Are these the four most important albums of all time?

Replace everything except the banana album

What the fuck did clit and dingus influence? And how is that more important than the Beatles?

>TWO beatles albums
Yeah, I think not.

And that's a bad thing.

>The Shape of Jazz to Come
>Revolver
>TVU&N
>Trout Mask Replica
These are the most important albums.

How so?

Because Rubber Soul is a 10

>my beautiful dark twisted fantasy
>nevermind
>pet sounds
>OK computer
ftfy

If you only listen to rock and pop, sure.

No, that implies the album is perfect

Yes, definitely. That's why I said it's a 10.

Except there's literal faults in the album that prevent it from being perfect

I'm not aware of any faults on it. May you exemplify one of those faults?

In just Drive My Car:
0:16
Click (right channel), not audible on mono version.
0:20
Harsh edit, right channel, as piano comes in.
0:44
Guitar fret-squeak sound, right channel.
0:52
Strange 'peep' (on the right channel) as the piano comes back in. Not on mono version. Probably from George's guitar.

Also George Martin hits one note too many, making a duff chord on the second chord of this chorus fill (the chord that comes on the downbeat). Quickly corrects it, though.

1:20-1:22
Paul? sings "You ... can ... drive my ... car" along to the last few notes of guitar solo. Listen carefully, the last 3 notes of the solo are on top of the words "Drive My Car". Very hard to hear on CD version, this needs the vinyl version.

1:42-1:53
Centre of stereo field, right after "start right away" and each subsequent vocal line there are a number of stray guitar notes, as if the guitarist is idling, unaware they are being heard!

1:46
Paul fluffs the bass riff and plays a "safe" note instead.

>0.1 second click sound
>oh shit this song isn't perfect!
Based autismo.
The flaw on this song is "beep beep beep beep yeah". Every stuff you just pointed out is irrelevant to the experience.

>it's not a mistake if I just ignore it!
Sounds like a problem with your critical listening skills

Or you just don't know what "perfect" means.

>Strange 'peep' (on the right channel) as the piano comes back in. Not on mono version. Probably from George's guitar.
Fucking kek. Funniest post on mu right now.

>>it's not a mistake if I just ignore it!
More like
>it's not a mistake if it's literally irrelevant to the hearing experience.
Based autismo.

>Paul fluffs the bass riff and plays a "safe" note instead.

>he can't into improvisation
Plebeian.

>only I define what is relevant!
Lack of empathy is a sign of autism, user. Where are you on the spectrum?

Here's some more errors which make Rubber Soul not a perfect album

Norwegian Wood

0:38
On early American mono releases of Rubber Soul, there is a cough just before "So I looked around ..."
Throughout
Tempo of the song slows down. At 30 second intervals, from the start, the tempo is 119,118,116,115,114,and 113 bpm.
0:02
Cough.
0:12
Odd sound to right.
1:05-1:07
Paul sings "But I'd get turned away" or "But I get turned away", but not (as often documented) "But I could turn away". The 'd' is very soft.
1:34,2:28
Upper "oo" in harmony comes in before lower one.
2:16
Click, in centre.
2:29-3:07
One (or two?) continuous mid-range note(s) held all through here. Very odd. Flakes out a little at 2:52.

Identified as Mal Evans, on organ! (Rubber Soul LP liner notes mention Mal playing on this track). Very obvious from 3:00-3:04, where the backing vocals stop (it blends into the vocal so well!).

2:32
George (?) says something. Right channel, sounds like "Y'row".
3:15
Shouting - "C'mon?" (Paul, right, during fadeout).
3:16<
Double click, possible handclap, right channel, just before fadeout ends.

>A mistake? It's just improvisation!
The fact that he shifts immediately to a different note proves otherwise.

>dude searched for "imperfections on Beatles songs" on google and found a whole site of it
How about making up your own opinions, brainlet? Pathetic.

Yes, that fits a literal, textbook definition of a "mistake"

>two albums from the same band
List immediately disregarded

Irrelevant

Here's Nowhere Man

0:19 (CD Version only)
The reverb and effects on the CD mixes are often re-created using modern equipment. Here the reverb drops off completely through the words "point of view," (gap) "knows not where he's ..."

Fixed in Yellow Submarine remastered, by having no discernible reverb at all!

0:39-0:40
Loud feedback tone, slightly to the right and immediately after "you're missing".

1:04-1:07
"He's as blind as he can be" after guitar solo is very phased on LP (vinyl). CD version obscures this. Fixed in Yellow Submarine remastered.

1:49-1:51
Paul loses the bass line a little, under Ringo's fill (this is what he'd play at the very end, where they repeat the "nowhere plans for nobody" part), and then plays what sounds like an open string, very buzzy.

1:51
"Aaah-la-la-la" - there's one incorrect note (a low one) in the harmony, it makes a very strange chord.

2:35
After last "nobody" there is a clipped "yea". Fixed in Yellow Submarine remastered.

US Versions of Rubber Soul seem to have a stray guitar note in the opening vocal harmony.

>>only I define what is relevant!
More like
>only I define what is relevant to me!
These stuff you copypasta'd are irrelevant to my experience, therefore rubber soul still is a perfect album imo

>I'll not make up my own opinions! T-that's irrelevant!
Sure, NPC, sure,

>imo
Nice backpedaling

Also begs the question if musically illiterate people have less important opinions

That click sounds great to me. It's not an imperfection.

>list of random mistakes that a normal person wouldn't hear??
>that's NPC!
Nice try
Why?

>Nice backpedaling
What do you mean?
>music illiterate people
You mean the one who literally copypasta a website? I totally agree.

>literally copying a website
>not NPC
Nice try

What said. Music is much too broad of a medium to use terms like "most important", "best", "worst", etc. These might be *some of* the most important, but not *THE* most important.

>why?
Because when I hear it, my brain releases dopamine.

Does anybody know the best way to get the mono experience? My budget would be £100 per album. I have yellow sub already. I'm not interested in anything post cd release versions.
What release should I try for? I know Japan, uk and us would be good, but any other countries have a good press?
Im only interested in the sound so album sleeve is not important.
Its it possible at £100 per album budget? Anything under this id like to put towards the best version of revolver. Is there a consensus on what is the best sounding release for each album?

dude your comments are literally the most retarded thing I've read on this board.

>What do you mean?
Oh when did you state that this was your opinion, earlier?
>You mean the one who literally copypasta a website?
That's fine. It's just convenient.
How so?
What causes it though?

Get the mono box that was released a while box. The vinyls are literal flat transfers of the masters, if that is what you want.

Oh you must not understand them. How can I clarify it for you?

>Oh when did you state that this was your opinion, earlier?
Who else would it be?

Who else? I hope it's the right user.

Copying someone's thinking is the definition of NPC, my dear NPC.
>it's convenient
Yes. Thinking for yourself must be pretty inconvenient for you

I thought the mono box was remixes/remasters

>what causes it
The click on the song

There you go!

>Copying someone's thinking
Oh, where did I get the mindset that "Rubber Soul is imperfect because of the following reasons..."? I'd love for you to show me.

Looks like you have trouble with independent thought. Are you an NPC? See above user for clarification.

The mono CD box/USB drive is a remaster yes (a really excellent one).
But the vinyl pressing is not. it is a flat transfer. This was suggested by Abbey Road engineers, and highly debated. But then it was essentially verified by the mono flat transfer of Sgt pepper included on the 50th Pepper box, which was a different master than the CD mono; it was actually identical to the vinyl. Make sense?

The flat transfers are slightly middy, while the remasters have a slight happy-face eq curve.

wgo.signal11.org.uk/html/content/d.htm
Based npc

>Looks like you have trouble with independent thought. Are you an NPC? See above user for clarification.
?
Sorry I dont understand. I just enjoy the clicking in the song

Sorry, not seeing where it says "Rubber Soul is imperfect because of the following reasons..."

Try again.

Someone thought the following reasons for you. That's pretty NPC, NPC.

If you can't tell me why you enjoy it, it's either 1) not true or 2) you are mimicking someone else's point of view

Dude this is a music board, I get your point the mix isn't perfect but for the time it's pretty damn good, these little mistakes don't make it any less great (although I wouldn't personally say it's a perfect album but anyways)

I enjoy it because, like I said, my brain releases dopamine when I hear it.

Again, you can't identify the cause of that. Try again, or admit to being an NPC or a liar
>but for the time it's pretty damn good, these little mistakes don't make it any less great
That's not the argument.

>Again, you can't identify the cause of that
I literally said it. The clicking sound on the song. The clicking sound makes my brain release dopamine. That's the cause of it.

>The clicking sound makes my brain release dopamine
You are missing the middle point between these two though. You have a feeling about the clicks, which does eventually lead to dopamine being released. What is it? Tell me about it.

>You have a feeling about the clicks, which does eventually lead to dopamine being released
No.
I listen to this specific sound, and it eventually lead to dopamine being released. There's no "feeling" before the dopamine release. The feeling is the dopamine release.

Thank you for the info on the mono box. U always dismissed it because I thought they were remastered. Have you been able to compare the sound with earlier releases? Or do you know any links, resources which compares releases?

>Here's some errors which make Rubber Soul not a perfect album

I do believe that's the argument

have sex

says the hugless virgin

its been 5 months i cant take this anymore

Attached: Ross-Geller-Spudnik.jpg (500x400, 39K)

how i know you need someone to love you

The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society>any of these

>Have you been able to compare the sound with earlier releases?
Yes. As I said, it's a tad more middy, and less low end and high end articulation. But those are things that are "fixed" in the mastering stage, so that is not surprising.
I believe you believe that
>Here's some errors which make Rubber Soul not a perfect album
Yes, that's my opinion. Where did I parrot that from though? Isn't that your argument?
>I do believe that's the argument
Incorrect. Read the thread.
Done. now what?

You’re actually an idiot if you think pitch perfect mixing and playing are necessary for an album to be perfect. Literally all of the flaws you pointed out can be written off with “the beatles wanted it that way.”

You had me at Sgt. Pepper.
You lost me at the Banana Album.

Attached: beatles-8.jpg (1280x1024, 301K)

>You’re actually an idiot if you think pitch perfect mixing and playing are necessary for an album to be perfect.
Oh do you not know what "perfect" means?
>Literally all of the flaws you pointed out can be written off with “the beatles wanted it that way.”
Not relevant.

You're a based motherfucker!
Well played, user!

Attached: beachboystoday.png (1000x1000, 2.02M)

Perfect means without flaws, and your “flaws” aren’t flaws because they don’t decrease the quality of the music. You’re the type of guy to say the Venus de Milo isn’t perfect because the arms are missing.

>your "flaws" aren't flaws
Lmao

Your taste is going in the right direction, but your journey is not yet complete. Keep posting, though.

>Lmao
Lmao

>and your “flaws” aren’t flaws
kek
>they don’t decrease the quality of the music.
That's what mistakes do user. Just because you like mistakes, doens't make them not mistakes.
>You’re the type of guy to say the Venus de Milo isn’t perfect because the arms are missing.
Oh was it sculpted that way originally?

I believe these imperfections give the album a nice aesthetic, sort of like ITAOTS and it's saturated guitars and vocals, would you say that both these albums would be better without mistakes ?

>I believe these imperfections give the album a nice aesthetic
I'm glad!

Unfortunately, it also prevents it from being perfect
>sort of like ITAOTS and it's saturated guitars and vocals, would you say that both these albums would be better without mistakes ?
What mistakes are there on ITAOTS?

>Just won another argument
Yea, I'm based.

Nice! Which argument did you win?

>That’s what mistakes do
Says who?
>Oh so was it sculpted that way originally?
Are you saying it was perfect but now isn’t because the arms fell off?

>I believe you believe that
??

>Says who?
The literal definition of "mistakes"
>Are you saying it was perfect but now isn’t because the arms fell off?
When did I say the VdM was perfect?

Strawmen won't help you here user
Sure is a lot of things you don't understand, user.

Well... the overdriven guitars and vocals, cause they couldn't gain right, bunch of retards (jk I love them from the bottom of my heart)

>Sure is a lot of things you don't understand, user.
...?
For example?
I don't understand why we stopped talking about dopamine.

>the overdriven guitars and vocals, cause they couldn't gain right,
What do you mean? Jeff Mangum literally instructed the producer Robert Schneider to overdrive everything.

>For example?
Why you feel emotions and like something.
>I don't understand why we stopped talking about dopamine.
Well, there you go.

>Why you feel emotions and like something
What makes you think I don't? I thought you agreed with me on lol. What's wrong with that?

Oh well I had no idea. Thanks a bunch

>What makes you think I don't?
Because you reduce music critic to dopamine release
>I thought you agreed with me
Stating something is not enough. If you can't explain it, it's not true.

>Because you reduce music critic to dopamine release
No.
I reduce music enjoyment to dopamine release.
The process of criticizing it takes more than it.
>If you can't explain it, it's not true
That's pretty much wrong. Gravity existed in 300BC, but people couldn't explain it back then.

I agree.

>Stating something is not enough. If you can't explain it, it's not true.
what the fuck

This was oddly reassuring user but thanks

>textbooks
>music

Pick one.

>music theory what's that

Honestly, how could you fuck this up my man? You're pretty smart. Nice debate though.

Music theory is a tool to help write music, not a standard that all music should be held to

Like sure I guess why not

>MInugs
Um try again sweaty

Attached: huntrx.jpg (1400x1400, 321K)

NOOOOOOOOO FAGGOT
I READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD JUST TO SEE YOU FUCKING UP THIS FUCKING BAD
I SPENT MY TIME ON THIS SHIT THREAD
JUST TO SEE THIS ENDING
HOLY SHIT

Attached: A2DE377A-4E0B-4505-8C8A-3AA4FD4DC3A9-975-0000013245F6ED6C.jpg (689x757, 50K)

Oh did I say otherwise?
What?

What do you mean?

>If you can't explain it, it's not true.

Attached: IMG_4938.jpg (750x495, 55K)

Kek this argumentation is hilarious

How so?

Yeah, the four greatest albums of all time just happened to be all released in one span of like 3 years

Get rolling stones’ Cock out of your mouth you pathetic rockist

It totally does lol. Nowhere Man, the classical instrumentation, If I Needed Someone, the non-ideal romance lyrical themes, etc. Sure it took the sound further and made the lyrics less sarcastic but you can clearly see where it connects to RS.

>If you can't explain it, it's not true.
lmao

>the classical instrumentation
What Rubber Soul songs have classical instrumentation to the extent of PS?

>posts things that make the album better
Fuck off user, Daniel Johnston, Aeroplane, and Blonde on Blonde are perfect as well.

>Aeroplane
See

For what, western-centric rock music? Sure, I guess. Even then, out of those only really Velvet has a guaranteed spot.

>Even then, out of those only really Velvet has a guaranteed spot.
Why?

test

did it work?

>to the extent of PS
>Sure it took the sound further

But if you're just asking for which songs on RS incorporated classical instrumentation:
>Drive My Car: piano
>Norwegian Wood: incorporation of traditional English folk influence
>You Won't See Me: Hammond organ
>Think For Yourself: Vox Continental organ
>The Word: harmonium organ
>In My Life: mimicked harpsichord using sped-up piano
>Girl: draws influences from Greek folk music
>If I Need Someone: debatable whether this is more Indian or Western classical influenced, the use of arpeggios feel more Western but the main phrase implies drone

>piano
Not a classical instrument
>incorporation of traditional English folk influence
Not a classical instrument
>Hammond organ
Not a classical instrument
>Vox Continntal
Not a classical instrument
>harmonium organ
Not used to the extent on Pet Sounds
>mimicked harpsichord
Not what I asked.
>draws influences from
Not a classical instrument

If something achieves the aesthetic it has as a result of aspects that don't fit whatever model you've preconceived to judge it on, that implies the model is flawed, not the thing itself.

because they actually experimented with their music and didn't make another boring 60s pop album

>classical instrument ≠ classical instrumentation

>actually experimented with their music
Oh, like The Beatles then.
You didn't answer the question. What's the flaw/mistakes in Aeroplane?

>to the extent of Pet Sounds

Also research what Wall of Sound is, then you might understand your error.

Holy fucking autism

>Oh, like The Beatles then.
lol

What's the problem?

>You didn't answer the question. What's the flaw/mistakes in Aeroplane?
If I judged recorded music by fidelity, then Aeroplane is flawed because it doesn't sound as clean as In Rainbows. If I judged recorded lo-fi music by potato quality, then Aeroplane is flawed because it's not as potato as Hype City. If I judged music by originality, I would say Aeroplane is flawed because Jeff recycles a ton of shit and themes he already wrote on Hype City and things like Invent Yourself a Shortcake.

they only experimented on one album and it's not even their most famous one and that album doesn't come close to the tvu&n the beatles are cool though they are just not better than the tvu

>to the extent of Pet Sounds
Then is a non-sequitur.
>Sure it took the sound further

>They only experimented on one album
Nah
youtube.com/watch?v=ul9i7_6NLlc
youtube.com/watch?v=S_ScyKztGA0

>they only experimented on one album
Oh like the Velvet Underground then?
>If I judged recorded music by fidelity, then Aeroplane is flawed because it doesn't sound as clean as In Rainbows.
What are you talking about? What's wrong with the fidelity? It sounds great.
How so? It directly follows the conversation.

>How so? It directly follows the conversation.
No, it doesn't. It asks for examples "to the extent" of something when the original post concedes that RS did not do it to the extent of PS ("Obviously [Pet Sounds] took it further").

>What are you talking about? What's wrong with the fidelity? It sounds great.
>It doesn't sound as clean as In Rainbows.
Good job ignoring everything else though, sure makes it seem like you're participating in good faith.

>>It doesn't sound as clean as In Rainbows.
But that's not a mistake, which was what we were talking about. That's an intentional choice.

Which is why the albums don't sound alike, since part of the defining characteristics of Pet Sounds is the production and lush instrumentation

It also ignores Summer Days, which was also showing the direction Beach boys were going, independent from the Beatles

OP here, just woke up.
What’s going on?

Except it was also an intentional choice to clean up the sound for ITAOTS. If you go to Hype City and then Avery Island and then Aeroplane, it's obvious Aeroplane was intended to sound much cleaner than its predecessors. A person is entirely justified in considering the clean-up of NMH's sound on Aeroplane as an unsatisfying middle ground.
And aside from that, if you wanted to define mistakes relative to intentions, you're opening up a huge can of worms. Going back to Rubber Soul, we could say that because they decided not to postpone the release date and let the album release as is, therefore they "intended" those "mistakes" you listed to be on the album. Furthermore, you can't prove that every single inflection of Mangum's vocals or every cymbal hit is intentional, and if you wanted to you would not only have to prove that the lack of technicality is intentional (which is easy enough) but that the times when the drums are in perfect time/Mangum hits the perfect key is intentional as well. But again
>Good job ignoring everything else though, sure makes it seem like you're participating in good faith.

A faggot went to Google and posted a list of technical mistakes in a laid-back folk rock record.

>Except it was also an intentional choice to clean up the sound for ITAOTS. If you go to Hype City and then Avery Island and then Aeroplane, it's obvious Aeroplane was intended to sound much cleaner than its predecessors. A person is entirely justified in considering the clean-up of NMH's sound on Aeroplane as an unsatisfying middle ground.
How so? That is still not answering my question-- what's the mistake in the album?
>if you wanted to define mistakes relative to intentions, you're opening up a huge can of worms. Going back to Rubber Soul, we could say that because they decided not to postpone the release date and let the album release as is, therefore they "intended" those "mistakes" you listed to be on the album.
I don't believe that is true. If you follow the list, there are errors later fixed, which suggests they were not intentional and were actual errors. There are other errors which imply they are actual errors that were overlooked, base don the speed that they had to create commercial product.

>There are other errors which imply they are actual errors that were overlooked
Sorry, but if they decided these "errors" were not worth fixing, whether because they didn't notice them or not, then it was intentional. Nobody listens to a recording consciously processing every decision made in it, because not only does that account for decisions outside their own, but also passive technical decisions like the type of recording equipment and model.
>base don the speed that they had to create commercial product.
And this would imply that they intended to release the album as it is.

2 autists derailed and ruined your thread. Post some /pol/ and get it pruned please.

>Sorry, but if they decided these "errors" were not worth fixing, whether because they didn't notice them or not, then it was intentional
If they didn't notice them, no, it was not intentional. A literal quality control issue
>Nobody listens to a recording consciously processing every decision made in it,
Except for good musicians.
>And this would imply that they intended to release the album as it is.
Right. Without fixing errors, which are still errors.
Spotted the reason Yea Forums is shit

>How so? That is still not answering my question-- what's the mistake in the album?
It is absolutely answering your question. As per your parameters for a mistake, it sets up an assumption of intentions (cleaning up the sound) and finds that unsatisfactory. The list from Rubber Soul likewise implies setting up an assumption of intentions that "this edit/note was intended to be clean" and finds that unsatisfactory.

HOT TAKE: sgt. peppers is the most overrated album of all time. revolver, white, abbey road AND mystery tour are all better albums

>As per your parameters for a mistake, it sets up an assumption of intentions (cleaning up the sound)
It does not. This is a strawman
>"this edit/note was intended to be clean"
Quote me where I said "clean"

>Except for good musicians.
Jesus you just keep on ignoring the rest of the post.
>because not only does that account for decisions outside their own, but also passive technical decisions like the type of recording equipment and model.
Good musicians aren't psychic, and plenty of decisions made in the recording are unintentional, arbitrary, or subconscious, such as the cleanliness of a string throughout its use. This also applies to
>If they didn't notice them, no, it was not intentional. A literal quality control issue

>this is a strawman
Okay, then define a mistake.
>quote where I said "clean"
Then define a good edit.

mis·take
/məˈstāk/
noun
noun: mistake; plural noun: mistakes

1.
an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong

>literally using Google
>still ignoring the rest of the post
define 'misguided'
define 'wrong'

>>literally using Google
That's fine
>>still ignoring the rest of the post
What do you mean?

>Jesus you just keep on ignoring the rest of the post.
Because it's not relevant.

>That's fine
Except it isn't, because I asked for you to define, ie. your definition of, mistake.
>What do you mean?
>define a good edit.

It is absolutely relevant, because the rest of post directly shows how an artist is unable to process all of the decisions that go into the creation of a published work of music, which the response implies should be expected of a 'good artist'.

>Except it isn't, because I asked for you to define,
I did
>>define a good edit.
Well, how many edits have you done before?
>which the response implies should be expected of a 'good artist'.
Sure. I can agree to that.

But that doesn't mean it's perfect or flawless.

Underrated

>asked for your definition of X
>uses someone else's definition of X
You didn't.
>Is asked to define X
>"Well, have you done X?"
This is an example of something that's actually irrelevant
>still ignoring the rest of the post
>define 'misguided'
>define 'wrong'

>one's definition can't be the same as anothers'
nah
>This is an example of something that's actually irrelevant
How so?

>>which the response implies should be expected of a 'good artist'.
>Sure. I can agree to that.
>But that doesn't mean it's perfect or flawless.
So can you walk me through your thought process here? It's legitimately baffling.
>Sure. I can agree to that.
What is "that"? What are you agreeing to? That the description of the response is accurate or that the opinion being described is in line with yours?
>But that doesn't mean it's perfect or flawless.
How does this follow from the previous statement?

No because surfer music was never big so cross off pet sounds.
Revolver is just a more bland and poppy version of sgt pepper so scratch that off too.
TVU can stay sure at least it’s in the runnings
Sgt pepper can stay as well cuz it’s the album that told everyone it’s okay to be weird so ya that makes sense.
Considering a ton of music is in the singer/songwriter category it would be wrong to not include some original one like Dylan or Joni Mitchell. Maybe tapestry by Carole king? Seems big bands are dead but S/S lives on
Also none of those albums have much electronic shit so arguably DSOTM deserves a spot for bringing that kind of sound to the mainstream

Yes.

>one's definition can't be the same as anothers'
You should be able to state your definition in own words dumbass, now see >define 'misguided'
>define 'wrong'

>How is it irrelevant?
"Hey what's your definition of good food?"
"Well, have you made good food?"

>So can you walk me through your thought process here? It's legitimately baffling.
You do realize you can like imperfect music, right? It's OK to admit an album you love has mistakes.
>What is "that"? What are you agreeing to?
What you just said...
>How does this follow from the previous statement?
That is what I and original were taking about. See Did you not read the thread?

>No because surfer music was never big so cross off pet sounds.

Attached: cd2.jpg (261x199, 14K)

Most important albums of 66-67 maybe

So who’s winning?

>What you just said...
And what part of it are you agreeing with?
>That the description of the response is accurate or that the opinion being described is in line with yours?

yes

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.

I hope everybody ITT dies.

tvu of course

>8/10
>6/10
>9/10
>6/10
Hardly

[spoiler]Bob Dylan was a direct influence on 3/4 of those albums and a second tier influence on the fourth one[/spoiler]

No, just the banana

If you don't know how to read, i'm not sure why you keep posting here

The Beatles influenced him first

If you can't answer the question, I'm not sure why you replied.

Because it wasn't necessary. it's completely clear, and you are just trying to be pedantic to try to trap me because you feel I somehow insulted your favorite albums

Once again: it's OK to like imperfect music.

Untrue. It was listening to The Freewheelin' that got them hooked on him, which came out in May 1963, the Beatles didn't come to America until 64. That's not to say he wasn't influenced by them at all, but his influence was first and the more profound.

t. pseud redditors

kek

This is ridiculously underselling Dylan's influence. You listen to Tombstone Blues, then to I'm Waiting For Your Man, or Reed's general vocal delivery. Sure the Beatles influenced the Velvet Underground if interviews from John Cale and pre-fame Lou Reed are to be believed, but Dylan was almighty in the minds of mid-sixties rock music. Even Captain Beefheart, who would later reject Dylan, admitted he liked Dylan during the period, and Zappa literally had Dylan credit on Freak Out!'s liner notes as one of the people without which the album not exist, not to mention Hendrix's fascination with Dylan (part of the reason Jimi went to Woodstock was because at the time Dylan was living there and he hoped to meet him), or George fucking Harrison.

If it's completely clear, then answer the question.

oh look its another reddit argues about the four albums they've heard from before 2005 thread

>no Kind of Blue

Yea Forums talks about these albums more than any reddit music forum does.

that's because Yea Forums is reddit now

It's been like this since at least 2012 user, over half of Yea Forums's existence.

Attached: image.jpg (636x406, 55K)

Oh sorry, I thought it was clear I meant The beatles influenced him to make his actual meaningful, important albums (Electric Trilogy)

I will only if you can give me a good reason why

So The Beatles themselves were influenced by unimportant albums is what you're saying?

So you are saying the only reason those albums were important, was because they influenced The Beatles?

I never even said that was one of the reasons it was important. Nice try user.

Okay kinda, but taxman, elanor rigby, yellow submarine, and tomorrow never knows clould never have been on Rubber Soul. Taken as whole experiences they're pretty distinct albums.

I agree with you mostly (not the user you're replying to) but Taxman could fit on RS.

No, isn't that what you implied?

Define 'good reason'

>people still arguing with the dumb faggot that wrote "if you can't prove it, it isn't true"
The absolute state of this board.

>druggy 1,2,3,4 count
>blistering unprecedented Indian-sounding guitar solo
>not an incel love song
nope

Goodbye user
>there should be no discussion on a discussion board

Are you talking about who?

I would say these four albums are responsible for the entire alternative rock genre, though I would replace Sgt Pepper with, like, Straight Outta Compton.

I'd get rid of nevermind, but as far as wide reaching, fundamental influence goes, those artists and albums are pretty good pics. I've been noticing 808s and MBDTF all over pop music.

based

Only the velvet underground album is relevant

The beatles suck ass and you should go on reddit

Attached: le beatles.png (2906x1704, 1.76M)

replace sgt pepper with nevermind

xD libtards owned!

>a scruffyfag actually went through the trouble to make that
kek

SEETHING

>being such a pleb you think someone has to be into scaruffi to dislike the beatles

>beatles haters
>calling others pleb
topkek

There is literally no other reason.

You got 1 out of 4 right.

Attached: topsters2.png (644x644, 102K)

>trout mask replica among actually pivotal music like paid in hell
yikes

*full
what the fuck autocorrect

No no
Yes yes

>When plebs discuss music
Learn theory

>putting 8th best beefheart album on the same level as Eric B and Rakim
Learn sex

If youre a white male maybe

I'm not white but I like Revolver. Pet Sounds and VU suck balls though.

Both Sgt Pepper and Pet Sounds were influental, but mostly when it came to studio recording. The music is far from influental when compared to the likes of TVU&N, Before and After Science and Raw Power, just to name a few.

pet sounds is no longer important