Is this user's take on the Beatles true?

Ringo Starr beat John Lennon's wife.

I agree, their songs sound like nursery rhymes

please dont post something as reductive as this without naming your favorite band

It was true up until the last sentence which is half opinion and half objectively incorrect.

>BTS
who?
inb4 its some kpop crap

How the fuck can a "take" be "true"? It's quite explicitly an opinion, short for "take-away". Moron.

ok boomer

They were, but for their psych-stuff.
If you listen to Please Please Me or Hard Days Night and believe it's anything but shit then you are completely out of tune.

Unironically this

...

Pleb

what a stupid opinion
this song sounds a year ahead of anything else sub-british invasion bands were doing at the time youtube.com/watch?v=7Sba2LbhkVY

Yes, you are indeed pleb.

This is the most 3-months-on-mu-and-trying-fit-in opinion ever

This.

.....that's not what pretentious means

Attached: 1560671346492.jpg (1080x1078, 97K)

Even beatles fans only think they became artistically significant after like 6 years of being a shitty boy band

Motown was better than their early stuff. They copied The Kinks but had better production. The Beatles are like the Japan of music.

Try to listen to this objectively. Its not good and there are plenty of songs like this. The Beatles is like music for babies and we get indoctrinated into liking it. We don't have a choice. I think the zoomers may be the first generation to escape the apple marketing machine.

youtube.com/watch?v=m2uTFF_3MaA

Also no artistic genius become this in their later years.

youtube.com/watch?v=63e8WRjiPyc

Its sad to see these aging idols like David Lee Roth and Steve Tyler when they are interviewed. The mystique is gone and you can see these delusional people for what they really are.

youtube.com/watch?v=63e8WRjiPyc

Real musicians age well. They are down to earth and dont have their head up their asses.

You dont see as much of this with Black musicians, because they are usually musicians first where the white copy cats were a product first and for always.

Took me 35 years to realize that The Beatles may actually be kinda shitty. They have a few songs that could be considered standards like Yesterday, but so much of it is 3 chord jams repackaged and polished to high hell.

Listen to any set of out takes and you can hear they are shit musicians who cant even get through a blues progression without botching their improvised lines.

If you lived in a studio with an actual genius like George Martin, you would also make super polished music as well.

John Lennon went so far as to insult his fanbase in his last day. He didnt even remember who wrote what or how the songs went.

If your music is great and sincere, you would not forget it.

Attached: john lennon beat his wife.jpg (220x220, 10K)

>We don't have a choice
Speak for yourself, my "I like The Beatles" period started when I was 19 and lasted about a week.

THE FACT THAT THE BEATLES BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLBLAH *senile ramblings*

Attached: Piero.jpg (209x204, 7K)

Im sorry that your parent didn't love you.

My parents loved me enough to play good music during my childhood, which is more than can be said for yours.

Nope. The only important things to come out of them was their technicians' studio innovations, and the industry's realization of how much money you could make by creating simpering boy bands for teenage girls.

>the sonic qualities of a song are more important than the compositional ones

literally the easiest way to spot a clueless avant-teen. A Hard Day's Night is a masterpiece.

I agree 90%. The Beatles achieved their status because they were the first band to utilize mass media (radio, tv to some extent) in their favor as they were good looking chaps. Basically, the first boy band and first succesfull musical product of marketing which then people confused with quality.

Other than that, decent songs here and there.

Imagine being this much of a soicuck.

The Beatles were better than any other artist in history at making fun, catchy and memorable melodies. If you combined that with a smart producer it would be popular at any point in time

I don't care if you don't think the Beatles are the best band of all time or whatever, if you deny that "In My Life", "A Day In The Life", "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Eleanor Rigby" are great songs you're a contrarian and don't really understand pop music.

It's true that they were a product of their time and that if their music was made today instead it wouldn't take off the same. But I think user is wrong because a lot of young people are still into the Beatles and connect with the lyrics. Even normies know at least a few Beatles songs.

I don't care if you don't think Justin Bieber is the best artist of all time or whatever, if you deny that "Baby", "Take You", "Sorry" or "The Feeling" are great songs you're a contrarian and don't really understand pop music.

pretty based desu, i hold this same opinion.
nobody even cares about the beatles anymore so the entire premise of the movie is retard.
also most of the beatles songs are bog simple and not technically impressive at all

I'm more annoyed you though this was good bait than anything

I don't care if you don't think Foo Fighters is the best band of all time or whatever, if you deny that "Best of You", "Learn to Fly", "Everlong" or "My Hero" are great songs you're a contrarian and don't really understand pop music.

Its not good bait, its what beatles fan "ackshually" think. Retarded.

Everlong is a good song though.

yesterday
love was such an easy game to play
now i need a place to hide a way

wow so deep

Mediocre, just like the Beatles, not good not bad, mediocre.

No. Their music is still good because it's good pop music, and that's all it is. Excellently done pop music.

But this is some user comparing our/their time to the Beatles. It works both ways.

What's your favorite band? Just curious. Why is your fav band/artist artistically significant?

>every popular music is made for his time
Popular music that was written by The Beatles could be argued to have been written FOR The Beatles: in order for it to be released, the music had to firstly satisfy the taste of the song writers. True, their tastes where informed by the prevailing mood of their time, however it could be said that their tastes also help influence the prevailing mood. Who is to say it could not be that whatever they released could no influence the current mood of the time? A competent vocalist, a melody, and an acoustic, stringed instrument - these are the ingredients for timelessness, and if The Beatles were to release 'Yesterday', it would be very well received today.
>their songs sound like nursery rhymes
'twinkle twinkle little star' is a work of genius and i'm not even kidding.
>not technically impressive at all
Simplicity that captivates a wide audience and causes a near addiction to the sound is an esteem-able accomplishment, and more impressive than technical mere proficiency.

"Strawberry Fields Forever" is the ultimate "mediocre pseuds trying to sounds smart and contrarian" anthem.

Within any given Beatles song, there is interesting and uncommon chord progressions, the bass lines are more involved and specific than traditional rock music, the instrumentation is varied and utilizes rare soundsources, they make good use of studio effects, the lyrics are at times poingnant and surreal, the songs often make use of tasteful modulations, key changes, and time signature changes to renew interest, and within the greater musical tapestry of the 20th century, they were amazingly innovative and influential, with their music crossing many genres and sometimes birthing new ones entirely. And all this is secondary, of course, to their sheer melodic brilliance, which is undeniably why they have such a memorable discography.

Any other opinion is a meme.

Yeah,the true redpill is that Beatles has no good or relevant albums
Aqua,BTS and Crazy Frog

truth

oh no no no no

their songs would easily be hits nowadays if they included features by rappers

you know its true

>my dad and his magazine said so,its true!
/r/beatles

Attached: le beatles.png (2906x1704, 1.76M)

I despise music magazines and The Beatles are good, sorry man.

>the beatles are good!the beatles are good!he beatles are good!he beatles are good!he beatles are good!
Keep repeating it until you die of old age at the age of 22
/r/beatles(to keep the circlejerk alive!)

Attached: wojak.png (300x345, 24K)

utterly braininess post. even their those two albums were way ahead of their time in the industry.
first is an album that establishes the group that produces it's only tunes, plays its own instruments and every member sings. an exception at the time. The originals range from okay to great and covers were high quality and many times became the definitive version of a song.

the second is maybe rock's first masterpiece. an all original album made by the band at the peak of beatlemania that was also served as the soundtrack to a landmark and acclaimed movie. the album is almost all killer no filler and stuffed with classic tracks. also influenced the development of jangle pop.

lol mate you're literally talking to an avatar of your own misunderstanding.

Not sure if I have a favourite band. The Who, Jefferson Airplane or The Doors, maybe. I don't spend any time making top lists about my music taste.

John Lennon beat his wife

If it weren't for the Beatles, quite literally everything in the musical landscape would be completely different. The rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, all of them wouldn't exist. All of the artists influenced by them wouldn't exist. This includes the velvet underground too. As much as poo peed liked to shit on the Beatles, he was secretly their biggest fan and you can hear the influence.

People TODAY write beatles-esque melodies and harmonies, to deny their impact on pop and rock music is absurd given how much influence they hold. However to say that theyre the catchall rock band that is the progenitor of all modern rock derives from is also retarded considering other bands at the time were more adventurous and have a greater more prominent sound bands today use

>The rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, all of them wouldn't exist. All of the artists influenced by them wouldn't exist. This includes the velvet underground too.
Absolutely retarded since these bands existed around the same time as the beatles, i dont hear any beatles influence in led zeppelin or the velvet underground, especially the velvet underground

Yeah pretty much. Nothing from their discography could really be described as "timeless" except arguably a Day in the Life

The whole "The Beatles were just a 60s boy band" take is an entry level contrarian opinion that most avant teens come up with when they're in their "The Beatles were overrated phase." Boy bands aren't just a band of boys. Their worth is entirely on their good looks. One Direction is marketed as "sexy" while The Beatles were marketed as "cool". "Cool" looking dudes have a much greater appeal than "sexy" looking dudes.
Lou Reed's entire sound was based on going against whatever was popular at the time. The Beatles were setting the standard, so Reed tried his hardest to go against what the Beatles were doing. He was the original contrarian. If it weren't for the Beatles, he wouldn't have had that drive.

>LIVING IS EASY WITH EYES CLOSED
IF THAT DOESN'T BLOW YOUR MIND E-V-E-R-Y F-U-C-K-I-N-G T-I-M-E YOU HEAR IT YOU ARE OFFICIALLY A PLEEEEEEEEEEEB!