How much do you love the beatles?

how much do you love the beatles?

Attached: beatles.png (1000x563, 1.07M)

as much as scaruffi does

Very much. My favorite band since 8 (I'm 23 now). I've liked and disliked a lot of bands as I grow up but I just can't get tired of Beatles.

15/100

started coming here because i realized that despite my love of music i only ever listen to the same 12 albums for 4 years

A lot.

With all my heart and soul. They're the most influential and most innovative band of all time. Their albums (post-1965) are timeless classics.

their albums pre 65 were still some of the best stuff at the time as well. certainly more than the other filler filled albums of their contemporaries

I listened tunes like I Want To Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, I Saw Her Standing There, I Feel Fine and they sound like it could be released today. Musically you know? Maybe not the lyrics because it was written in early 60s.

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.

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.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

Stale meme

They're massively overrated, their achievements are overblown and overall they weren't that consistent.
But goddammit I still listen to them everyday and love them all the same. When they were good they were fucking incredible.

They reinvented Rock music mate. They are not overrated, they deserve every bit of praise. Can you name another band with 7 consecutives masterpieces before they even turn 30?

More than my life

>Can you name another band with 7 consecutives masterpieces before they even turn 30?
The Fall

>tfw cry everytime I listen to In My Life

Plagiarists.

So were the Buttles

>Tommy and Quadrophenia as operas
>when they have very little internal cohesion
>meanwhile Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road are the closest pop music has approached the song cycles of Schubert
I love The Who, but this is ridiculous.

Really? I haven't heard of this. Some examples?

The lyrics definitely feel older, but the music is still incredibly new in how it sounds.

Well i really love Mrs Robbinson. Great song.

no, but the beatles didn't do that either

Every album from Help! to Abbey Road is a masterpiece.

Not very much. They have a few good songs.

they're alright for being bongs

a lot

Attached: we're only in it for the money.jpg (1400x1380, 385K)

Honestly

Wrong