Imagine the reaction of people listening to Tomorrow Never Knows in 1966

>Reaction to Revolver was "generally ecstatic", according to MacDonald, with listeners marvelling at the album's "aural invention".[83] To the Beatles' less progressive fans, however, the radical changes in the band's sound were the source of confusion.[84][85] The editor of the Australian teen magazine Mirabelle wrote: "Everyone, from Brisbane to Bootle, hates that daft song Lennon sang at the end of Revolver."[65]

Amazing. Critics are always fucking wrong. Even back in 1966. He said that "everyone hates" the most influential and important song on the album. The song that went on to influence the sound of psychedelic rock, sampling in hip-hop, and tape looping in rock music. The song that tore down the wall between popular music and experimental music. NOBODY was mixing tape loops and musique concrete with pop rock in 1966 and stupud critics didn't know what to think of it, so they hated it. It's exactly like today. Critics say whatever they think is popular at the time. It's like how Fantano is a trend-following retard who doesn't know anything about the music he reviews. He gave TPAB a perfect 10 and it's already dated as fuck. It's the most 2016 album I can think of.

if people weren't retards and had been keeping up with developments in electronic music since the 40s at least, it was likely not too surprising, though i'm sure having a rock beat underneath it was seen as a cute novelty

>duh it's not innovative because the beatles didn't single handily invent electronics

Attached: +_45891abcf028c7ac2494d5df114e7e61.jpg (638x1000, 92K)

TPAB is from 2015 but yes you are right.

Also, TNK was the first song recorded for Revolver, in April 66. How fucking cool is that?

Ray Davies from The Kinks clearly wasn't a fan

Attached: kinks-beatles.jpg (480x595, 68K)

Nobody in the mainstream knew about this. We know about it now, in hindsight, because of the internet. We're way more patrician than people in the 60s were. Unless you worked in the lab on a college campus, you probably didn't know anything about electronic music. It was mostly something that existed in academic environments.

Well he's a southern poofter

If Kinks weren't making Looney tunes music maybe he would've been as good as Beatles.

i bet some people cummed

If you followed your own advice you wouldn't be making such a retarded post.

Village Green is better than any Beatles album

15 year old virgin user here isn't happy mid 60s hoi polloi weren't clued up on stockhausen and xenakis

Attached: 1557644814247.png (396x385, 131K)

But why are all their albums sequenced like shit
Literally every song on revolver fades out. Theres no fucking sense of pacing. It's basically:
Hey check out this song
Oh look we also did this song
And ringo has one too look

It's 1966

60s style dude. Not really Beatles fault entirely.

Their albums have great sequencing you absolute uncultured mongoloid

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was one of the first concept albums.
Not THE first one, but one of the first ones

Sgt. Pepper exists for this very reason you mong

why are beatlesfags so seething and insecure?

youtube.com/watch?v=nDG4qfF3Ov4

It wasn't the first concept album but it was the first great concept album though

It's not a concept album because there is no concept behind it.

the kinks are a complete nothing band

It's a concert by a fictional band

It isn't a narrative concept album you dickhead it's a music hall show and all the songs are different bands, it even has encores and shit

>say some stupid shit
>"hey huh it's not actually true because..."
>"MAN WHY ARE BEATLESFAG SO SEETHING AND INSECURE AND MEAN ;("

Attached: 1557830397630.jpg (750x738, 92K)

Yeah, it's true, pop albums in the mid-60s did have terrible sequencing (look at the rolling stones) but it wasnt the case with everyone: bob dylan's albums have always had good sequencing and on the pop front the beach boys had learned how to properly sequence an album by that point.

meant for

Barely. Not a concept album.

The concept is that they're Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and not the Beatles

I'm not that guy, fags.

Are you mentally challenged? Should we explain a bit slower to you?

You're listening to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, except the concept was poorly executed.

>welcome to the show folks!
>here's billy shears
>trapeze circus act
>here's one for the old folks! (when i'm 64)
>reprise
>encore
It's literally a concept. It's an album, and there's a concept behind it.

It was the first great rock concept album. Sinatra had already made a great big ban concept album and Marty Robbins had made some great country-western concept albums.

Information was harder to find then.

Ok then why you think beatlesfags are insecure?

I bet you think DSOTM is a concept album

"Concept" doesn't mean narrative
Fucking Yea Forums, I swear

Trends evolve. Album oriented rock wasn't popular let alone exist.

We were still learning. Music was only 56 years old at that time.

Why do Kinksfags try to join in on Beatles vs Beach Boys? You may as well be hardcore Herman Hermit's fan. Nobody cares.

It had a concept behind it even if it was a simple one, therefore it's a concept album.

I was arguing that desu

>peppers was one of the first concept albums
Concept albums exists since the 40's you faggot.

Old fag here. I was 12 years old when this record came out, and my reaction to TMK was "Hell, yeah!"

It changed everything the same way the Beatles' first appearance on Ed Sullivan to years earlier changed everything before that. Nothing else on the record really mattered - we just listened through Side Two to get to TMK.

It wasn't our first exposure to psychedelic music - there was Zappa and some San Francisco underground bands before that - but The Beatles just made it sound more alive and relevant than ever before.

tl/dr - We liked it.

Attached: cartoon.jpg (638x480, 30K)

Based. You make this board a special place.

Yes but how common was that? And how many concept albums from 40s and 50s can you name without Google?
The majority of artists from that era didn't even write their own songs dude.

nice LARP

Do you browse this board often or your grandson just typed what you said to him?

Either way this is pretty cool. I wished my grandparents were still alive for me to ask them about music in the 60s.

nice, were you ever aware of TVU while in your teens or were they too unpopular?

Why would a larping 12 year old be aware of a cocaine band?

Old fag again. I brows this board about once a day, mostly looking for sharethreads. Have to admit, I'm a leacher there, not a poster (but I don't request at least).

Still like discovering new music and still go to shows. Mostly post-rock bands like Swans, Godspeed, Von Hausswolff, but also some punk and post-punk.

Could argue that TNK ruined me from ever settling into a groove of listening to the same old same old all the time, and kept my mind open to new things.

Attached: 1502814344819.jpg (2303x1501, 950K)

i'm not losing anything by asking, tb h
it'd be cool to talk to an adult for once

Attached: 0b4.jpg (453x576, 39K)

What was it that Eno said about only 5000 people bought the first Velvet album and every one of them started their own band? I'm the exception - I bought it but never started a band.

Attached: 1507021824970.jpg (1500x1008, 292K)

I don't, and it's not.

Barely.

>Yes but how common was that?
Not common, why?
>how many concept albums can you name
3 or 4, why?
>majority of artists from that era didn't even write their own songs
Objectively wrong on this, though.

The Beatles were a mainstream band, most of their fans wouldn't be aware of experimental electronic music that happened in the 40s. This post pretty much condenses everything wrong with Scaruffi's critique of The Beatles.

They had more important things to worry about.

>Ray loving I'm Only Sleeping
He actually knows

In that case, what does A Day in the Life means?