Eight Days Pajeet

There's also that Raj Bruce Springsteen movie.

>dood what if the beatles never existed
who is the target audience for this

>why don't we do it in the street?

unironically moms

rolling stones fans

me

why do people pretend to like the beatles?

The Beatles have some really good songs.

But the movie kinda ignores their massive popularity originated from teen girls obsessing over 4 attractive british guys, not from the quality over their music.

There were better looking bands who weren't nearly as successful

Would they have stayed relevant if they stayed static and never grew as artists? There will hundreds of "The Xxxxs" bands in the 60s.

>the beatles
>attractive

Attached: 1557423199357.png (1518x1074, 3.61M)

Lol

I mean think of a song like "I Want To Hold Your Hand", it is a catchy song but it isnt anything great.

But it was massively popular bc of the people singing it and girls feeling like it was being sung to them.

Some average looking indian guy singing it wouldn't have the same affect.

It's a power fantasy for all of the Pakis and Poos that are moving in droves to England

>OI M8 WUT IF THE PAKIS CONTRIBUTED MORE TO BRI'ISH CULTURE THAN JUST RUNNING THE CORNER STORE? WUD BE MENTAL WUDDINIT?

god i hate boomercore and womencentric music, ive never felt anything listening to a Beatles song, its just so fucking generic, same dreary shit you get from a Blunt or Bruno Mars today. Its pointless sound, like a bird screeching, you tune it out cause its background noise.

Are these any better?

youtube.com/watch?v=tAe2Q_LhY8g

youtube.com/watch?v=vWW2SzoAXMo

>you say loo
>I say no
>you say why?
>I shit on the floor

it was, unironically, a different time

Exactly. Even if the guy came out with all of their songs, what endears the Beatles is their transformation of pop garbage into what becomes their later albums. The Beatles of 1963 couldn't have written Let It Be or Abbey Road, and it's that transformation and growth from the perspective of the fans and audience is what elevates them even further. Lets say another artist came out with A Day in the Life. Good song, but because it's the Beatles, it takes on a deeper context to the listener. Some Pajeet dumping these songs to people unfamiliar would be like "yeah he's good but who cares".

no

>shitting is easy when outdoors
>just defecate on all you see
>it gets hard to clean the runs
>when it all shoots out
>it doesn't matter much to me

>let me squat right down
>'cause I'm standing in The Shitting Fields
>quite the ordeal
>when dysentary's all about
>Shitting Fields forever

their initial audience up until the late sixties was teenage girls. the beatles even entered a crisis in 1968 because they'd hit the traditional five year british and american music marketing cycle by which they were supposed to be obsolete and lose their female audience (which is actually somewhat what happened, they gained much more of an older male audience by the white album), loads of papers were saying they should disband

no group who roasties lust over in mass proportions is that good looking anyway because the prettiest men end up being bland like male models and them fronting a musical project is awkward. only elvis was really a chad and he still had very distinct facial features

but that's not the point, the beatles had a personality cult among teenage girls partially based on their quirkiness, being 'down to earth', marriageability (it wasn't well known that john had a wife) and other factors unrelated to their music

What about this?
youtube.com/watch?v=HEQQ-1rd4A0

It's one thing to not like the Beatles, that's fine. But I think
>Dude, they're just a shitty boy band, like the 60s version of One Direction or Bruno Mars
is a garb opinion to have

John was ourguy because he went after his Japanese waifu before it was cool.

>the beatles even entered a crisis in 1968 because they'd hit the traditional five year british and american music marketing cycle by which they were supposed to be obsolete and lose their female audience (which is actually somewhat what happened, they gained much more of an older male audience by the white album), loads of papers were saying they should disband
really? wasn't sgt pepper's highly acclaimed when it came out?

I'm writing a movie where an Orthodox kike wrote all of Led Zeppelin's shit before them.
Gonna call it "Heavy Shetl"

Doesn't this movie imply that Paul and Ringo appear? I'd rather just see a Beatles biopic, to be honest.

it was highly acclaimed and millions upon millions in the uk but that didn't stop the same papers from saying they should give it up. at that point a career in popular music while entering your late 20s wasn't seen as feasible. the white album also flopped in the uk (but was a huge success in the us)

>well, the shit exploded with a might splash
>as it shot right out my bum
>And the first one said to the second one there
>it's like a Gatling gun!

>I've got the runs, I've got the runs
>And the vendor man, and Sanjeet Sam
>will smell it evermore
>because I've got the runs

Warner isn't paying them to spam batman vs superman is kino threads anymore

You would not have the same impact today putting out Beatles songs as they did. They are not anything extraordinary.

cricket season

underrated

you’re looking at that song from your lense of today’s music.. back then it was a legitimately good, fresh song.

boomer brits, directed by danny boyle too

zoomers pretend the beatles were good

I'm not an Yea Forumsfag, but the Beatles not existing would have a pretty big knock-on effect in the music industry, right? I'm guessing that they influenced the medium and later bands in the 70s onwards to a big extent.

not really
the beach boys and the rolling stones were the influential bands of the era

Im not argue that they arent better, but its like being the best country singer, im still going to hate their music

Ozzy was influenced by the Beatles.
Beatles created metal.

Stay seething contrarian.

A classic from Pajeet McCartney and Singhs

They kicked out the guy that was mogging them all.

Attached: astrid01.jpg (703x944, 247K)

Don't be retarded, The Beatles were more influential than both those bands simply because they were more popular. Brian Wilson's music was too weird even for the time and the Stones made good music but not as influential as either of those other two.

indian men who want to fuck white girls

boyle is gonna make a bank.

>all these faggots missing the point of the thread

I read the news today, oh boy.
All those pakis and how they raped that whore.
A crowd of bobbies turned away.
But I just had to look:
Having read Tarrant’s book,
I’ve learned to make a bomb.

There are streets I’ll remember, all my life
Though some intestines have changed, some elsewhere, not for better
Some toilets have come, yet I still remain
These mud bricks will have their moments
For those toilet witches that I can still recall
Many friends are dead but I’m still living
In my life, I’ve loved bobs and vagene most of all

Hi I flew today

Poo is flowing out
Like endless shit into an overflowing street
Each turd slithers wildy as it slips out of my anus
Pools of diarrhea, waves of curry
Are drifting through my open ass
No straining and struggling for me

Tank u sirs do the needful and up vote this post

Poo, Poo in the loo!
No I will not do!
This street corner will do!
So pleee hee hee eeease!
Watch out for my poo.

It’s been a hard turd night, and I’ve been struggling like a dog
It’s been a hard turd night, I should be shitting a log
But when I get home to you
I know the streets full of poo
Will make me feel all right

mogs me

Sure smells like incel in here

by british standards

There's really no way of knowing. It would have affected music in the '60s and '70s for sure, so that psychedelia would have been more underground, or come up a year or two later than it did. But whatever ground The Beatles allegedly broke was going to be broken sooner or later. They're not so influential as they are popular. And they're not popular so much for their originality as for their songwriting talent.