So Yea Forums, would the beatles' music be popular if it was just released for the first time in 2019...

do the beatles show up in the movie? i remember there was a tease in the trailer or something

It is endlessly entertaining to me that the primary beatlesfag copout is “y-you’ve actually never listened to them”. I’ve never seen any other bands’ fans do this. It’s like the idea that anyone could dislike their pop music is mindblowing to them.

>This expositional scene was one of the first big belly laugh moments of the film in early showings. It reportedly aroused riotous laughter from audience members young and old, particularly in England, where Manchester-based Oasis was the biggest musical and cultural phenomenon of the mid-1990s. Here, the Beatles-influenced, Manchester-based band racked up eight #1 hits (though "Wonderwall" would only peak at #2) before their demise in 2009, received years odf tabloid coverage revolving around the exploits and squabbles of Liam and Noel Gallagher, and an ever-growing following of younger fans which now fuels the post-Oasis solo careers of the two brothers.

>However, the sequence had the opposite effect in America. At it's Tribeca Film Festival screening in New York City, it elicited practically no reaction at all, save for what some reported as "confused murmuring" in audience. Early test screenings in both large and small markets across America, too, found that many participants did not find the scene funny and were confused over its purpose. When queried, the vast majority of these respondents stated they were totally unfamiliar with the song "Wonderwall", much less the band Oasis itself and their other songs included in the sequence. Additionally, multiple responses were unsure whether Oasis and these songs were real or a fictional part of the film's universe.

>>Representatives from the film's American distributors, Universal Pictures, were reportedly "incredibly displeased" about this portion of the film, which was derided as "extraneous" and "needlessly challenging" for American audiences. Last minute demands for director Danny Boyle and his team of producers to entirely eliminate and reshoot the scene for the American cut were steadfastly ignored, much to Universal's chagrin.

it's like a bad drug. it really is.

No, they would not be as popular but I'm fairly certain if you gave their songs to some big pop singer like Adele or Ed Sheeran or whoever the fuck they'd still probably be huge hits.

This is a stupid question anyways. Art and its value is always deeply contextual in nature.

this one is more difficult than a lot of people are making it look
remember, no beatles = no influence by the beatles
so who knows what modern music would look like without them
i'd say probably, and obviously they'd still be a great band
but their rise in popularity in the 60s was seriously helped by them gradually changing their music throughout their career

kek

>they thought they'd be alright to just do some The Beatles again

Attached: pbox.jpg (631x582, 105K)

The Beatles were great songwriters but they also benefited from the unprecedented explosion of studio and production technology that emerged during the 60s, those innovations would probably have just ended up being used by other artists if not by them. There were also other groups that were catching onto the feasibility of incorporating classical elements into pop music around the same time they were. I'm not saying they weren't influential since there's pretty much no other candidate for most influential band in history, but they were also in the right place at the right time

The more compelling question is what does pop music look like without George Martin

>es were great songwriters but the
You should have heard my music teacher rip them to shreds he hated them.

>d explosion of studio and production technology that
Hugely, you are right. Abbey Road is the sound of Hi-Fi .

They would be called an okay tame impala ripoff at best

The beatles were very influenced by 1950s american rock and roll. Buddy holly and little richard and elvis, stuff like that.

The music industry in the modern era seem to have been wittled down to pop and pop rap. So i guess at best the beatles would be some indie band that has a lot of buzz.

At worst they would be jonas brothers or one direction tier

>. Buddy holly and little richard and elvis, stuff like that.
Weird how early The Beatles is so tame compared to Buddy, Elvis, Little Richard. Little Richard was fucking nuts.

Attached: hqdefault (3).jpg (288x216, 24K)

>the beatles would be
There's nothing comparable anymore.

there were a lot of rock bands in the 90s that were influenced by the beatles. Olivia tremor control, apples in stereo, oasis, elliott smith, nirvna

This is basically the beatles but what if they grew up on punk and metal

youtube.com/watch?v=SthzSQD28hY

>lot of rock bands in the 90s that were influenced
I agree. Who is there now? It's not going to happen. Think of popular music of the 1850s , it's gone people don't make that sort of music apart from middle class hobbyists. Think of music of the 1920s, it's gone, those people don;t make it anymore they'll be on molly and drank, it'll be the same with The Beatles, we're changing.

Attached: 5a91a44494a32586843584dec30a4082.jpg (480x430, 90K)

Jerry Lee Lewis was a fucking madman in particular, dude is basically the first punk

there are stories of him jumping on his piano to punch holes in the goddamn ceiling and then possibly setting his piano on fire

hahah
funny you say something like that because the beatles have echos of the 1920s in them.

John used to make fun of paul for writing "grandma songs"

youtube.com/watch?v=9zIEN60IYDo

>Art and its value is always deeply contextual in nature.
Good art survives without a context. Objectively good art.

no, no bad of white men making rock music would be wildly popular today, they would be like some fucking indie rock band in popularity

youtube.com/watch?v=9p9UficlHnQ
I SEE YOU AGAIN

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.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

Monkees outsold the Beatles and Stones combined don't know why you guys think their not the best band.

>The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

they are barely remembered for the early stuff

jonas brothers had the number one album like a week ago

Yeah if we remove everything Rubber Soul and beyond they wouldn't be regarded as anything other than an extremely popular act in the early to mid 60s

Would include Brian Wilson in that grouping too since he ended up being ahead of the curve from them on stuff like the concept album

Ray in particular seems incredibly fucking bitter about it, and it's hard to blame him. The Kinks still stand as one of the most influential bands in history, possibly top ten, but not being able to come to America stymied their careers massively

Their later stuff wouldn't be regarded as so special if they hadn't ascended to such a high popularity early on

Theirs were records of traditional songs crafted as they had been crafted for centuries, yet they served an immense audience, far greater than the audience of those who wanted to change the world, the hippies, freaks and protesters. Their fans ignored or abhorred the many rockers of the time who were experimenting with the suite format, who were composing long free-form tracks, who were using dissonance, who were radically changing the concept of the musical piece. The Beatles' fans thought, and some still think, that using trumpets in a rock song was a revolutionary event, that using background noises (although barely noticeable) was an even more revolutionary event, and that only great musical geniuses could vary so many styles in one album, precisely what many rock musicians were doing all over the world, employing much more sophisticated stylistic excursions.

While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avantgarde music, thus elevating rock music to art, the Beatles continued to yield three-minute songs built around a chorus. Beatlemania and its myth notwithstanding, Beatles fans went crazy for twenty seconds of trumpet, while the Velvet Underground were composing suites of chaos twenty minutes long.

Beatlemania created a comical temporal distortion. Many Beatles fans were convinced that rock and roll was born around the early 1960s, that psychedelic rock and the hippies were a 1967 phenomenon, that student protests began in 1969, that peace marches erupted at the end of the 60s, and so on. Beatles fans believed that the Beatles were first in everything, while in reality they were last in almost everything. The case of the Beatles is a textbook example of how myths can distort history.

The Beatles influence was so massive. It even reached into the 2000s. This is basically emo sgt peppers

youtube.com/watch?v=RRKJiM9Njr8

It even reached into other genres.

youtube.com/watch?v=PWgvGjAhvIw

You raise a good argument, I genuinely enjoyed reading your posts.

>implying music needs to be entirely comprised of meticulous, convoluted, and abberant sonic innovations in order to be noteworthy/revolutionary
>implying the Beatles didn't change and influence the pop landscape forever
>implying the only parameters for something to be considered "art" is to cross the nebulous, ill-defined and arbitrary threshold of avant-garde, thereby making the term "avant-garde art" by itself redundant, according to your logic

Their stuff from Rubber Soul onward would still be appreciated as great music, but it probably wouldn't become the pop culture phenomenon it was. This has literally no bearing on their status as a great band though. If John Coltrane just released music for the first time in 2019, it would go unnoticed by pretty much everyone

It’s true that the Beatles didn’t really innovate too much themselves as far as experimentation is concerned. Most was already pioneered by the likes of Zappa or VU. However, their venture into (relative) experimentation within their already established mainstream popularity allowed the music industry as a whole to engage in artistic risks. Before Sgt. Peppers, the labels saw rock music as a primarily singles focused medium, in which albums where merely collections of songs, not cohesive pieces. Furthermore, labels often granted their artists almost no artistic freedom, constraining them to their established safe and marketable formats. It took an artist as commercially unbreakable as the Beatles in order to make a pop album with cohesive themes and unorthodox arrangements (for rock music at the time), through the almost complete control of the artists, to prove that it can still sell. It’s no coincidence that many artists of the late 60s and 70s site sgt. peppers as a sort of awakening. The massive audience reached and immediate impact made is undeniable.

>their venture into (relative) experimentation within their already established mainstream popularity allowed the music industry as a whole to engage in artistic risks
No chance, the rest of the music industry was going to leave them behind. The world didn't stop turning for The Beatles.

Attached: _44308072_chandler203.jpg (203x152, 8K)

y'all are arguing with a dude literally copy-pasting scaruffi's beatles article
but i agree with a lot of it so w/e

Had he been here today I'd have said the exact same things. Load of bollocks, the bloody The Beatles?

Literally Screaming Lord Such had done it all already.

There is this video on youtube of lennon in 1980 walking around a tokyo electronics store looking at synthesizers.

Oh, how different the world could be

No it would not be. No radio station would put that crap on.
>if they arent popular, are they good?
OP you're a fucking retard

/thread

I think it would be just as popular but not if it was this faggy pop singer indian. I mean the beatles had unique voices not necessarily nice ones. Take that away and it just because American Idol Beatles edition- aka trash

The Beatles had very nasally sounding voices and weren't any special at playing their instruments. They wrote a few catchy songs and went to India to learn how to play the sitar, that's all their legacy boils down to.

Same thing could be said for nearly every band from that era

People would like them because they don't feel like they have to hate them for being popular before they were born.

Beatles are a meme