucks and they got paid to make it
This holds true for the 17th and 18th century and that's about it. You don't know your music history.

>music is made for money and it's always been made for money unless it's propaganda
Unless it's art music. Unless it's traditional music. Unless is sacred music. Looks like you're wrong again. Just because you live in a bubble and are only exposed to shitty consumerist popular music, doesn't mean it's the only thing in the world.

Therefore, pic related is the greatest musician ever right now

ye i would suggest thinking a little more before posting your poorly-informed opinions

rolling stones have like 2 good songs.

>art music
oh yeah a bunch of pretentious fuckwads, real nice to listen to
>traditional
shouldn't even be recorded
>sacred
why do i have to pay money to listen to Silent Night?
unironically, yes he is

Trips of truth.

john coltrane
charles mingus
ornette coleman
bob dylan
the doors
pink floyd
king crimson
the velvet underground

Thanks for granting me the ability to not like the beatles.

>Pink Floyd
>more important than the Beatles
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lol

Oh, you're legitimately a retard. Enjoy your consumerist trash. McDonalds must be the pinnacle of culinary arts then. Carry on.

Innovation =/= Importance or quality

This should be the first thing you learn in music history.

>muh consumerism
I'd rather listen to the Beatles than some pretentious fuck make complex classical garbage and almost everyone would agree except other pretentious fucks
and if you care about consumerism so much why are you on the internet? you bought a computer/phone through consurmerism

how to spot a cultureless amerilard that probably lives in a soulless middle class neighbourhood

None of these artists hold a candle to the Beatles' importance. Especially the Jazz musicians. Jazz was all but dead by the end of the 60s.

>the piper at the gates of dawn was more experimental than any beatles album
>the dark side of the moon sold more copies than any beatles album
they're literally better from any point of view

Floyd didn't come into their own until the 70s and nobody in their right mind would say their 60s stuff is more influential over the Beatles

go to bed, paul

>Innovation =/= Importance
This is false. I guess Bach starting to use secondary seventh dominand chords wasn't important at all.

It's okay, you don't have to NOT be a pleb. Be yourself.

>if you care about consumerism so much why are you on the internet? you bought a computer/phone through consurmerism
Haha it's this argument again. I bet you argue with spoiled college brats that parade socialism on the internet about politics and always use the "but you're using an iPhone" argument. i don't think you understand the word.

>he thinks he's not a pleb cause he likes classical
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>he thinks he's not a consumerist even though he lives in the West
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>I don't think you understand the word.

You took the words right out of my mouth

>implying you know what kind of music I listen to
>implying I live in the West

>he thinks Australia isn't the West
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lmao

Sounds like youre on the wrong side of history

>Australia

You're about 8 thousand miles off.

go to bed piero

What makes you say that? The West is a decadent rottening shithole.

okay so you're either from the US or the Middle East

Yikes

>yikes
okay then where are you from? Brazil? there are only so many ways you can be 8000 miles from something

Indoor plumbing

Oh, you've probably never heard of it.

>haha the dumb westerner doesn't know where my flyover country is
>he thinks he's above me cause of that
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Allahu akbar

Nobody cares where you're from. It gives no credit to your argument or character.

Uhhh ok

Well he cared enough to ask. But I'm not answering because I agree with the second part of your post. Still, the counterarguments have been dogshit.

>yfw every talking point, debate, critique and element of praise was preempted and dealt with better in a book written over 20 years ago.

Little Richard and Chuck Berry were more important

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is it any good user

...

Nope. Again, innovation =/= quality.

Fats Domino and Buddy Holly were better songwriters and performers than both.

That's not what he said, dumbass. He said important. Not quality.

And yes, innovation does equal importance.

Like I've said
If you don't innovate at least a little, you're probably not important. Every important artist has innovated somehow.

...

Define Important.

Some pretty important artists over last 100 years for various reasons,

Elvis making bitches loose their decency in public for the first time ever really.

Hendrix for inspiring all subsequent guitarists.

Ravi Shankar, first "exotic" musician to genuinely gain a fan base in the west.

James Brown, becomes the most sampled man in history.

David Bowie for switching up his styles and proving artists could do more than just make one genre etc.

Bob Marley, becomes the first artist from outside the west to become a proper world famous superstar.

Nirvana reinvents the rock landscape practically with one album.

Britney Spears epitomises the tipping point of looks>talent

Bono for saving kids from starving, lol (didn't happen to music so just ignore that)

I mean, they're okay I guess but it isn't anywhere close to Tool. I can't seem to find any music that is as comfortable to listen to, yet emotionally fulfilling as the sweet timber and comforting beats of Tool. Everything just seems so... so...uncomfortable in comparison. Where Tool is like a warm embrace from your mother on a cold winter's day, all other music just seems to be... like a jarring yell from your father in the next room when he hears you using the bug zapper in his exotic fish tank again. After reddit introduced me to the soft, yet firm vocals of Maynard James Keenan I just don't think I can listen to anything else. Some would say I'm ruined, but I think that I am forever changed and improved by having them in my life

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.

>actually read scaruffi's article
>it's objectively correct, just buried in edginess

thanks for the rec

The fact that essays still need to be written about them to calm people down is proof of how important they are.

Bowie released two albums in the 60s with one of them being a novelty record generally considered his worst and one only being known for not being as shit and having one hit single.

*how good their image/marketing is

*How their quality of output and marketing were both the perfect amalgamation.

If marketing were everything, this thread would be about The Monkees.

>treating Scaruffi's writings seriously and not as the blabber of the music critic world that they are

Lennon's notoriety for pushing "Peace and Love" kept the Beatles alive.
The Beatles weren't the first artist to have screaming teen fans, they weren't the highest selling artists. and they weren't even alone in in their success, everywhere they got big the stones were right behind blowing up.

There still being talked about because of John Lennon's subsequent life, career and death.

Not that user but Ian Macdonald is a very respected writer/historian when it comes to the Beatles. I’ve never read that book but I know he’s written extensively on them so it’s probably good.

>leaving out Jimi Hendrix

Not really. I mean John became a martyr after his death but despite being popular he wasn’t even the most successful of the solo Beatles at first. A lot of John’s records aside from his first two got mixed reviews and only had one solo #1 hit while George was pretty much heralded as the second coming with All Things Must Pass and the Concert for Bangladesh. John has become the iconic one but moreso in hindsight.

>leaving out Janis Joplin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

>the doors
lole

I like shosty as much as the next guy, but more important than the beatles? get the fuck outta here

KYS! I LOVE THE BEATLES! FUCK YOU!
IF I EVER FIND OUT WHERE YOU LIVE I WILL LOCK YOU IN AN INESCAPABLE ROOM AND FORCE YOU TO LISTEN TO EVERYTHING THE BEATLES EVER RECORDED, AND STARVE YOU TO DEATH TIL YOU COME AROUND TO SEEING THINGS MY WAY! YOU WANNA EAT? BECOME A BEATLES FAN, OR STARVE TO DEATH!

None of these bands or people were even fit to carry The Beatles' luggage!

The Rolling Stones comes close only because they were not only compared to The Beatles, they were the antithesis of them.

Sorry, but The Beatles rule, and bands/musicians listed drool!

Pink Floyd RIPPED OFF The Beatles and you are using albums influenced by The Beatles to compare them?

Both The Beatles and Pink Floyd were working on their respective albums at the same time, in the same building just down the hall from each other in 1967. (Beatles on Sgt. Pepper, Pink Floyd on PATGOD)

Compare Apples and Oranges to Sgt. Pepper, and listen to how Pink Floyd ripped that off. Or how about the fact that DSOTM sounds like a rehashed version of Abbey Road, but with more depressing lyrics.

user i'm worried this isn't larp

I don't care if you got trips.
Go to bed, you Scruffy WOP!

Ringo putting out the 90's Big-Beat sound in Tomorrow Never Knows long before any one else that same Big-Beat sound you can hear in Prodigys work, and that track Beatles track alone influencing the likes of Oasis and the Chemical Bros etc etc

youtube.com/watch?v=s5FyfQDO5g0

Brian Wilson, Stravinski, Velvet Underground's first 2 albums

stones were nothing more than a beatles ripoff until '69