The great debate

The great debate...

Attached: ChooseTheFormOfYourDestructor.jpg (640x320, 109K)

Other urls found in this thread:

albumlinernotes.com/George_Martin_Comments.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromesthesia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome
mentalfloss.com/article/88417/12-famous-artists-synesthesia
mentalfloss.com/article/25552/quick-10-10-people-perfect-pitch
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Whatr's the debate? They are both fine.

Sgt Peppers because it was made by actual talented musicians.
I don't want to untuned guitars play noise and lo fi garage rock.

TVU&N easily.

TVU is obviously better

you don't need talent to be a great musician.

Sgt. Pepper's.

I prefer TVU&N. But if we are talking about influence, Sgt Peppers was more influential and important.

kek

>the beatles
>talented

Name me one TVU that is in an odd time signature.

John Cale alone was more talented than the whole Beatles.

Sgt Papper isn't even the best Battles album of 1967

Talent is not even scientifically proven to exist.

TVU&N is a better album, but Beatles were a better band overall.
- more influential
- more prolific
- more diverse
- much better vocals and drums

How so?

I think the reason it's not worth discussing is because there is no way anyone who picks one thinks the other is even a contender so there's no room for convincing someone unless they just don't have an opinion at all in which case they are worthless (the correct answer is TVU&N obviously)

>Sgt Peppers was more influential and important.
>there are Rolling Stone reading retards who actually believe this

This is correct, Sgt. Pepper isn't even their best album and it's still one of the best ever

That was the only album release din 1967

*Deletes Femme Fatale

Not an argument.

The Beatles also influenced VU themselves, so they are more influential, statistically speaking.

>muh time signatures make a song good
why is it always time signatures that you fags like to circlejerk, even though they're so menial and unimportant. A time signature means nothing to the quality of a song.

>Sgt. Peppers
>more influential and improtant than an album that pioneered several genres

did you start listening to rock yesterday? Sgt. Peppers is basically Beatles trying to sound like Pet Sounds. She's Leaving Home is Paul trying hard as fuck to be like Brian Wilson.

I hate Rolling Stone, but they are right on that

Sgt. Pepper changed popular music as a whole, it influenced the same bands that The Velvet Underground did and others as well.

Nice goalpost shifting
>pioneered several genres
[citation needed]

>pioneered severed genres
Are you talking about banana Album or WL/WH?

>Sgt. Peppers is basically Beatles trying to sound like Pet Sounds.
When will this meme end

>noise rock (European Son)
>post rock (Heroin)
>proto punk (Waiting for The Man)
>dream pop (Sunday Morning)

first fact in this thread

*blocks your path*

Attached: R-464292-1434665238-3702.jpeg.jpg (600x604, 306K)

This is also better than Sgt. Peppers.

Attached: we're only in it for the money.jpg (1000x1000, 257K)

That's a nice EP, not an album though

>this tired ass argument
It's officially recognized as an album pal. Deal with it!

Not an album

>>noise rock (European Son)
>>proto punk (Waiting for The Man)
Wrong. See: The Monks
>>dream pop (Sunday Morning)
Wrong. See Phil Spector
>post rock (Heroin)
How is this post-rock?

I don't get why people say that WL/WH pioneered genres. TVU&N came first and did those things first. WL/WH was just more abrassive.

A compilation album? yes but that's not what we are talking about.

>That's not an album, that's a short album!
Nice

>The Monks
>noise rock/proto punk

Attached: 1500181395849.jpg (720x699, 64K)

Released as a studio LP in the US, so...

that was said by george martin himself you illiterated cherubin

Look it up, idiot
You mean the nation where Beatles releases were not sanctioned by The Beatles?

OK. I hop you count Yesterday and Today and Hey Jude as actual albums then
>that's a short album!
They call it an EP
[citation needed]

THIS. THANKS user.

Attached: 135534968265.png (199x274, 88K)

>Actual music vs. """"art"""" degeneracy
Yeah this 'debate' is a no-brainer

I can just tell you're the type of person who releases generic shoegaze shit on bandcamp because "music is subjective"

>Monks
>Noise rock

Explain

>Beatles
>not degenerate

>OK. I hope you count Yesterday and Today and Hey Jude as actual albums then
I do. Along with Something New and Meet the Beatles! as well

Ok then, prove to me that talent exist.

And I don't want a video of your favorite musician playing their shit, I want you to show me scientific facts.

>[citation needed]
>“Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened. Revolver was the beginning of the whole thing. But Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds.
albumlinernotes.com/George_Martin_Comments.html

6/11 made me reply

>please prove a negative.
Except you made the original claim that talent has been scientifically proven to not exist, thus the burden of proof is on you. Show us the studies.

>>“Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened. Revolver was the beginning of the whole thing. But Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds.
Not what I'm asking for.

Try again.

Not an argument

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromesthesia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

It is. user made a claim, I asked for a citation, he did not provide one. Read the thread if you are still confused.

He provided citation.
He won. It's over.

mentalfloss.com/article/88417/12-famous-artists-synesthesia
mentalfloss.com/article/25552/quick-10-10-people-perfect-pitch
There's your science

>He provided citation.
Not for the claim that George Martin said
>Sgt. Peppers is basically Beatles trying to sound like Pet Sounds.

Try again.

How is this relevant?

>Reading comprehension

He won. It's over.

apples to oranges... the great debate is sgt pepper and pet sounds

>equaled = copying
Nice reading comprehension

>Sgt. Peppers is basically Beatles trying to sound like Pet Sounds
Pet Sounds was just The beach Boys trying to sound like Rubber Soul

Duhhh I don't know. Could it be that a large amount of the most renowned musicians of all time all coincidentally have these same mental conditions that set them apart from the average person?

Nice meme

This is a serious discussion. Fuck off back to if you can't handle it.

they both suck, and you're awful for thinking otherwise

Aww someone got upset because he was born an average schmo with nothing noteworthy about him. Don't worry buddy, there's plenty of open spaces in the service industry, even if you're lacking 'talent' in the brain department.

What do you mean? I play in several bands.

How about you?

I played in a few bands in college, yeah. The difference is I don't try to claim talent is completely irrelevant and four working class teenagers from Liverpool magically became the most popular band in the world because they studied their chords and anyone could do what they did.

>The difference is I don't try to claim talent is completely irrelevant
When did I say that?

Lol I don't have time for your backpedalling. I proved your point wrong, just leave it at that.

>I proved your point wrong,
Again, when did I say this?

You might be replying to the wrong person you dipshit

I mean one was something original and timeless and a debut album no less and then the other was just buttloads of money being used to make something that was already surpassed and irrelevant by the time it was released because it was so completely caught up in being contemporary to the exact year it was released but with no vision of the future, if it were released by anyone else, nobody would give a shit

I don't believe that anyone is actually this retarded

Sgt pepper's by far

>used to make something that was already surpassed and irrelevant by the time it was released because it was so completely caught up in being contemporary
What albums specifically?

VU&N for one, unlike all the contemporary music of that time which can be easily lumped together as just an overall sound and influence that was felt through the late 60's and early 70's, The Velvet Underground cannot be grouped into all that other stuff as its influence was totally separate from all that and what it influenced only fully came into fruition a decade later with all sorts of brand new musical movements taking off simultaneously

You can't even compare the two albums in the OP as if they are on the same level and expect to be taken seriously

>VU&N for one
Doesn't sound at all like Sgt Pepper. Try again

>was already surpassed and irrelevant by the time it was released because it was so completely caught up in being contemporary

/thread

>What albums specifically?
If something was totally separate from musical movements, then it could not have been contemporary

Try again.

He was influenced by the Beatles though

Look, I don't know why I'm taking the bait here, but the fact that VU&N doesn't sound anything like Sgt. Pepper's is a point in its favor...VU&N was a visionary album, Sgt. Pepper's was not, Sgt. Pepper's was a contemporary album

>I don't want to untuned guitars play noise and lo fi garage rock
Spotted the pleb

>The Beatles also influenced VU themselves, so they are more influential, statistically speaking
"Citation needed"

Influenced by =/= better

Why's this one say "Mothers"?

>but the fact that VU&N doesn't sound anything like Sgt. Pepper's is a point in its favor
Not really. You said that Sgt Pepper's downfall was that it was trying too hard to sound like it's contemporaries and be of it's time, right? And your example is VU&N, right?

It can't be because
1) Pepper doesn't sound ANYTHING like VU&N (thus it's not a contemporary)
2) VU&N intentionally did not sound anything like their won contemporaries (it was not of it's time)

Your'e gonna have to b8 harder you dumbfuck

>Sgt. Pepper's was a contemporary album
Again, if that was true, you'd be able to show me albums that sound like that. So far you've failed miserably.

>"They were a driving force in the velvets, and made us work harder and got us on our bikes. Rubber soul was where you were forced to deal with them as something other than a flash in the pan. It was rich in ideas and i loved the way george managed to find a way to include all those indian instruments. Lou and i had tried to work with the sarinda. We were only playing it just to get a noise but i realised you could play melody on the sitar as good as Norwegian wood. Norwegian woond had this atmosphere of being very acid. I don't think anybody has ever got that sound or that feeling as well at the Beatles."
-John Cale

I'm guessing English is your second language or maybe this discussion was moving too fast for you. First of all, please listen to at least 150-200 albums from 1967 before coming back to this board if you're going to post retarded opinions like this because then at least you might have learned something.

When you immerse yourself in the music of 1966-1969 and into the early 70's, there's a lot of stuff there, an insane amount of 20th century music genres and movements experienced their origins or peaks in those years. And when you listen to all of that stuff, you'll find Sgt. Pepper's does not sound original or fresh in any way and never did.

Your argument is that because The Velvet Underground were so far ahead of their time, they are worse than Sgt. Pepper's, but that doesn't make any sense. If you want to argue Sgt. Pepper's does a better job representing 1967, then sure, but it's not the more revolutionary album. Sgt. Pepper's was released in recognition of a revolution that already began and had no relevance to that revolution, while The Velvet Underground kicked off its own revolution that eventually succeeded the current one. It was influencing the stuff that replaced Sgt. Pepper's before Sgt. Pepper's existed.

>please listen to at least 150-200 albums from 1967
Have you?

Still waiting for you to list some albums...

>they are worse
When did I say this? English might be your second language so I can understand if you got confused.
>If you want to argue Sgt. Pepper's does a better job representing 1967 then sure
Not my argument

Then what the fuck is your problem, are you just wanting someone to spoonfeed you? Because your original post and all your attempts to side-step any actual discussion in need of lists suggest you have nothing of value to add here and just want to be told what to think. I answer your stupid question and you just can't say anything. Fuck you and posters who think like you. I've probably listened to 200 albums at least from every year between 1967-1972 and I didn't need anybody to tell me my opinions on them. You can't understand anything about musical influence if you don't just listen to music for yourself, no parrotable lists will solve your major deficiencies. I hope you die in a fire and nobody notices you're gone.

She's Leaving Home > anything on TVU

>I answer your stupid question
Oh, where is a list of albums you posted?

You seem to forgotten it.

>I've probably listened to 200 albums at least from every year between 1967-1972
How long have you been studying music theory?

Banana is MILES better than anything the beatles have ever done, and it's not even TVU's best album
>TVU
-Pioneered several genres
Ahead of their time
-Influenced hundreds of people
-Actually good music
>The Beatles
-Literal boyband
-Only influences others in non-music related shit like the album format, music videos and concerts
-Mediocre music
though TVU after John Cale left is worse than the beatles. Lou truly is a talentless hack

Sure scaruffi

Jesus how can you be so wrong

Revolver destroys both

TVU easily