|
Damo posted:OK obvious troll attempt name me a band who is supremely better than the beatles at the time of help or rubber soul. I say supremely since the beatles were trash, so bottom tier right. the answer is right in your question.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Carmant posted:Interesting how all of their solo albums were complete poo poo. Almost like there was someone else behind the scenes doing all the work or something. Interesting how all your solo posts are complete poo poo. Maybe you should find 3 other poo poo posters and see if the sum of your whole is greater than your parts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Carmant posted:Interesting how all of their solo albums were complete poo poo. Almost like there was someone else behind the scenes doing all the work or something. "complete poo poo" is a slight overstatement, but you have a point I think it's less that there was someone making it great (although the argument can be made), and more about Paul and John being total assholes to each other and both of them being assholes to George, so generally mediocre ideas were left on the studio floor
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
ProperCoochie posted:Both are great, but Help has a lot of songs in the key of A, so I believe it pacifies the listener's ears a bit i like that you can tell from this, even if you've never listened to the beatles, that revolver and sgt pepper are the best albums
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Seaniqua posted:Revolver is my favorite The Beatles album Mine also.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Carmant posted:Interesting how all of their solo albums were complete poo poo. Almost like there was someone else behind the scenes doing all the work or something. All things must pass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
I think that Help was tied into the release and production of the accompanying movie so i would assume that a lot of the songs were around for longer than usual due to the time delay involved making the movie. I.e the songs were done before the movie was filmed. Also i saw an interview where one of them said that during the filming of help they were bored as gently caress during scenes so they smoked a poo poo load of pot to pass the time. So in conclusion it may seem like a short period but a few months making a lovely movie distorts the time line between releases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
von Braun posted:lol without brian wilson the beatles would have not been as good these are not mutually exclusive ideas
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Rubellavator posted:All things must pass. Is ok but not great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
the beatles were ridiculously good
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Dave Concepcion posted:the beatles were ridiculously good not really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
cda posted:not really. thanks for your contrarian hot take
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Every Beatles album has garbage in it. There's not a single Beatles album that's solid from beginning to end. And the good songs they have are kind of incoherent. They didn't have a voice or a perspective really. McCartney came the closest but he was a maudlin Nice Guy gently caress so who wants to listen to that dribble. And many of their bad songs are atrociously bad. Like, way worse than normal bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
I'm not trying to say the Beatles were a bad band. They were totally a good professional band. Very respectable. Some great songs. But "ridiculously good." No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
I mean, you realize James loving Brown was alive and working at the same time as the Beatles, yes? Marvin Gaye. The Supremes. Miles Davis. Nina Simone. Otis Redding. Jimi Hendrix. Joan Baez. Get the gently caress outta here with that "ridiculously good" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Who is your favorite band and why
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
cda posted:I mean, you realize James loving Brown was alive and working at the same time as the Beatles, yes? Marvin Gaye. The Supremes. Miles Davis. Nina Simone. Otis Redding. Jimi Hendrix. Joan Baez. Get the gently caress outta here with that "ridiculously good" bullshit. All these were also fantastic but not the same genre at all. Who of the beatles' pop music contemporaries were better than them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Dave Concepcion posted:All these were also fantastic but not the same genre at all. Who of the beatles' pop music contemporaries were better than them? Motown was pop. What are you talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
ProperCoochie posted:Both are great, but Help has a lot of songs in the key of A, so I believe it pacifies the listener's ears a bit Waltzing Along posted:This is a great video/explanation/analysis of the beatles: this is real cool Pennywise the Frown posted:Plus, Help! had... Help. The Night Before, and You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. All great songs. the night before is really underappreciated
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
cda posted:Motown was pop. What are you talking about. It's soul pop and is considered it's own genre, don't be obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:i like that you can tell from this, even if you've never listened to the beatles, that revolver and sgt pepper are the best albums I don't know man. Cumulative Total looks like it must have been a killer album.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
I think there's something fundamentally wrong with anyone who hates the Beatles. Also, "Rubber Soul" had some sitar and pump organ on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Harakiri Potter posted:I think there's something fundamentally wrong with anyone who hates the Beatles. Also, "Rubber Soul" had some sitar and pump organ on it. I've never met a musician who actively dislikes the beatles
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Dave Concepcion posted:I've never met a musician who actively dislikes the beatles 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. Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially. Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles. Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Carmant posted: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. Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially. Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles. Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses. Source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
regardless of your copy-paste, I've still never met a musician who actively dislikes the beatles, and I know quite a few
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
townshend was really good and the beatles really were part manufactured product but they still made good stuff and deserve their place as one of the ebst bands in hitory
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
nah help rules too the beatles just rule gently caress artsy fartsy purity tests imho
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Silver Apples were better
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Anyone who poo poo talks Brian Wilson gets the death penalty in my caliphate
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:Anyone who poo poo talks Brian Wilson gets the death penalty in my caliphate dude was legit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPcPkc6KD7k
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Pet Sounds is better than Sgt Pepper's
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
So farewell then, once OK thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:Anyone who poo poo talks Brian Wilson gets the death penalty in my caliphate  Seaniqua posted:Pet Sounds is better than Sgt Pepper's
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
I take Revolver as my personal favorite but rubber soul & sgt pepper's are close up there too. All their albums are at least decent. A Hard Days Night is IMO the best "early beatles" and Revolver is the best "late beatles" if that makes sense. because I grew up by Chicago, they will always be the soundtrack to sunday morning eggs & pancakes to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Les Os posted:Silver Apples were better Lol never expected a Silver Apples reference in a Beatles thread. They are hella good though. To answer your question OP, I believe Help was the album where the Beatles were tiring out of being the biggest pop band in the world and wanted to explore different areas of music. I think their singles were beginning to drastically change around this time as well (I think Paperback Writer and Day Tripper were coming out around this time?). Rubber Soul wasn’t as huge of a leap as Revolver would be. Yeah there were some unique songs (Norwegian Wood really comes to mind), but you had songs that would sound at home on early Beatles albums as well. And yeah, drugs and Bob Dylan are also probably involved. Lol at the poster saying the Doors though. The first album is great but the rest of their stuff sucks until LA Woman. And then Morrisson died.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
I hate LA woman too. They burnt out so fast pffft. GONE I think the Beatles were the greatest band thus far, and it is amazing because they were forerunners, at the beginning of rock/ created it whatever So drat early to be the best It's strange
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Dave Concepcion posted:regardless of your copy-paste, I've still never met a musician who actively dislikes the beatles, and I know quite a few I've never met anyone who actively listens to the beatles either aside from one dweeby college music professor I had. He even made us sign a piece of paper that said the beatles were the greatest band of all time and if we didnt we would fail the class lol. Maybe thats why I dont like them
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Henry Ford Jr pushed beatlemania in America to keep white youths away from negro music which he thought was a Jewish conspiracy Beatles are insanely overrated and were from start to finish manufactured and packaged for bland dumbasses and John Lennon was an avowed racist
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:10
|
|