His whole critique of them boils down to people only think they're great because they aren't aware of less popular acts who influenced them. Yeah of course people who only listen to mainstream music think the stuff they did was more experimental than people who don't. It seems pretty unfair of him to take away from their music for not being the first to do a thing, especially when he doesn't apply this evenly to other artist. Just to clarify I don't dislike Scaruffi, and I enjoy most of what is commonly considered scarufficore.
Was it autism?
Juan Cox
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
scaruffi.com
twitter.com
Kayden Cruz
It was the based kind of autism, desu.
Scaruffi is undoubtedly the king of autists when it comes to music-listening, which is why we love him in the first place.
Cameron Campbell
Rather than an album of psychedelic music (compared to which it actually sounds retro), Sgt. Pepper was the Beatles' answer to the sophistication of Pet Sounds, the masterpiece by their rivals, the Beach Boys, released a year and three months before. The Beatles had always been obsessed by the Beach Boys. They had copied their multi-part harmonies, their melodic style and their carefree attitude. Throughout their entire career, from 1963 to 1968, the Beatles actually followed the Beach Boys within a year or two, including the formation of Apple Records, which came almost exactly one year after the birth of Brother Records. Pet Sounds had caused an uproar because it delivered the simple melodies of surf music through the artistic sophistication of the studio. So, following the example of Pet Sounds, the Beatles recorded, from February to May 1967, Sgt. Pepper, disregarding two important factors: first that Pet Sounds had been arranged, mixed and produced by Brian Wilson and not by an external producer like George Martin, and second that, as always, they were late. They began assembling Sgt. Pepper a year after Pet Sounds had hit the charts, and after dozens of records had already been influenced by it.
Henry Sanders
Legend has it that it took 700 hours of studio recording to finish the album. One can only imagine what many other less fortunate bands could have accomplished in a recording studio with 700 hours at their disposal. Although Sgt. Pepper was assembled with the intent to create a revolutionary work of art, if one dares take away the hundreds of hours spent refining the product, not much remains that cannot be heard on Revolver: Oriental touches here and there, some psychedelic extravaganzas, a couple of arrangements in classical style. Were one to skim off a few layers of studio production, only pop melodies would remain, melodies not much different from those that had climbed the charts ten years before. Yet it was the first Beatles album to be released in long playing version all over the world. None of its songs were released as singles.
Jason Russell
The truth is that although it was declared an "experimental" work, even Sgt. Pepper managed to remain a pop album. The Beatles of 1967 were still producing three-minute ditties, while Red Crayolas and Pink Floyd, to name two psychedelic bands of the era, were playing long free form suites - at times cacophonous, often strictly instrumental - that bordered on avantgarde. In 1967, the band that had never recorded a song that had not been built around a refrain began to feel outdated. They tried to keep up, but they never pushed themselves beyond the jingles, most likely because they could not, just as Marilyn Monroe could not have recited Shakespeare.
Sgt. Pepper is the album of a band that sensed change in the making, and was adapting its style to the taste of the hippies. It came in last (in June), after Velvet Underground & Nico (January), The Doors (also January), the Byrds' Younger Than Yesterday (february), and the Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (February) to signal the end of an era, after others had forever changed the history of rock music. (Several technical "innovations" on Sgt Pepper were copied from Younger Than Yesterday, whose tapes the Beatles had heard from David Crosby at the end of 1966). The uproar generated by Sgt. Pepper transferred those innovations from the US underground to the living rooms and the supermarkets of half the world.
Chase Evans
With Sgt. Pepper, the sociology course in melodic rock and roll that Lennon and McCartney had introduced in 1963 came to an end. The music of the Beatles was an antidote to the uneasiness of those times, to the troubling events that scared and perplexed people. The course had the virtue of deflecting the impact of those events, the causes of political upheaval and moral revolution. The Beatles reassured the middle class at a time when almost nothing could reassure the middle class.
FIN
James Wright
>not writing your own reviews
that's how I know you're faking your diagnosis
Carter Robinson
Not every type of stupidity is autism user. It's a clear case of finding facts to fit the thesis. He obviously decided they were overrated and deserved to be criticised by that. Delving in to disciplines he knew shit about like sociology to back up his opinion with specious facts that no one would question because no one gives a shit about him.
Evan Powell
>His whole critique of them boils down to people only think they're great because they aren't aware of less popular acts who influenced them
You're lying. He says this:
>Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. >They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray >Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.
In absolutely no way does that "boil down to" the argument that you characterized. If we were going by your word ITT everyone would be misinformed.
Jacob Ward
>to the troubling events that scared and perplexed people
when were the mid 60s troubled? asides from the cuban crisis
Nolan Green
The main issue is not that the mainstream audience thinks they're great. The main issue is that music critics still uphold them as great. Beatles are obviously overrrated when it comes to their critical acclaim. They are not very exceptional in the grand scale of rocks. Yet they are still upheld as astounding canonical works in rock criticism. Rock criticism is a joke.
Wyatt Lopez
>But the single that established them outdid the Beatles at their own game: MMM-Bop
Samuel Jackson
This, I can understand Dylan, but the beatles are fucking ridiculous.
Liam Russell
unironicaly really makes you think
Jacob Collins
>Beatles are obviously overrrated when it comes to their critical acclaim. They are not very exceptional in the grand scale of rocks
Not true by the way.
Lincoln Sullivan
t. Rolling Stones Magazine
Hudson Morris
this
He's autistic but he also knows what he's talking about
Michael Watson
t. low iq tastelet
Ayden Butler
Beatles changed pop and rock music and influenced basically everyone and there's nothing that a lying manlet Italian pedo can do about it.
Kayden Sullivan
Yes, we know they influenced music for the worse. Why are you acting as though that's a good thing?
Nicholas Scott
>for the worse
List your top 10 favorite artists
Jack Reed
Mars, Swans, DNA, TVU, Beefheart, Royal Trux, The Mothers Invention, LRD, Sonic Youth, and Unwound.
Anthony Davis
Talk Talk is much better in every way
Jordan Sanchez
Michael Gira, TVU, Beefheart, Sonic Youth and even Zappa were influenced by Beatles.
Dylan Powell
Just because an artist is influential doesn't mean they are good. The influence an artist has is directly proportional to its popularity, and popularity does not equal quality.
Jose Davis
lol did you just copy and paste scruffi approved bands?
Christopher Reed
> Van Vliet was often critical of the Beatles, however. He considered the lyric "I'd love to turn you on" from their song A Day in the Life, to be ridiculous and conceited. Tiring of their "lullabies",[42] he lampooned them with the Strictly Personal song Beatle Bones 'n' Smokin' Stones, that featured the sardonic refrain of "strawberry fields, all the winged eels slither on the heels of today's children, strawberry fields forever"
embarrassing that you actually think this, beatles niggers are some of the most delusional imbeciles on the planet.
Jack Green
I didn't say Beatles were good because they were influential. That user said that Beatles weren't highly regarded among artists of last century.
Jeremiah Scott
John Howard
>reviews Boards of Canada - Catalog 3
what did he mean by this?
Jeremiah Murphy
Is this based or cringe?
Luis Johnson
gonna have to say cringe on this one
Lincoln Peterson
>In 2018 West, one of the most over-rated lyricists in the history of rap music, released Ye vs The People in support of the radical right-wing racist president Donald Trump. It was certainly a great way to attract publicity. If his artistic merits were dubious, his skills at generating media attention were undeniable. At the same time he released Lift Yourself that has perhaps his best lyrics ever: Poopy-di scoop / Scoop-diddy-whoop / Whoop-di-scoop-di-poop.
The album Ye (Def Jam, 2018) wasn't even an album: at 23 minutes, it was just an EP. The songs are clumsy and goofy. The best one is Ghost Town, because it takes the melody from Shirley Ann Lee's Someday, the organ from Vanilla Fudge's Take Me For A Little While, and because of guest female vocalist Danielle Balbuena, aka 070 Shake. (The only reason that i mention this song is that, if i don't mention any song, his fans will accuse me of not having listened to the album, but i refuse to publicize any other song). West lost his inspiration, and maybe was never particularly inspired, but has always been very good at generating publicity.
Noah Ward
Influenced in the sense that they purposely distanced themselves maybe.
Jackson Cook
I'm pretty sure that he was contrarian about them in his youth, and just decided to dig deeper and deeper.
Tyler Martin
the truth about the beatles will come out soon, mashallah
Aiden Roberts
>Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason.
Except for Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, The Beach Boys, David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, and probably a ton more I’m forgetting
Wyatt Lee
Decided to invent a lot of lies*
James Miller
>people only like the beatles because they sold more than anyone else
>not true though
fucking what?
Ryan Williams
The only opinion of this man's that I respect is his opinion on XXXDeadacion. Besides that, why should I give a shit about what some autistic manchild thinks about music?
Jason Cox
Nolan Stewart
Beatles are the ultimate chad band though. They were always positive, uplifting and inspired a lot of people.
Your meme is just shit.
Alexander Hernandez
Dude the colors on this website are fucking sickening. Can he not just do black and white? This disgusting saggy flesh tone is awful
Sebastian Murphy
It's almost funny how much of a brainlet Scaruffi is on topics that aren't in his immediate area of expertise.
John Mitchell
I dont want to rape children so yeah fucking cringe on that one scruffy. Jesus christ
Ryder Morgan
Beatles >>>>>>>> Captain Neckbeardheart, you'd have to be a delusional imbecile to listen to that dogshit noise
Cooper Turner
>dislikes the Beatles
That's how you spot a non-musician.
Nathan Williams
Its over loser the only people who like the beatles are 14 year old instawhores and out of touch demented boomers, meanwhile matt groening and david lynch both said tmr is their favourite album of all time.
>dogshit noise
It's so easy to spot low iq troglodytes, go back to furiously jacking yourself off to the terabytes worth of paul and lennon pictures you have, faggot.
Cameron Clark
>His whole critique
That's not a criticism against the Beatles, it's criticism against their fanbase. Scaruffi has said many times that the Beatles have made good music, even masterpieces.
Angel King
well, i've listened Abbey road, Sgt Pepper and Revolver didn't like it and never wanted to comeback and relisten. I think Beatles are good but I dont see how they stand out from other 60s pop bands. Interesting how you can meme something as being "the greatest" across the globe for decades
Jeremiah Cook
Vietnam. Nuclear bomb. Communism. Racism.
Andrew Powell
>Its over loser the only people who like the beatles are 14 year old instawhores and out of touch demented boomers
Everyone likes the Beatles dude. Stop lying to yourself.
Nicholas Roberts
>They were always positive
Not really.
Kevin Parker
He probably listened to a fake and thought it was real.
Friendly reminder that that paragraph is taken out of context and the text as a whole doesn't endorse pedophilia in any way.
>The only reason that i mention this song is that, if i don't mention any song, his fans will accuse me of not having listened to the album, but i refuse to publicize any other song
lol
He was seeing bands like MC5 when he was as young as 10 lol
Christopher Richardson
>doesn't know the difference between psychedelic pop and hard psychedelic rock
What a fucking pleb. The Beatles weren't attempting anything anywhere near Pink Floyd or Red Crayola.
David Morgan
As in his position.
Adrian Harris
>that paragraph is taken out of context
No it isn't
Jack Diaz
>'Hopefully, one NOT-TOO-DISTANT DAY, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles.'
Luke Reyes
>doesn't know the difference between psychedelic pop and hard psychedelic rock
There actually isn't a difference other than psychedelic pop being catchy psychedelic rock (like The Beatles on some Revolver songs).
Dominic Allen
>ad populum
Classic Beatletard
Robert Carter
>Friendly reminder that that paragraph is taken out of context and the text as a whole doesn't endorse pedophilia in any way.
It might as well be endorsing it with how ridiculously over the top it is. The guy literally thinks that marrying and boning children is preferable to two grown men fucking in their own home.
Isaac Sanders
very based, but you could at least post the original