Why do some people hate The Beatles?

Fucking dull boring pop rock that fails to interest me in any way. Even their most “experimental” (LOL, even radiohead are more experimental) album is just 80 minutes of trite dogshit. If your interest is in unexceptional easy listening then the Beatles are for you.

First you love the Beatles, then you get edgy and say you've "evolved past them," then you realize nobody gives a fuck about your posturing and snootiness and you start loving them again.

>and their stereo mixes are atrocious lmao
t. hasn't listened to the 50th anniversary Sgt pepper or white album mixes

Do you have any reading comprehension skills at all?

Yes, I was adding to your post. Quit being a bitch.

Radiohead never snuck a musique concrete song into the homes of millions of teenage girls.

People don’t get it. I can understand why some people don’t like them, a lot of their songs are kinda boring and dull. But it’s the entire fascination and development of their music that I appreciate, which give way to me actually loving their albums and songs. It’s the same way with classical, at first it all sounds boring but when you sit down begin to appreciate the history, the talent and dedication to produce such great works, you begin to see the music in a whole new light and really begin to appreciate and love it. A Lot of people don’t want to go through the hassle of it so they just don’t get it.

>something with a totally different mood.
because they're an album of good songs. not everything is a piece of conceptual, coherent soundtrack. the closest they got to a purposely designed album is the MMT EP. Even pepper is mostly just a collection of 66-67 songs

t. zoomer

There are better bands than the beatles

>If your interest is in unexceptional easy listening then the Beatles are for you.
it is easy listening most of the time but is isn't unexceptional. this is why no takes beatles critics here seriously

Such as?

Copying Stockhausen in the most soulless and unimaginative way possible (to a point it almost comes off as a parody of Stockhausen and the whole concrete genre) is not experimental.
Easy listening is by default unexceptional. Don’t respond to this because I know you will enter a semantic tirade and begin sperging about how anyone on earth could possibly find your favorite band uninteresting.

why does something have to be experimental to you to be exceptional?

It's not even close to Stockhausen. Also, what do you listen to? I would not put The Beatles in easy listening at all.

I don't hate them but I don't think they deserve the praise they get. They weren't revolutionary or directly interesting, just a bunch of kids from liverpool that hit it big. Hey Bulldog is probably my best track of theirs.

No one likes or hates the beatles.

Radiohead has the same soul as the beatles.

Hipsters constanly trying to out contrarian each other whether they are good or bad to the point it just warps back into itself

I don't "hate" them, but I don't think its my thing. I think it's because when I was in middle school, kids used to shit on you if you didn't like the Beatles (for some reason). If you didn't like their stuff you were stupid somehow. That's a pretty dumb reason, but it always left a bad taste in my mouth. For me its more of the people who like them than the band itself. That said I do think revolver and Sgt. Peppers are well made albums.

It doesn’t. It so happens that the Beatles are neither.
It’s entirely a Stockhausen ripoff. The critics that praise it admit it’s directly influenced by the likes of Varese and Stockhausen. Ono’s own influences include Varese. Comparing this to Varese is an even bigger insult than comparing it to Stockhausen. What I listen to is really not relevant, fact of the matter is the Beatles are pop rock and pop rock is an easy listening genre. Feel free to not respond if you want to get into an autistic semantic argument like every Beatles faggot on this site does.

Rip-off or not, The Beatles were still based for doing it. Millions and millions of people have a a record with a musique concrete song in their homes now.

How many of them actually like it? How many of them don’t just skip over it on Spotify? How many of them look at it critically or analyze it? The answer is less than 0.1%, because at the end of the day having a single concrete song and not understanding anything about the genre or being able to analyze it makes not a real music enthusiast. It’s effectively no better than an Ariana Grande song to these people because they consume it in the same manner.

Plenty of children/teens are completely uninterested or hostile to them. They have their own version of the beatles to fawn over.

But the hatred against them that i hadn't really anticipated is the attacks on work by 'straight white males'. Not to mention that England of 2063 will look incredibly different to England of 1963, demographically speaking. If you know what I mean.

For me it was more a case of finding bands who did what the beatles did but did it better, or doing something completely different to what used to be called the mainstream, then not being able to go back to normie music even if i wanted to. And ironically I only really got into psychelic music (and 60s music in general) once i realised that the other stuff out there was lot more interesting than "lovely rita" and a few minutes of psychedelic rock on Revolver.

>real music enthusiast

Attached: 1491716816521.jpg (720x540, 29K)

How long did it take for you to come up with this stunner?

so? seems like a tokenistic attitude to automaticall assign "cultural/intellectual value" to certain genres with no regard for whether or not it's actually good music

when i realized that people who consider themselves "music enthusiast" are virgins that deserved to be mocked.

You're a faggot and devaluing this board

you're an incel and you need to fuck off and die

>Not to mention that England of 2063 will look incredibly different to England of 1963, demographically speaking. If you know what I mean.
and it's liberal boomers like the beatles and their fans that can be thanked for that.

That’s one way to admit you have a shallow if not non-existent understanding of music.

i don't give a shit about understanding music you freak. i listen to music i like the sound of. literally nobody cares about anything else.

you don't seem like a very nice person. did somebody hurt you once?

That’s nice and all sweety, it’s time for you to head back to /r/music now.

>I don't actually know anything about musical composition, timbre or rhythm... but my music taste is still really good!! You don't have to know this shit to be a patrician!!! What an elitis- WAIT incel!
Also I have a girlfriend, work two jobs, and am studying two degrees at university you utter faggot. Go away, don't come back.

Attached: ayBeyZy_460s.jpg (460x366, 23K)

i don't give a shit about how my music is. i like what i like. people who put any value in their taste are the scum of their board.

Agreed. I get called a hater of the beatles even though i've liked (some) of their stuff for years and know their catalog back to front. The people who are anti-beatles are the ones who hear one song and then dismiss them as grand-dad music, along with most music from that era, or never bother to listen to them at all. A lot of people couldn't tell you any of the beatles' names. It's those sorts of people who will cause problems for the future appreciation of the band, not the people who argue that half of Sgt Pepper isn't really psychedelic or that's it's not a true concept album, or whatever else.

If they found it interesting, wouldn't the female audience of that sort of music be higher than the 0.5% it is? Same goes for progressive rock for that matter. Girls may have been nuts for certain aspects of the beatles phenomenon, but it certainly wasn't for their expansions into art rock or tape experiments.

>trying to impress strangers on a Sri Lankan fishing board

It sounds like you’re the scum of this board because this board has always put value into understanding music historically, practically and theoretically and has always valued cultivating taste beyond the entry level. You sound like you would be more at home on reddit.

this board has always been a fucking shithole so it means nothing of what its traditions are

I don't give a shit what he thinks, he just implied that anyone with any musical knowledge is an incel
I don't value my taste. You running around here asserting your uninformed shitty opinions and pretending they're worth something is unacceptable. No one should have to read such a thing.

It's the most likeable band of all time, that's for sure (hence why it's the most successful). But obviously there are people who dislike it. And obviously there are people who pretend to dislike it just to """"""""be cool"""""""".

Hey, it’s good to admit that you’re an outsider with no care for assimilating into local culture. That’s the first step in returning to where you came from.

you're coming onto this board trying to impress people with a story nobody cares about. fuck off

But Sgt peppers isnt a true concept album.

>trying to impress people with a story
It might even be bait at this point

Attached: 1550541841499.gif (150x150, 1.07M)

fuck off frogposter

>Musical composition, timbre or rhythm
None of which Musique concrete actually possesses, so your music enthusiast skills are sort of irrelevant.

By the way, as morbid as it is to say, the real litmus test for the current state of beatle fandom in the wider community (not just music obsessives like Yea Forums) is how people react when either Ringo or Paul die. I think you can expect quite a few stories centered around how so many young people have no idea who they were, including adult musicians with millions of fans. And i think the reaction will be less intense than the reaction to David Bowie dying, which was completely overboard, to be honest.

>musique concrete has no composition or timbre involved
Bravo

Explain how knowing music theory validates your music taste.

paul dying will result in a shitstorm bigger than bowie. beatles are still very popular with a lot of young people and people of all ages. he still sells out stadiums on tours and a lot of people are in their 20's or 30s. even hh and club music zoomers will hear about his death and make a big deal out of it.

You really don’t need to know music theory to understad basic musical concepts. Hell, music theory isn’t going to differentiate a distorted electric guitar lick from a clean one. It’s half the story, although incredibly important in thoroughly understanding how melodies and harmonies work.

No one can really deny how influential they were. Whether people enjoy them is a matter of personal opinion. I would think that most people dislike them just to be contrarian.
I enjoy them. Especially as a musician (bass guitar, electric guitar). Paul literally defined several of the best ways to craft a bassline on the fly for contemporary music.

Attached: 1534689489170.jpg (180x217, 7K)

It doesn’t validate anyone’s taste. Taste is a completely subjective thing, everyone is allowed to like and listen to whatever they want.
Knowledge of music theory, and timbres and rhythms (not just for western theory I might add) makes someone’s opinion on a piece of music worth reading or listening to. They are informed to explain from the ground up how the music has been put together. You might be able to see how someone like Samuel Andreyev might have a more valuable opinion about music than some rock-exclusive critic faggot who just uses adjectives to describe what he’s hearing and scoring it based on how much he personally enjoyed it.

It really doesn't have any value worth analyzing. Most of it is random sounds thrown together unceremoniously, and no critic worth his salt would use the word "timbre" to praise something which lacks any musicality. Sure, sounds have timbre to them, but I would never use it to analyze music. The Beatles music is not praised by critics for its "timbre".

I don’t feel either way about this argument, but the Beatles were extremely praised for their production which has everything to do with timbre...

aye but most of the praise went to the lennon-mccartney songwriting

james jamerson did more for bass guitar than paul dude

This is how you identify someone with 0 understanding of the concrete genre.

That doesn't discredit the fact that Paul did a lot himself as well. What's your point? Some musicians are more influential than others? Okay.

Please feel free to expand on that rather than simply being a condescending prick.

Paul is the mediocrest bass player.

It’s simple. You literally think that concrete is without exception just random assembled sounds (in Revolution 9’s case it is, and in some others it is as well, but if you think an entire genre with multiple legendary composers in it is without exception random sounds lumped together you are the densest piece of shit to ever walk on this board). On top of that you appear to think that “unmusicality” exists, and you think that timbre doesn’t apply to literally any given sound. And you don’t think that timbre is one of the most important aspects of sound. Very easy to dismiss you as another retard not worth paying attention to.

Scaruffi about Oasis:
>"As melodists they are worth even less than McCartney."
Pauls overrated

People who know nothing about music love the Beatles with no knowledge as to what makes them great.

People who know a little about music wrongly hate the Beatles and fail to grasp their weight and importance.

People who know a shit load about music recognize that they're easily one of the greatest acts ever and understand how their historical and financial position absolutely changed the face of pop music for the last 50+ years and recognize that everything they put out is great.

I'm not going to debate semantics about how Paul was mediocre when you're going to compare him to every bass player there is. Of fuckin course he's not Mingus or Pastorius or Wooten, everyone knows the Beatles were not incredibly advanced or skilled musicians at the start of their career. That was part of the point, why they're considered garage rock, anyone can play so long as they put in the time and work together. Paul was a skilled musician though, and as far as the songwriting, there are a number of ways you can replicate several of his signature bass lines and it'll still sound good. It's useful for creating a groove on the fly.
You guys must just be looking for (You)'s right? I'll take the bait.

Attached: 1537116030670.png (704x720, 356K)

Thanks for repeating what I just said back to me. Musique concrete is not about "timbre", even Pierre Henry agrees that it is irrelevant when it comes to Musique concrete and is no means of method of analyzing it. What do you gain from analyzing the timbre? That's what I am getting at.

youtube.com/watch?v=PMMe3iwBV-I
this clip of bernstein talking about pop of the 60s describes this just so

It's easy to hate the legacy the Beatles left. They were a huge cultural phenomenon. Boomer friends told me there was no escape from their influence at the time. They turned a generation of would be folkies into rock fans at a time when rock was seen as a waning music for hillbillies and bad boys. While they were very much the exception to the rule as far as bands go their influence gave us many conceits that have become common rock tropes: the boy band, the band that writes its own songs, the concept album, rock as a counter-culture force, the group identity being stronger than an individual star, art/experimental rock and the idea that a recording can represent the use of the studio as its own instrument as opposed to simply capturing a live performance. These ideas were all brilliant in a genius tier group lie the Beatles, but when they became commonplace in pop music they resulted in a lot of lackluster shit produced by less talented individuals. Hating the Beatles is just plain silly, but hating their influence on pop culture makes perfect sense. They inspired a lot of bad music.

I’m repeating what you said back to you so you can perhaps begin to understand how every part of your post outs you as an utter fucking retard.
Pierre Henry is one fucking person in a genre that traces its roots back almost a century. Who gives a shit?
Concrete is not about timbre, and no one ever claimed it was. It is about using found sound and using various “nonmusical” sources to weave together meaningful art. Timbre plays a part in that, as does the context of the sound, the sound itself (ie. a car passing, radio crackle, someone speaking in a foreing language) whatever melody the sound may have if applicable, so on and so forth. More importantly it is about the practice of using magnetic tape and other analog functions to splice sound together, and the effects of that. What do you gain from analyzing timbre? Same thing you gain from analyzing anything else I just mentioned.

Kek imagine hating on the greatest album of all time

Attached: F722CB19-A4D7-4DDD-B182-43F605B80142-195-000000ABC7224280.jpg (384x384, 44K)

I already know what you think of me, so why would I care to have it repeated to me over and over? You're taking this far too personally.
I fail to see why the input of someone highly influential to Musique concrete has no value whatsoever as you seem to think.

To perhaps allow you to come to a self-realization and make a change, although you appear to be too stupid for that.
It’s not the fact that it has no value, as it is literally just being the opinion of one person. He does not speak for the entire genre, at best he speaks for his own works and whoever he’s influenced. This applies to any influential figure in any department, unless they literally invented whatever they speak about. Even then their notions of their own genre may be antiquated. So no, Henry’s opinions are not nearly as important and much of a final say as you think they are.
You also didn’t address a single line in my paragraph on timbre and concrete.

>the concept album
Frank Sinatra- In the wee small hours
Beach Boys- Little Deuce Coupe (although it was terrible)
Beach Boys- Pet Sounds
>rock as a counter-culture force
Link Wray
Elvis
The Who
The Rolling Stones
>art/experimental rock
Frank Zappa
Beach Boys
Moondog
>the idea that a recording can represent the use of the studio as its own instrument as opposed to simply capturing a live performance
Frank Zappa
Beach Boys
Moondog

The Beatles weren't the first in any of those things m8

Go year by year and listen to all of that out put and you'll see the Beatles were FAR beyond anything that the Who, Stones, Kinks, and Zombies were capable of. Beach Boys and Zappa are great in their own right, but they really weren't part of the same crowed until later on, 1966 for the Beach Boys and 1966 was Zappa's debut.

>concept album
There are concept albums since the 40's. Vaughn Monroe it's the first one that's comes to my mind right now.
>Pet Sounds
not a conceptual album.

>Why aren't people allowed to dislike them without being called a contrarian?
Beatlesfags are a cancer on any given music community, including this one.

The Who and Rolling Stones where more important as counter-culture icons and that's a fact. I like the Beatles but their fans have this obsession with them being the first in everything which isn't the case most of the times.

>The Beatles weren't the first in any of those things m8
Of course not. But they mainstreamed all of those things. Also acid being a cool kid thing.

They're redundant and aren't very good.

How? The Beatles led the revolt against the Vietnam War in the music industry. They refused to play for segregated audiences. They evolved their music unlike the Stones. They popularized Indian culture in the west. And if you really notice it, you'll see how much the Stones were influenced by or copied them. Especially using the Sitar when it was so little known.

Only because The Beatles by and large were music culture, so any group trying to usurp their stranglehold was "counter-culture," in which case, who gives a shit? It's better to be the predominating cultural force. There was no "Who-mania" or "Stones-mania" both groups were constantly chasing after the Beatles. The Who less so, because they kind of relegated themselves to the mod-scene, which was a better move anyway. Stones were just an embarassment.

>There was no "Who-mania" or "Stones-mania"
Not him but doesn’t this argument validate Scaruffi’s claim that the Beatles were Beatlemania and not much more?

The reason I brought up timbre in the first place is because I wanted your reasons as to why it matters in the grand scheme of analyzing music, as you mentioned here you must acquire an understanding of it to analyze music.

That’s not my post. I was arguing a point I agreed with him on. Either way the way I read it he brought up timbre as an example of things one can analyze in music, and being unable to analyze music in general means your opinions can be disregarded.

People literally just can't admit that the Beatles innovated maybe half a dozen things, and they only wrote a dozen truly harmonically/instrumentally complex songs; otherwise, almost all of their influence and impact on the music biz came as a direct result of their pretty faces and catchy melodies popularizing trends started in underground music scenes.

There's nothing even wrong with that, because writing good melodies and stylistically evolving your music as you go are reason enough to be considered an amazing band, but that isn't good enough for Beatlesfags. They need to deliberately misunderstand music history and tell themselves, and everyone else, that The Beatles pioneered literally everything about rock music as we know it today.

I think it's because they got all of the fame that people think their favorite band of the 60s deserved. Also they were one of the first musical sellouts so...

>Stones were just an embarassment.
Spellcheck your shit, but you're right. A friend of mine insists the future will view the Stones like Al Jolson in that they aped a culture that was not their own, and though they did it out of love it still read like a bad, tasteless parody.

>Also they were one of the first musical sellouts so...
Hummm?

>Scaruffi’s claim
Scaruffi never said an intelligent statement in his entire life. He's a bumbling foreign fuck who will never understand the context that surrounds the art he critiques. Pop-music, as we know it, is for English speaking people. Fact.

Aside from that my point is that the Beatles were inescapably bigger than any other group, and with that came a ton of money so they had the ability to experiment with new techniques, new instruments, new technology, etc, more than anyone else.

My bad. I pretty much agree. The Stones definitely had some songs, but nothing to propel them to the culture force they get touted as. There's nothing backing that up, no image, look, production, etc to solidify it all as monolithic. The Beatles catalog, if nothing else, shows just how incredibly important and beneficial a consistent a working relationship with a skilled producer is.

>the Who less so, because they kind of relegated themselves to the mod-scene
plus they apologetically follow the kinks and whatever ray davis was doing

Attached: 324823CE00000578-3496928-The_Kinks_Ray_Davies_Dave_Davies_in_1976-a-141_1458234872343.jpg (962x1435, 253K)

Frank Zappa did it before the Beatles, and they admitted they were influenced by him to do sgt pepper

Fuck off

>HE BIG STUPID HE ITALIAN
Ok... cool?
>money = being able to experiment
Tell that to Beefheart.

They made two movies. I don't know..

Nigga can you read?

What non mainstream instruments did Beefheart use?

t. guido.

We’re going to ignore the bit you mentioned about new techniques? Or the fact you chose the word “experimentation” which means a massive variety of things and not just novel instruments? Cool.

or production techniques? Everything Beefheart did that was experimental came from song-writing.

Lets ignore the way Beefheart tracked his vocals over the Magic Band’s backing music then. Cool.

It's not impossible. Everyone's entitles to their own opinion. Personally, I love them, but if someone hates them, then that's fine.

The Beatles brought "counter culture" to the mainstream. Most of what they released was very shallow pop-music.
They did have a couple of good albums, but they're overrated compared to the contemporaries who actually broke new ground.

>Shallow pop music
Only their early stuff. They've only made masterpieces from Revolver to Abbey Raod.

>The Stones definitely had some songs, but nothing to propel them to the culture force they get touted as
The Stones even more than the Beatles were the white guys who made it cool to like blackish music. Which was kinda cool in that they gave credit where it was due - not hiding their heroes they cribbed from - but at the end of the day they were just a bar band slopping their way through music they learned from old records.

>Most of what they released was very shallow pop-music.
Not a Beatlesfag, but statements like this are why every Beatlesfag thinks they are enlightened human beings. This is such a patently false statement that even non-fans of this band should know is bullshit, but here you are saying it anyway.

From the word "go", when they first touched US airwaves with I Want to Hold Your Hand and Please Please Me, the Beatles were knocking out harmonically complex home runs with flawless pop rock song structure that bands would go on to monkey for years and years to come. The Beatles' early pop music is not overrated; in fact, it might be underrated. What's overrated is everything after Revolver, which is when their contemporaries started to really catch up. Lots of amazing garage rock, proto punk, folk rock, roots rock, jazz rock, experimental/art rock, and psychedelic rock music started to crop up and the Beatles were no longer leading the charge; they became imitators (albeit extremely adept ones) of ideas other bands had already done, and this is around the time that John started to really hate how the Beatles were so popular and how he wanted to make music like Frank Zappa. The Beatles would scarcely present new ideas from that point on.

Everything Beatles is overrated.

>white guys who made it cool to like blackish music.
That was Elvis. And he didn't even give credit. Fuck that guy.

this thread is so much full of shit. Jefferson Airplane, United States Of America, Pink Floyd debut, White Noise are all so much better psychedelic pop it's not even funny. The reason people don't like the Beatles is that they look for more in music than a pop song which challenges in no way at all. It might be written good and even have some unique melodies and you can certainly McCartney/Lennon for that many hit songs but I see no one praising Max Martin in any music press/forum. Music is more than bubblegum pop, and while the Beatles tried to prove that with the White Album, the bands above just did it without abandoning their "normal" music/"normal" style.

and finally

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.

Am a big Beatles fan, but I agree with most of this. Musical innovation can very rarely be solely attributed to a lone musical figure, and this is especially true of the musical developments we saw in the latter half of the 60s. It was a time period in which loads of different musicians were all wanting to pursue radically new ideas, and were all influenced by each other. Dylan, Zappa, The Beatles, TVU, The Beach Boys e.t.c. were all listening to each other and pushing each other to keep developing their musical ideas.

What is frustrating are the rabid contrarians who act as though The Beatles were only significant as a band that made lots of money, when they were as involved as other artists at that time in creating new and exciting music (how anyone could deny the significance of a song like Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life or Strawberry Fields Forever is beyond me)

Cause they trash nigga get dat "yesterday my friesh piece of pussy" shit outta here. These niggas can't Rock like Hendrix, can't dance like James Brown, can't be fun like Funkadelic, can't touch the soul like Marvin Gaye and can't funk it up like George Clinton.

I've been browsing this board since 2012 and I've gotten in so many shitflinging arguments about the Beatles with both contrarian tryhards and Beatles fanboys because nobody understands how nuanced the history of '60s rock music is, and after all these years, I read a post about this topic that is actually good. My journey is fucking complete.
I'm gonna kill myself now, my life has peaked, see you space anons

Once you listen to more music from the genres they played you realize that they never peaked at any of them. They didn't invent any genres either. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Maybe we look for different things in music, but outside of the musical innovations present on United States of America and Piper, I don't think anything on them matches up with The Beatles' greatest songs.
>The reason people don't like the Beatles is that they look for more in music than a pop song which challenges in no way at all
I don't agree that pop songs need to be unchallenging, nor should the Beatles be considered devoid of challenging musical elements. People enjoy strong melodic and harmonic songs, and it takes a great deal of talent to write songs as melodically strong as The Beatles did, as consistently as they did. The pop music you associate with The Beatles - the Max Martin produced songs of today - don't even begin to touch the complexity of their post-Rubber Soul period, or even their early British Invasion years.
>the Beatles tried to prove that with the White Album, the bands above just did it without abandoning their "normal" music/"normal" style
Why is that relevant?

based

All of The Beatles songs sound the same. All their early shit just copies what was already being done at the time.

Plus modern Beatle's fans are the fucking worst. Rubber Soul and Revolver are the only musically inventive albums the Beatles put out. They're just so popular that they got credit when they copied other artist's sound.

But the Stones made it cool again at a time when Elvis had become deeply uncool.

beatles discussion always brings out the neckbeards

>WTF this isnt stockhausen this shit SUCKS

any Beatles song being better than Interstellar Overdrive is an insult to my ears but let's not talk favourites
Arguing for more complexity in Beatles music than say in Max Martin's pop songs is kinda besides the point. I mean how much complexity do you want in a pop song then, where is the line? Imo the "deconstructioning of a pop song" happening on USA (sorry for sounding too pseud) with all the tape loops and samples and creating the psychedelic atmosphere without using a guitar are far more complex to me (maybe not in standard melody/songwriting), but even if you think otherwise, there must be another band who's more daring in complexity than Beatles because at the end, they just wrote pop songs. That they wrote so many and influenced (by popularity) pop music for decades (the shitty vocal mixing which I don't like is still present in many rip offs today) is for me the same as arguing Max Martin is a fantastic musician/songweiter (he probably is, no one defined white 2000s music like him). The last point was mainly that Beatles have 1 album where they go all the way, while the bands I listed and like merely mixed the interesting parts of their music with their normal psych pop instead of needing a record with Revolution No 9 on it. After Bathing At Baxters features far more interesting songs than Abbey Road, not just because of Spare Chaynge.

>omg how dare people bring up influential music figures and compare the beatles’ music to them, fucking incels
Didn’t you already try this earlier?

>Arguing for more complexity in Beatles music than say in Max Martin's pop songs is kinda besides the point
I think it is relevant, given that you were implying that they were of comparable quality.
>Imo the "deconstructioning of a pop song" happening on USA (sorry for sounding too pseud) with all the tape loops and samples and creating the psychedelic atmosphere without using a guitar are far more complex to me (maybe not in standard melody/songwriting)
I am a fan of USA (as I am a fan of Pink Floyd), so I agree with your points as to the value of that album. You're talking about experiments in production and arrangement, whilst I'm mainly talking about the complexity in the songwriting of the Beatles. I also can't believe that USA was not influenced by the introduction of tape loops on Revolver.
>there must be another band who's more daring in complexity than Beatles because at the end, they just wrote pop songs
There are, doesn't invalidate both the innovations made by them and the quality of their songwriting.
>Beatles have 1 album where they go all the way, while the bands I listed and like merely mixed the interesting parts of their music with their normal psych pop instead of needing a record with Revolution No 9 on it
Revolver incorporated tape loops and reversed effects into their psych pop sound, Sgt. Peppers/MMT did the same, as well as incorporating atonality. This seems like a strange assertion, given that even most Beatles critics agree that they combined experimental elements into a pop song structure.
>After Bathing At Baxters features far more interesting songs than Abbey Road, not just because of Spare Chaynge
That's fair, Abbey Road is much less exploratory than other albums from the time (ITCOTCK, A Saucerful of Secrets, Silver Apples e.t.c.), but I don't think that invalidates the value of Abbey Road as a wonderfully constructed, produced and written pop album which still sounds contemporary.

>any Beatles song being better than Interstellar Overdrive is an insult to my ears

No one really likes that song. Let's be honest here. It's a song that that people listen to when they're high on psychedelics.

>how could someone POSSIBLY like something i don’t?

>No one really likes that song.
It's a little challenging for the average listener, but there's an appealing unhinged joyfulness about it that is a hallmark of Syd era Floyd. And it's one of the few examples of the long form improvizations the band was known for but didn't get to record since a lot of their early studio work was singles driven. I like it quite a bit actually, though it does go on a little too long, which is true for a lot of psychedelic music. The stuff was meant to be the soundtrack for what was happening in that moment, not necessarily a piece of music you listened to with your full attention.