They may not be YOUR subjective favorite band, but The Beatles are objectively the greatest band of all time

>critical acclaim
cause their music is so good

The fact that so many books still name loli porn as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" anime ever only tells you how far anime still is from becoming a serious art. 3D critics have long recognized that the greatest pornstars of all times are Fanny Hill and my dad, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of ze all times. 4D critics rank the highly controversial Jean le Rond d'Alembert over bitches who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Anime is still blinded by that delicious flat chest. Lolis sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. 3D critics grow up watching to a lot of parents of the past, 4D critics grow up reading a lot of royalty of the past. Anime is often totally ignorant of the anime of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that loli porn did anything worthy of being saved.

Paul >>>>> John >>>>> Ringo >>>>> George

i still have never listened to the beatles and never will
get fucked fags

>I remember once we were in the studio with George Martin, and Ringo had taken three hours for a four-bar thing he was trying to fix on a song. He couldn’t get it. We said, “Mate, why don’t you get some lager and lime, some shepherd’s pie, and take an hour-and-a-half and relax a little bit.” So he did, and we called Ronnie Verrell, a jazz drummer. Ronnie came in for 15 minutes and tore it up. Ringo comes back and says, “George, can you play it back for me one more time?” So George did, and Ringo says, “That didn’t sound so bad.” And I said, “Yeah, motherfucker because it ain’t you.” Great guy, though.

Based and true

Your loss, mate. I mean that for real.

Poor Ringo :(

You're one of those fags that's gonna come back in 6 months posting about how "it clicked".

how am i going to do that if i never listen to their music retard?

Not him, but you really are missing out. They're such a fun band.

They're incredibly diverse. I really feel like there's a Beatles song for everybody. They've done psychedelic rock, beat, proto-metal, noise, folk rock, art rock, they even have some instrumentals that could pass as hip-hop beats.

Sold more, fact. All else I opinion

What are those instrumentals?

youtu.be/Z1ONJQLdZrk

Check out the long version of Flying, it literally turns into a beat at around 8:45 dailymotion.com/video/x2zdmzk

This isn't really what you asked, but check it out youtube.com/watch?v=iZndVv-jl-U

youtube.com/watch?v=de0YxqYXbRQ

Not an instrumental but Tomorrow Never Knows was very influential when it comes to the origins of hip hop beats.

They are my subjective favourite and they are the objective greatest, as you said. Feels good being enlightened.

Flying

It’s actually true. This is the final objectivity

youtube.com/watch?v=Km_XA-T_yvo
Actually I'm pretty sure I already heard this sampled, anyone know what I'm talking about?

Magical Mystery Tour sounds so god damn modern. It STILL sounds fresh.

That and Revolver really could’ve come out at any time

When you hear John sing "pleeeeeeeeease" at the end of Don't Let Me Down, think of your reply and cry

>objectively the greatest
How are you measuring this?

Objectively

Yes but how?

It's a tool OPs use to keep their threads from page 10

The fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in his head sees the world spinning round

I disagree due to the premise of your statement.
How can you "objectively" define the greatest band? Like, I understand the Beatles were commercially extremely successful and influential, but mechanically they would definitely not be considered the greatest band of all time, or even the greatest band during their own time. So therefore, how can we say they were objectively the best? Does their lack of relative mechanical skill in comparison to other bands get outweighed by their extreme financial and influential successes? Or is it safe to say that no band can be "objectively" the best, but can instead be "objectively the most successful" by looking at sales numbers, or "objectively the most influential" by looking at the number of other bands who credit the Beatles as an influence? Its a good question, but I think the answer to it will end up being entirely subjective.

>but mechanically they would definitely not be considered the greatest band of all time, or even the greatest band during their own time.
Why not?

none of them could play their instruments besides maybe george

>none of them could play their instruments
Are you sure? There's literal footage of them playing their instruments

question
isn't it still *your* subjective opinion saying the Beatles are "objectively" the best?
what i'm saying is that objectivity is stupid

paul was a more technically advanced guitarist than george lol

ringo played wrong extremely well

>george
LMAO
youtube.com/watch?v=DfTsl9an6S4

>bassist

WRONG. The Band is the greatest band of all times.

>besides maybe george
Huh, I didn't know George could do shit like youtube.com/watch?v=7f7D2_jUkqA on his guitar.

>boring inaudible repetitive rhythm section bullshit
wow cool you really proved me wrong

Correct

Yes? Paul was still a more technical guitarist than George, despite making the bass his main instrument. His solos on songs like Taxman and Good Morning Good Morning are way faster than anything Harrison was doing, they're just not necessarily as well-composed.

because they simply lack mechanical skill compared to other groups. Not everyone has to be incredibly skilled to be successful, but compare the technicality of the majority of Beatles songs to that of bands like King Crimson, Steely Dan, Rush, most modern math rock bands, etc., and its easy to see that they are mechanically/technically worse that those groups are at their instruments.

You're just trying to start shit with George fans because we are protective of this boi

Attached: George-Harrison-in-water-up-to-his-neck.jpg (961x701, 149K)

>inaudible bass
Confirmed for idiot metalchild

>repetitive
Yikes, maybe that was too fast for you. Here's something more your speed: youtube.com/watch?v=Vkr67wOveEk

>technicality
=/= better

what

youtube.com/watch?v=BpndGZ71yww

How did they do it bros

George is the worst Beatle. Ringo's vocals are more endearing and his drumming more tasteful than George's guitar leads. Paul and John absolutely annihilate him in songwriting. Piggies is THE worst Beatles song. All Things Must Pass is insanely overrated. The most overrated solo Beatles album by a mile. George had to call in Eric Clapton to play his guitar solos for him. Hipsters love their underdog stories though. At least Ringo fans have a sense of humor.

George is the worst Beatle, but it's not 100% his fault either. These retarded hipster faggots who are all on about George being special when measured next to John Lennon and Paul McCartney need to be fucking euthanized. I would 10 out of 10 times rather hang out with a Yoko fan. Fuck George fans. The absolute worst kind of Beatles fan.

Neither George's nor Ringo's songwriting contributions would be missed if they were erased from history. The power gap between Lennon/McCartney and the next best Beatle is larger than the quality gap between JS Bach and whoever wrote the "I'm Lovin' It" jingle for McDonalds.

It's okay user, someday you'll be able to understand compositions like youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7R5t7X8Kk, meanwhile have something more accessible: youtube.com/watch?v=7ypxnhLxIUs

You wouldn't miss George's work because you're a pleb who has never listened to it. You can't convince me that you genuinely have listened to George Harrison's music and hated it so much that you legitimately feel this way.

>take a bunch of half-finished scraps
>string them together
>play them with band members you've been playing with for 15 years
>have a top notch producer help arrange it
>$100,000 microphones
It's easy

It's incredible how everything about YNGMYM is perfect and yet the bass still towers above every other element in emotional appeal.

I don't hate it. It's just mediocre. ATMP is boring as fuck. Not even a top 10 solo Beatles album. Thirty Three and 1/3rd and Cloud 9 are both better, but are also not top 10.

I think the guitars in the third movement are exquisite.

>Never even listened to The Concert for Bangladesh or Living In the Material World
>ATMP is boring
>mediocre
I know this is your way of making people have an authentic conversation with you about music, but leave George alone. He did nothing to you.

Nobody disputes this. The Beatles have done more for music than anyone else in history, and they got the recognition they deserve for it. A close second is Swans, though.

besides the memes he does have a point

subtle 7/10

Except You Never Give Me Your Money was intentionally composed as a medley, the half-finished songs you're referring to are the Sun King/Mean Mr Mustard/Polythem Pam/Bathroom Window bits.

Not necessarily. McCartney definitely has a history of stringing half-finished things together, so it's reasonable to believe he did that with YNGMYM

I don't like to resort to this type of argument, but I'd like to see the Beatles and Rush both try to play each others most "popular" song, and see who can recreate the others faster.
The difficulty required in playing a technically complex song does not inherently make the technically complex better than the technically simple, but technical skill is definitely something that people put importance on when comparing music. Sid Vicious was more successful and influential in his career than a freshman studying bass at Juliard, but saying that Sid Vicious is technically better than that freshman would be ridiculous.

No, not at all. Matter of fact it's full of mistakes and double standards

which is? The comparisons to classical music only reveals he knows nothing about classical music critics, and classical music as a whole when he implies Beethoven was somehow unpopular in his own time.

Someone has to be the worst Beatle. It's objectively either George or Ringo, and I like Ringo's drumming more than I like George's guitar playing.

>I don't like to resort to this type of argument, but I'd like to see the Beatles and Rush both try to play each others most "popular" song, and see who can recreate the others faster.
Except I'd say The Beatles were better songwriters and far surpassed Rush in the craft of connecting to an audience.

Again, technicality =/= better

But it's Paul

Based
Cringe

McCartney's "history" of full-scale medley songs literally starts with YNGMYM. You can find Get Back sessions outtakes of the first take of the song, and it already has all the sections in it.

This is the most invalid musical opinion of all time.

Attached: Weezer gif.gif (500x408, 2.73M)

youtube.com/watch?v=1EjbHJu3vKg

about the fact that you cannot call the beatles "the greatest or most significant rock band" when they've never done anything musically revolutionary but instead rode the psychedelic music trend when it was starting to grow, or when there were other bands at the time as the beatles who have significantly affected rock music where bands today still try to emulate their sound

Lamest Beatle objectively. Those freaks was right when they said he was dead. Sorry buddy.

>You can find Get Back sessions outtakes of the first take of the song, and it already has all the sections in it.
[citation needed]

...

Both

Someone's never seen Rockshow. Come back after seeing the hardest rocking and hardest working Beatle at his peak.

Attached: Mccartney76.jpg (750x750, 92K)

The Concert for Bangladesh is better than every concert Paul ever did in his entire career.

I simply can't comprehend how stupid and wrong you are.

Attached: 1511824651691.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

That's only because Dylan was there

nothing makes people turn on a band faster than people like OP, so keep up that evangelism

>surpassed Rush in the craft of connecting to an audience
I agree
However, we are trying to say that the Beatles are objectively the best band of all time. I don't think their skill level in playing allows that statement to be true.
"Best songwriters?" arguable. "Most popular?" probably true.
"Objectively the best?" I don't think so.
Every person values different aspects of music with varying amounts, so saying that a band is objectively the best is a very large statement to make.

>Being able to convince Bob Dylan to play his old protest songs in their original solo acoustic form at your concert
Paul ain't got shit.

>far surpassed Rush in the craft of connecting to an audience.
what does this even mean? it seems like a haughty muso crit way of saying "they appealed to more people." wow, no shit, one is a Canadian prog metal band with lyrics about ayn rand, the other was an ex-boyband who decided to market themselves to parents as Serious Adult Artists.

George needed people like Lennon, McCartney, Clapton, and Dylan as crutches to be good. Paul didn't need help from anyone..

Then why is his music without the other 3 uniformly anodyne mush?

Except for a whole backing band. Also, Paul's solo music is really mostly shitty.

>what does this even mean?
You'd understand if you were actually a musician

>what is Ram?
Notice how Paul is the leader of his band though and didn't have to invite Bob Dylan on stage to draw a crowd.

SHut up fag

George drew the crowd on his own. He just happened to be good friends with Dylan, unlike the other Beatles. Dylan knows the good guys.

>when they've never done anything musically revolutionary
Objectively untrue, their unparalleled commercial success meant they were in a position to demand much of what we take for granted today to be invented. Many of the guitar pedals and audio techniques (like ADT) we commonly use today literally wouldn't have been invented if the Beatles didn't explicitly ask their people to make them.
>but instead rode the psychedelic music trend when it was starting to grow
They also popularized psychedelic music to a wider audience and their specific voicing of psychedelic rock influenced artists that people would consider more forward-thinking, such as Syd Barrett obsessively listening to Revovler through the summer he composed most of his Piper songs, or Grace Slick forming the Great Society in 1965, or the United States of America being influenced by Sgt Pepper.
>there were other bands at the time as the beatles who have significantly affected rock music
Like the Velvet Underground, in which John Cale has said the Beatles influenced him to start writing songs? Like Kraftwerk, which also cites the Beatles as an influence? Like King Crimson or Black Sabbath, whose leaders were greatly inspired by the Beatles as well?
>where bands today still try to emulate their sound
Yes? The Beatles sound, or rather the sound of individual Beatles songs since they didn't really have a consistent sound after 1965, is also imitated today.

John Cale didn't write the Velvet Underground's songs lol

>McCartney
>Ram
>Band on the Run
>McCartney II
>The Fireman - Rushes
>Chaos and Creation in the Backyard
>Ecce Cor Meum

He did co-write. Look it up.

Also the important music VU made was with Cale, and the experimental tendencies were due to him.

Unless you think Doug Yule is a musical genius

Yeah, drew a crowd for one show as opposed to selling out night after night on a 2 year world tour. from 1975-1976. Paul had a million times the energy that Geroge ever did. Don't ever tell me that George had the stamina to shout his lungs out like Paul did every night for 2 years. Paul worked harder, rocked harder, and had better songs to boot.

Attached: Paul.gif (320x240, 1.84M)

Yeah those albums aren't as good as All Things Must Pass.

You're right, they're much better.

Two of them are

>The lyrics is the most important aspect of the VU
>Things other than lyrics isn't writing
Yikes. Notice how White Light/White Heat and banana are the best VU albums? There's a reason why.

Lol George had My Sweet Lord. Never had to work another day in his life unless he wanted to. I say good for him.

...

He barely wrote any of the songs on both of those albums. Lou Reed hated the Beatles and wrote probably 95% of that music.

Watch Rockshow

No, they are not. Half are boring MOR rock, half are good but not as good as All Things Must Pass.

>Lou Reed hated the Beatles
No he didn't. He said that in a few interviews in the 60s as to appear edgy.

>Lou Reed hated the Beatles
He hated everything.

Not him, but the little live footage we have of post-Lou VU actually implies Yule was a better interpreter of the old VU songs than Lou lol.
>youtube.com/watch?v=xrkkPm59YXg

All Things Must Pass is the definition of Middle of the Road. It's more boring than most middle of the road stuff.

No, Paul's music is the definition of MOR. All Things Must Pass is mystical like Astral Weeks.

Based Quincy

>Lou Reed hated the Beatles
You fell for the meme.
>"I don't think people realize how sad it is that the Beatles broke up. That means there's not going to be any more Beatles music.... We were hearing this bootleg tape of the original Get Back album before Spector, and it's really fabulous."

I know, I actually love that 1969 era of the band. All the Quine tapes are excellent. No VU album ever sounded like that, unfortunately.

Regardless, my point stands.

>
>Half of those are boring MOR rock
Most of them aren't even rock music you incel

Just Googled that quote and it linked me to Yea Forums. Source now.

Oh yeah, I totally agree Cale was a prime figure in the band's most historically important phase. Just felt like Doug Yule gets too much flak.

You're delusional if you think Paul ever had George's soul.

significance does not denote greatness

It's from the book Lou Reed: Between the Lines.

Luckily The Beatles had both

Well at least he certainly didn't have George's cocaine addiction that stripped away all of his talent in the early 70s kek

shit was meant for

He wasn't addicted to that shit, never went to rehab, he just decided to stop doing it one day.

Not him, but I'm pretty sure this is the original text.
archive.org/post/303480/velvet-underground-long-post
After digging online, it seems to come from a 1970 Melody Maker interview, but I'm pretty that mag isn't archived

*pretty sure

>"Best songwriters?" arguable.

lad go learn a couple hundred songs on the guitar or piano and the learn a beatles song, the only person who comes close is brain wilson

Aside from Between the Lines as noted, other parts of the interview seem to have been quoted elsewhere, so I've pretty sure it's legit. The beginning was apparently part of a longer where he railed against the Dead and Jefferson Airplane.
>books.google.com/books?id=2lKRw0ukVa0C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=We had vast objections to the whole San Francisco scene. It's just tedious, a lie, and untalented.&source=bl&ots=fbyNG5ne4Z&sig=ACfU3U1ctbW9QyhjiNy12wHLqTYB_OBAeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGgb3-3JziAhW8HjQIHcHaBWoQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=We had vast objections to the whole San Francisco scene. It's just tedious, a lie, and untalented.&f=false
>books.google.com/books?id=C-Ne8rSuNRoC&pg=PT72&lpg=PT72&dq=We had vast objections to the whole San Francisco scene. It's just tedious, a lie, and untalented.&source=bl&ots=pl-EYnOCjb&sig=ACfU3U1VSE2YzALgQeMTaKTj-2mtqmfUhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGgb3-3JziAhW8HjQIHcHaBWoQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=We had vast objections to the whole San Francisco scene. It's just tedious, a lie, and untalented.&f=false

Attached: Mekon-Poster.jpg (720x1000, 264K)

this perfectly sums up how I feel about the beatles, I think that they probably have the cleanest record of any band in history, and no one can ever come close to their presence in the 60's. I love their work but I definitely wouldn't say their music is the greatest of any rock band.

So again, how do we objectively say what is and isn't good songwriting? Subjectively, sure, everyone has their own opinions on what makes good songwriting: Relatability, Depth, Eccentricity, etc. But how can one objectively say that one band is better at songwriting than another? Thats why it's arguable. Some people will say that other bands are better at songwriting than the Beatles because they don't find the layman-esque composition or lyrical structure as important as the depth/eccentricity of other bands. Most popular probably isn't arguable because sales pretty much directly relate to popularity.

Also it's my opinion but I find the Beatles chord progressions in the majority of their music pretty simple and repetitive, and their lyrics often boring. So I am biased, but I would say that sums up my personal opinion on the Beatles much more concisely than I could.

Absolutely based

you're being too aspergury, listen to the "popular music canon" and you'll understand, from Jelly Roll Morton to Charlie Bird to Dylan to Tin Pan Alley and Brill Building productions etc.. and then everything after.. Go play music in a band, go learn the chords.... seriously go learn the chords, they sound natural to you but that's because they're perfect.

>But how can one objectively say that one band is better at songwriting than another?

It's a metaphysical feeling, play heart and soul, play god only knows

>ble. Some people will say that other bands are better at songwriting than the Beatles because they don't find the layman-esque composition or lyrical structure as important as the depth/eccentricity of other bands. Most popular probably isn't arguable because sales pretty much directly relate to popularity.

it's not deepness or eccentricity, as far as simple pop music that doesn't involve a ton fo improv, the beatles in their substance can only be rivaled by B.Wilson and in their style by Dylan...

you need to learn how to write music, music with words.. learn how Tin Pan Alley became Max Martin, and how Monk chants become cecil taylor or Stockhousen.... Go try writing a song, a tune, then learn a beatles one only then you can talk shit... Go play in band I can tell you haven't and try play a beatles tune, hell try slandering anything about the beatles... you're a pedantic fool

>constant critical acclaim
Actually Pepper was the only one of their late period albums to be really beloved in the 60s. Revolver didn't get a whole lot of critical attention, no one cared about MMT, White Album was controversial across the entire political and music-listening spectrum, and Abbey Road was seen as just ok. It wasn't until the 80s and especially the 90s, after people realized the Beatles were never interested in making Sgt Pepper 2.0, that albums like Revolver and White really started seeing widespread universal acclaim.

yikes boomer butttext about beatles and beach boys

Well they have fantastic marketing. This thread for example.

lmao you mention the two boomer artists because those are the only ones you recognize

Retarded post

What you just wrote is the most pretentious stupidity I’ve seen in a while

I've played drumset in multiple jazz bands for almost a decade now, and am in a indie punk band. I don't see how that is relevant to the point I'm trying to make, that the Beatles are not objectively the best band of all time. That being said, I'll try to respond to your points:
>go learn the chords, they sound natural but thats because theyre perfect
Yea, they're perfect, because if a chord progression is bad, it sounds bad. That's why there are a million videos on youtube explaining what a 12-bar blues is, or why a 2-5-1 or a 1-5-6-4 progression works so well. But there is so much more experimentation that the Beatles did not do, and often stuck to more of the popular sounds. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but its true for the most part.
>heart and soul
You mean the first song anyone learns on piano that is literally rooted in a 1-6-4-5 pattern? Terribly simple, but does sound very good (especially if you use the 9th, a D, in the bass during the second two bars instead of the normal F)

I was going to continue with this, but I need to go to bed and don't feel like arguing with someone who doesn't think that lyrical depth or eccentricity contribute to songwriting prowess
>also pic related

Attached: goback.png (866x475, 53K)

>if a chord progression is bad, it sounds bad
>a 2-5-1 or a 1-5-6-4 progression

Yep, you're a drummer, lmao

note: I'm not that user, don't @ me

I have never heard an argument about the Beatles being the best band ever be about anything other than being really popular.
>muh production techniques
george martin being a good producer doesnt make them good
/thread

they weren't the ones coming up with the techniques anyways, they had access to the people who did

I do know how to play piano well enough to explain the basics of music theory, but yea i'm no expert. Also do you want me to write them as II-V-I and I-V-vi-IV? I assumed it was easier to read without the roman numerals.

>george martin being a good producer doesnt make them good
George Martin wasn't the one who invented the production techniques you dumbass. It was engineers like Geoff Emerick.