Friendly reminder that they're still the best band ever today, nothing has changed

Friendly reminder that they're still the best band ever today, nothing has changed

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wFrQfsLxt70
scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I agree. Also the most overrated of all time.

nice b8. can this meme die now?

very overrated and they crated a wave of shit music that was basically copying them

Yeah but that's not their fault.

Ween > The Beatles

but they are fren

problem accepting that do we?

HUUR DUUR THE BEATLES ARE OVERRATED
I PREFER A BAND WHICH SINGS ABOUT GAY RAINBOWS

>I PREFER A BAND WHICH SINGS ABOUT GAY RAINBOWS
because singing about a yellow submarine makes a hell of a difference

>considering Ringo part of the Beatles

yes it is

True. The enormous influence of the Beatles was not musical. Music, especially in those days, was something else: experimental, instrumental, improvised, political. The Beatles played pop ditties until the end. The most creative rock musicians of the time played everything but pop ditties, because rock was conceived as an alternative to ditties. FM radio was created to play rock music, not pop ditties. Alternative music magazines were born to review rock music, not pop songs. Evidently, to the kids who listened to the Beatles (mostly girls attracted by their looks), rock music had nothing to say that they were willing to listen to.

>The Beatles played pop ditties until the end
>what is Revolution 9

It's a long jam, more or less avantgarde, two years after everybody else, and three years after the eleven minutes of Goin' Home, by the Stones.

Exactly what I think. A lot of people claim that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time but haven't listened to half of their discog. THIS is overrated. If you ask some dumb bitch, she will probably say the Beatles, but she also probably hasn't listened properly their work. I think the Beatles are the best band of all time, BUT, is the most overrated, how can someone disagree with this

>It's a long jam
Regardless, it proves wrong.
>two years after everybody else
Oh? Show me a Rolling Stones song like Revolution 9
>and three years after the eleven minutes of Goin' Home, by the Stones.
You haven't actually heard Revolution 9, have you?
Sounds to me like they are underrated, if people make exaggerated claims against or for the Beatles, without being familiar with the complexities and nuances of their discography

The only bad thing about them is that one autistic fuckhead that keeps posting in Beatle threads wanting to argue with people about why some people like certain albums more than others.

>a musical discussion?
>how autistic!

Yes, if people claim that a band sucks without listening to their discography, it is underrated, but I honestly don't see this happening to the Beatles. In other hand, the amount of people that claim it the greatest band of all time without listening to them is surprisingly high.

>Yes, if people claim that a band sucks without listening to their discography, it is underrated, but I honestly don't see this happening to the Beatles
See Nice try though

How do you know these people didn't listen to their entire discog?
I don't get it

Scaruffi is right in a certain sense although he's obviously wrong about The Beatles intention. Wonderwall Music wasn't given much attention by the fans. Revolution 9 was forced onto the record by John. The Beatles management did not want it anywhere near the record. The fans hated it and still vote it their worst song and critical reaction was mixed. Even Tomorrow Never Knows was widely whined about in fanzines. If they'd listened to the teenage girls and 'nice' fans completely and gotten rid of anything objectionable The Beatles would've ended up like what Scaruffi thinks they are

>The Beatles management did not want it anywhere near the record.
You mean Brian Epstein?
Same logic applies for people who you think overate The Beatles .

No, I'm not talking about people who claims the Beatles are the greatest in general, I'm talking about the specific ones that I KNOW they haven't listened to the Beatles discog, and that is a surprising number of individuals. Cmon, I made this clear, how could you not understand me

>I'm talking about the specific ones that I KNOW they haven't listened to the Beatles discog
Such as who?

youtube.com/watch?v=wFrQfsLxt70

keep in mind you idiots just argued with a Scaruffi written biography and reviews

scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

The absolute state of Sup Forums.

MY FUCKING SIDES AHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHA

Why would that matter? I mean, honestly. What kind of info do you want? Name, age, nationality?

>Why would that matter?
I don't think they exist. Again, this is a method to exaggerate claims against The Beatles.

wow

Epstein was dead before Revolution 9 was a thought.

Which is why user is incorrect

Damn.....

trips of truth

It's not a discussion when you base all of your points off of your own opinions, and then tell people they're wrong when they do the same.

A symptom of autism is that an autist believes that their opinons are truth and everybody else with a different opinion is wrong.

>It's not a discussion when you base all of your points off of your own opinions
Correct. That's why I avoid doing that. Nice projection though
>A symptom of autism is that an autist believes that their opinons are truth
So, you are autistic then?

not him, but if you really want to argue about things, you should work on your debating skills and find ways to avoid logical fallacies.

The Rutles>>>>>>>>The Beatles

Tool>The Beatles

OUCH!

>avoid logical fallacies.
What one did I make?