They were the backstreet boys of the 60's, why do they receive this much attention and credibility?

High quality songwriting paired with the fact that they did a lot in a very short period of time

I like pop music, but I think the beatles were just copycats off other pop acts at the time.
Sgt Peppers was just a Pet Sounds ripoff, and it's obvious if you listen to their interviews in public that they were very much fans of others like Beefheart and Zappa. They never had an original bone in their body, they just copied like all other pop acts.

>talentless musicians
This is just wrong. They weren't technically impressive but they were amazing songwriters and they had a lot of personality. Always evolving their sound from album to album.
>fame is due to mass commercial shilling
Epstein was a great manager but it doesn't mean the boys weren't all talented in the first place. Epstein only went to be their manager because he was impressed by their music.
>They wouldn't have existed without Berry or Elvis.
And a great deal of your favorite artists wouldn't have existed without Beatles. What's your point?

They're like the backstreet boys if they were actually talented, formed independently of the music industry and paid their dues for years in small clubs, had complete creative control, earned the respect of critics and peers, and almost singlehandedly rewrote the vocabulary of popular music by taking creative risks unprecedented for a pop act of their day.
So basically not like the backstreet boys at all.

>Sgt Peppers was just a Pet Sounds ripoff
And Pet Sounds was just a Rubber Soul ripoff. Brian Wilson himself believes that Rubber Soul is the perfect pop record

Nah, that's not true. I'm the biggest anti-Wilson propagandists but the sound isn't comparable. Wilson was a Phil Spector clone.

Contrarian thread for contrarians.

Not really, they were very innovative with Rubber Soul as well as all of the psychedelic stuff. They were only rip offs for the first few records, I think help is original sounding.

So how does it feel to defend a literal muderer?

>And a great deal of your favorite artists wouldn't have existed without Beatles. What's your point?
Objectively wrong, much of my favourite artists from the 60's existed outside, and/or before the beatles, and the rest of them were strictly anti-commercial types.

>Sgt Peppers was just a Pet Sounds ripoff
She's Leaving Home. One song. One stinking song.

How does it feel to have your opinion of art influenced by the artist?

>think help is original sounding.

A Hard Day's Night*

Beatles For Sale is very original too

List your top 10 artists

Bait with a capital B.

Not an argument.

>they were the backstreet boys of the 60's

Okay, genius. Who do YOU like?

Reminder that the beatle's psychedelic music is almost always bad and pretentious which is why they stopped doing it

The Archies

Attached: 28C92CED-23EF-47AB-A957-D8FA4396CF5C.png (600x515, 63K)

Yea but some songs sounds like AHDN leftovers, like Eight Days a Week.
But we can't blame them though. They were really tired of all the fame.

archers of loaf.

Revolver is one of the best blends of pop and psychedelia. Its a great record that influenced the rest of the psych genre

Beatles For Sale and Help! should have been a single album.

lol Beatles singlehandedly murdered the psychedelic game from Revolver to MMT. They stopped doing it because there were nothing left to do in psychedelia so instead of making the same shit for another two or three years they changed their sound. It shows integrity.

She Said She said is the peak of pop music.

yes it is

>beatles were just copycats

The group members even admit as much, however, where they transcend the copycat label is that they took all these influences and synthesized them into a hybrid sound that WAS original.

Listen to She Loves You or I Want To Hold Your Hand ***IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIMES***. Who the hell sounded like them -- even REMOTELY like them -- in 1963 and 1964?

They took Berry, Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, and Tin Pan Alley pop, mixed it all together, found the exact right guy to produce them, and PRESTO! They came up with something truly original.

The Beatles, then, began inspiring others to do the same thing. The Byrds amalgamated The Beatles sound with Bob Dylan and came up with Mr. Tambourine Man in 1965. They took two existing things and made a third thing.

No one is truly original in music in literal fact. It's all about new combinations of existing music. Those who do that well become icons. Those who don't become waitresses and bartenders.

Attached: aaabb2.jpg (971x775, 551K)

the beatles saved psychedelia from being a hammond organ driven blues rock wankfest

I would say In My Life but you aight

Yes. House of The Rising Sun 24/7.

Beatles were just copycats during the Quarrymen/cavern days where they just played rock and roll hits to prostitutes and gangsters.
But these were essential to their sound because they improved their instrument skills. When they hit america in 64 every artist worth a penny was fucking scared by them and knew they were light years ahead of them.

Good

The Beatles released What You're Doing and Spoil the Party in 1964 but I'm supposed to believe that The Byrds invented jangle pop with Mr. Tambourine Man when Mr. Tambourine Man wasn't even a recorded Dylan song until 1965

>read a cunnyruffy article
>credits obvious beatles influence to "merseybeat"
What a salty faggot, like we're supposed to believe that Gerry & the Pacemakers are just as influential?