This band is like reek of the unzen gas fumes but not good

right, ROTUGF can make actual chaotic black metal while fucking tetragrammacide sounds like forgettable static.

For me its ROTUGF

Ok, I'm glad you at least acknowledge that comparing the 2 was dumb.

Btw maybe dull those edges just a bit, kiddo.

based answer. Fuck Tretrapoocide.

schizo thread

>comparing the 2 was dumb
you're right, reek just mog them so hard.

wow real funny. Fucking ass npc replies, get the fuck out of here nigga.

This

It's kinda like saying The Beatles mog Can.

Apples and Oranges

That would look cool on a t shirt I guess. Not much else going for it

reek would been Can in this case, they're far more talented, plus comparing industrial blackened grindcore to blackened death metal with noise influences isn't like comparing pop rock and fucking krautrock.

this would make a good t-shirt and it's actually good music too.
youtube.com/watch?v=N_wMyrDpMIs

Thinking Can outmatch The Beatles in terms of talent is just further confirmation of how immature you are.

And I think it's a apt analogy. Reek employ fairly precise instrumentation and clear vocals, while Tetragrammacide are noisy, experimental and more groove oriented (in an chaotic way).

chud music

>Thinking Can outmatch The Beatles in terms of talent
they honestly do, beatles are nothing without martin.
Also you're obviously right on reek having precise instrumentation and all that, but Reek don't have clear vocals, they might be discernible, but not clear, and there are some splits where they're very groove oriented. Their 2019 record is a good example though it varies with the tracks. All in all, tetragrammacide reminds me of a more forgettable version of ROTUGF. Without the industrial and grind influences.

shut up bitch

>they honestly do, beatles are nothing without martin
As far as subjective matters go, this is demonstrably false. But whatever.

Can made a couple of amazing albums, but The Beatles are far more advanced in terms of musical erudition, versatility and the ability to create universally impactful music.

>but Reek don't have clear vocals, they might be discernible
Ok, perhaps "discernable" would be a better word for it. My point still stands.

t.b.h. I like both bands but I like Tetragrammacide more

maybe versatility, but all the beatles did was either mooch of the US rock soundscape with their merseybeat sound, rip off Wilson and the san francisco 60's scene with their canterbury era and so on, but martin is pretty talented. Also wouldn't argue that they have more erudition than can, they know a lot more than we give them credit for, but they honestly don't hold a CANdle to can's musicians. Especially since musicians like karoli were jazz veterans while the beatles like harrison were mainly self-taught

you have bad taste then.

Y?

>but all the beatles did was either mooch of the US rock soundscape with their merseybeat
The only Beatles period worth listening to is the later one in which they mostly ditched the bullshit rock&roll sound. They still had their American influences, but eventually The Beatles became The Beatles. They're unequivocally one of the most singular bands in history.

The Beatles may have been self taught, but the musicianship they displayed was superior in pretty much every category but the drumming. Can is mostly just trippy groove music.

>but not good
wrong. seethe more tourist

>but eventually The Beatles became The Beatles. They're unequivocally one of the most singular bands in history
mainly because of commercial appeal. Their music isn't even that innovative or interesting compared to a band like The Sonics, I'm just gonna be honest.
>but the musicianship they displayed was superior in pretty much every category but the drumming
don't diss my boy ringo like that, also I'd say their songwriting and musicianship are completely different.
>trippy groove music
hello? What the fuck is revolver or MMT? Also can just has more interesting harmonies and rhythms.

dude listen to rotugf. Tetragrammacide sucks.

I do. Tetragrammacide are still good.

>mainly because of commercial appeal
I suppose that's part it, but I wouldn't go as far to say it's the main part.

Literally anyone could have made relatively unique music back then. It wasn't difficult, given the lack of schizophrenic bullshit and actual Noise that we have today. The hard part has always been to make music that has mass appeal without sacrificing too much originality.

>Their music isn't even that innovative or interesting compared to a band like The Sonics
Lol The Sonics? At least go with a band like Silver Apples or something.

>I'd say their songwriting and musicianship are completely different
This was my main point from the beginning. But if we're gonna compare the 2, I'm happy to side with The Beatles in most respects.

>What the fuck is revolver or MMT?
Sure, they had some groove music, but they weren't a groove oriented band.

>Also can just has more interesting harmonies and rhythms
That's way too generalized for me to agree with you.

compared to rotugf, not at all

> The hard part has always been to make music that has mass appeal without sacrificing too much originality
honestly, the beatles were considered good-looking, they didn't stay consistent to one sound, sure, but they had a marketable appeal that separated from the other early 60's bands gaining traction.
>Lol The Sonics? At least go with a band like Silver Apples or something
they're a good example too, but in terms of rock the sonics and the fugs are more influential to music as a whole than beatles. Beatles just inspired other commercially ambiguous hits.
>This was my main point from the beginning
I'm talking about the beatles and their songwriting and musician skills, the two don't overlap as much.
>Sure, they had some groove music, but they weren't a groove oriented band
I'd say they are, especially the early days when they made catchy pop tunes. I don't think mccartney could play anything off tago mago let's just be for real.
>That's way too generalized for me to agree with you
It's true, when it comes to beatles they're more on the pop-side of the whole rock music spectrum.

>but they had a marketable appeal that separated from the other early 60's bands gaining traction
The thing is, they weren't particularly good looking. The meme persisted due to their extraordinary songwriting abilities + their pop sensibilities + charisma.

>but in terms of rock the sonics and the fugs are more influential to music as a whole than beatles
The Beatles were more of a pop band, and their overall influence is much more significant than either of those bands.

>I'm talking about the beatles and their songwriting and musician skills, the two don't overlap as much
Oh I see. They're pretty good skill-wise, even compared to Can. A couple members of Can may have dabbled in Jazz, but it's not like Can were even close to virtuosic. They would have been laughed out of any audition for any notable jazz group.

>I don't think mccartney could play anything off tago mago let's just be for real
?? I take it your not a musician.

>It's true, when it comes to beatles they're more on the pop-side of the whole rock music spectrum
Yes, most of their music is pretty poppy, but their music is too diverse for me to agree with your generalization.

I love Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi, but Can was basically a one-trick pony.

>compared to rotugf, not at all
>implying daipershit riffs over drum machine blast beats is better than absolute lobotomized chaos
These bands aren't mutually exclusive, you know. You sound like you just found out about both of them.

>daipershit

Attached: 1565675989656.png (812x760, 112.47K)

>The thing is, they weren't particularly good looking
maybe not to you or me, but they had that boy band kitsch, though I do agree that they did have charisma. They were characteristic, but their music was average at best.
>The Beatles were more of a pop band, and their overall influence is much more significant than either of those bands
In terms of pop music yes, but beatles could only define an era thorough their commercial appeal and aesthetic, if you want to pinpoint who actually re-invented and established the sounds, I'd be the bands you and I aforementioned.
>but it's not like Can were even close to virtuosic
true, but compared to the beatles, they had far more talent when it came to playing their instruments.
> I take it your not a musician
I am, not saying tago mago is a prog masterpiece but you at least have to be some intermediate to play some of the tracks there, trust me I know.
>but their music is too diverse for me to agree with your generalization
it has variety, but it isn't really "diverse" just one popular trend they didn't start after the other, the real genius was martin, who I'm fond of.
>I love Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi
I love the beatles too, but Can is far more interesting to listen to.

>daipershit riffs over drum machine blast beats
more like thrash influenced grindchads riffing over mechanized drums that came from a dystopic future over shitty blackened death but with static.

It's blatant cultural appropriation.

shut up retard

>but beatles could only define an era thorough their commercial appeal and aesthetic
The Beatles played a bigger role in elevating pop music to a somewhat respectable artform than any other band. I'd say that's a pretty huge deal.

>true, but compared to the beatles, they had far more talent when it came to playing their instruments
I don't hear much on their albums that would lead me to believe this. Most of the music is very simple, and the playing is downright sloppy sometimes.

>but you at least have to be some intermediate to play some of the tracks there
Yes, much like with some of The Beatles music – at least as far as the guitar is concerned.

>it has variety, but it isn't really "diverse" just one popular trend they didn't start after the other
Variety and diversity are pretty much interchangeable here.

And to say they didn't "start" any trends is missing the larger picture. What they did was create a general sound that has been emulated by countless bands.

Can has their share of imitators, but there aren't too many bands I'd go so far as to call Can worshippers.

>I love the beatles too, but Can is far more interesting to listen to
In some respects I agree with you. But if I had to choose between the 2 Can albums I enjoy and the entire Beatles discography, I'm gonna go with The Beatles.

>The Beatles played a bigger role in elevating pop music to a somewhat respectable artform than any other band
that was a collaborative effort from dylan, beach boys, the like
>I don't hear much on their albums that would lead me to believe this. Most of the music is very simple, and the playing is downright sloppy sometimes.
I mean that perfectly decribes rubber soul (fantastic record btw).
>Yes, much like with some of The Beatles music – at least as far as the guitar is concerned.
honestly if you want to play the double harmonies, otherwise, not so much.
>What they did was create a general sound that has been emulated by countless bands
they influenced may bands, but most of them are far different from the beatles.
>if I had to choose between the 2 Can albums I enjoy and the entire Beatles discography, I'm gonna go with The Beatles
that's fair and all, but I'd personally pick can, they're a great band to me.Let's just be lucky that we live in a world where we could listen to both
it isn't, there's only one russian member and sadist himself is half-indian.

>that was a collaborative effort from dylan, beach boys, the like
As far as popular opinion is concerned, I guess this is undeniable. But I think The Beatles were the most important band among the notable ones.

Also, I have to say, no one was more of a thief than Dylan. The dude not only stole his sound, he stole entire personas. As for The Beach Boys, they had 2 albums that weren't utterly schlocky.

>honestly if you want to play the double harmonies, otherwise, not so much
A beginner would not be able to play most Beatles tunes with much finesse. They might be able to fumble through the chords/solos, but it's gonna sound like shit.

>they influenced may bands, but most of them are far different from the beatles
Well of course most of them are far different, but I can think of a bunch that a very similar right off the top of my head.
>ELO
>Oasis
>Blur
>Pulp
These massively popular bands are Beatles worshippers.

What major bands/artists could you call Can worshippers? Radiohead has a noticable degree of influence, but there isn't a single Radiohead album that sounds like a Can album.

>Let's just be lucky that we live in a world where we could listen to both
I'll agree with you on this one.

For me it's Nirriti youtu.be/szoiA5_3XxY

Attached: Album.jpg (700x700, 161.92K)

>But I think The Beatles were the most important band among the notable ones
I'd say for all it's worth, pet sounds is arguably the most influential btfo's sgt. peppes, also not denying the dylan is unoriginal, but still, his records are used as an example (something I'd disagree with).
>They might be able to fumble through the chords/solos, but it's gonna sound like shit.
probably basic, but not shit. It's pretty hard to fuck up a beatles song lol
>but I can think of a bunch that a very similar right off the top of my head.
For those bands you mentioned, I'd agree to all those brit-pop acts, but they were inspired by the whole merseybeat sound in general, Liam himself would list bands like the kinks and even other acts that mog the beatles like stone roses.
As for ELO, they had a beatles influence, but they weren't beatles worshipers, they clearly have this AOR-adjacent sound that's far more eloquent and overall different.
What I will say is that they're more influential than can but I've admit that before, I still perceive can to be the better musicians though.

Attached: PXL_20220421_044932231.jpg (2268x4032, 1.78M)

another indian band rotugf mogs, cool.

HAIL

>I'd say for all it's worth, pet sounds is arguably the most influential btfo's sgt. peppes
Sgt Pepper's is my least favorite Beatles album among their good ones, but I'd rather listen to nothing but Sgt Pepper's for a week than Pet Sounds one more time. I hate The Beach Boys so goddamn much.

>Liam himself would list bands like the kinks and even other acts that mog the beatles like stone roses
But their most noticable influence was The Beatles.

The Stone Roses do absolutely nothing for me. I'd say it's like listening to silence, but I prefer listening to silence.

>As for ELO, they had a beatles influence, but they weren't beatles worshipers, they clearly have this AOR-adjacent sound that's far more eloquent and overall different
ELO are basically a more polished Beatles + disco.

It's funny I'm spending so much time discussing this because I can't remember the last time I listened to any of this shit. If someone told me I could never listen to any rock-derived music ever again, I wouldn't be crushed.

>I'd rather listen to nothing but Sgt Pepper's for a week than Pet Sounds one more time. I hate The Beach Boys so goddamn much
that is one terrible opinion
>The Stone Roses do absolutely nothing for me. I'd say it's like listening to silence, but I prefer listening to silence.
hard disagree right there
>ELO are basically a more polished Beatles + disco.
I've heard 10538 overture and that, but they have their own distinct sound, I'd say.
>It's funny I'm spending so much time discussing this because I can't remember the last time I listened to any of this shit
well, until next time I suppose?

Till next time

Good talking with you

yeah, you too pal.

based

you and your shitty chud weeaboo agoraphobic nosebleed ripoff can go to hell

lol mad russian pajeet. Rotugf mogs all of your favorite bands

i don't even listen to the band in the OP i just hate fake gookmetal reek of the unzen cringe

>reek of the unzen cringe
you're filtered by good riffs, begone bitch.

you wouldn't know a good riff if it squatted over you and dropped a steaming hot turd onto your face

> if it squatted over you and dropped a steaming hot turd onto your face
you're into some weird shit. You need help you weird ass scat loving pansy fuck.