What was the best song they wrote?

What was the best song they wrote?

Attached: 5B374259-DEB5-401D-835D-3B7B392E6C9F.jpg (1110x1110, 231K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Z1ONJQLdZrk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Best George song is I Me Mine

The one where John beats his wife.

[spoiler]A Day in the Life[/spoiler]

Wonderwall

For the benefits of mr.kite


Why is everyone so obsessed with this song? Whats so special about it?

TURN OFF YOUR MIND RELAX AND FLOAT DOWNSTREAM

Best album closer of all time?

[spoiler]yes[/spoiler]

This might be a basic answer, but I really enjoy Yesterday. Also I just listened to I Me Mine for the first time just now, it is a pretty good song...

Here There and Everywhere.

>Why is everyone so obsessed with this song? Whats so special about it?
Probably similar reasons as Bohemian Rhapsody. It is longer than most songs without getting boring, and it tells a story. Also, the fact that they brought in a full orchestra probably has something to do with it.

strawberry fields forever
I think you mean while my guitar gently weeps

I'm Only Sleeping is a NEET anthem

Hey Jude

Whichever one is their shortest.

Penny Lane

12 posts in and nobody is going to post the scaruffi rant? BAKA this board has gone downhill.

1 sec...

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

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. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

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.

Fuck off, you're still a Italian pedo who thinks TMR is anything but dogshit

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.

>t. low-testosterone Redditor cuckolding enthusiast autogynephile and confirmed pleb

Happiness Is A Warm Gun

{Spoiler} Lies

In my opinion, at their best, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles are comparable, but the average Beatles song (e.g. the inner light or it's all too much) is still phenomenal, whereas I can barely get through listening to a full Stones album.

If you enjoy listening to the Beatles, unironically please go back to Re**it. Plebs have the whole internet, it's only fair that patricians should have domain over Yea Forums.

seconded

You obviously haven't listened to their other songs... I'm personally not a fan of their first few catchy 3 minute pop songs either, but their music is pretty diverse imo. Revolver and Abbey Road have some decent hits.

>Patricians should have domain over Yea Forums
>Top thread is kpop.
Kill yourself, faggot.

Stay virgin

Flying is literally the only Beatles song where all four members have songwriting credits.

youtu.be/Z1ONJQLdZrk

>should
K poppers go in the ovens too

I have tantric sex to Natural Snow Buildings with any of 15 different beautiful and high IQ women whenever I want pleb. You wouldn't know anything about that tho, Beatles are low T music.

A Day in the Life is 5 min and half, it's not a long song.

Most songs are around 3 minutes, so it is relatively long. Also, the mood changes quite a bit throughout.

I liked rocky raccoon. John was good at leightmotif.

Top is savoy truffle.

You'd have to be an autist incapable of seeing other people's perspective if you look at A Day in the Life and say, with any measure of sincerity, "what's so special about it?" You may not care for it personally, hell, it's not even my favorite on the album, but you can still listen to it and see the objective qualities present in the song that other people can appreciate. I don't know why I typed this at you, considering this is Yea Forums and 99% of the posters here are intellectually dishonest morons like you. But come on, don't ask questions that you already know the answer to.

while my guitar gently weeps

The acoustic version of While My Guitar Gently Weeps. The one with the extra verse.

In My Life

Strawberry Fields

based

Here comes the warm gun

Strawberry Fields Forever is the song that convinced my progfag self that I was being a contrarian retard about the Beatles and that they actually were geniuses. It's probably their best song. (It might have been the Mellotron.)
That said, my favorite song by them (making a distinction) is probably Paperback Writer.

ma personal favorite is fixing a hole.

WOO HOO

>The one where John beats his wife
That'll be Getting Better, then.

>I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her away from the things that she loved

Rain

The first half of A Day in the Life