I was arguing with a friend today that The Beatles merely made popular music (extremely popular music) but weren't...

Wikipedia has an entire article for you
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_the_Beatles

>first half of the article
>"they were very popular"
>other half of the article
>dozens of unsubstantiated claims

>Calling the Beatles "influential" seems to me like something only people who listen to indie bands do.

Yes hipsters, but not just hipsters. Honestly the wiki article about this subject reads pretty well:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_the_Beatles

Points 8-11 would be most relevant to you. Obviously reading the source materials referenced in the article is best, but that answer would be even longer form. Personally, I hate them and what they've done--their work and their influence--but I'm an autist, so it doesn't matter. Hopefully that helps, OP.

Attached: After-the-Kill.jpg (600x600, 84K)

Translation: you didn’t try to read the music-related parts, you don’t care about learning more in the Beatles, and are just trying to bait

So George Martin was revolutionary, not the Beatles.

Uh yeah kinda, the Beatles allowed him to do it basically. The techniques he used for the Beatles were important

So if George Martin had been producing for the Rolling Stones or the Who or the Kinks or Zappa or literally any other random band on the street, they would be considered as influential as the Beatles while the Beatles would be 4/4 pop ditty nobodies who went nowhere. George Martin who people should be talking about, not the Beatles.

I did. Take this passage for example:
>According to Barry Miles, a leading figure in the London underground, Revolver was the "step-change" that signalled "the way forward for all rock musicians who wondered if there was life after teen scream status".[202] Everett says that for the majority of baby boomers, the White Album represents "the double album" of the era, even though it was not the first double LP in rock.[203]
It sounds like their "experimentation" only caught on because they were popular in the first place. It's not in virtue of the music itself - it's simply influential because a popular band did it. If Taylor Swift suddenly released a noise album and other pop artist followed suit, would you consider Taylor Swift to be experimental, or would you say she just ripped off existing noise artists, and used her huge platform to spread the influence?

A lot of focus on in the article is also placed on how The Beatles pioneered the music video, or at least a precursor to the modern music video. Sure, but I an call Richard Wagner's concept of "Leitmotiv", which was actually well-thought-out theoretically, the first ever precursor to the music video, or even his concept of the "Gesamtkunstwerk". Wagner was revolutionary. The Beatles were not - they were merely popular.

>It sounds like their "experimentation" only caught on because they were popular in the first place. It's not in virtue of the music itself - it's simply influential because a popular band did it
Yes that’s the legacy of the Beatles’ influence. I’m glad you get it now.

Not exactly. The Beatles were already very popular before George Martin was helping them produce crazy stuff and The Beatles were actually pretty heavily involved with production on their later albums, George Martin was there helping them get the sound they wanted, but they were the ones figuring out that sound. Even without his help they probably would have made similar advances in production techniques, and if they broke up in '64, they would've been remembered as a decent British RnR band inspired by Chuck Berry

The entire point of the discussion with my friend was that influential =/= revolutionary. We all know Kanye ripped off Death Grips with Yeezus. Would you call Kanye a revolutionary artist now, or would you say Death Grips deserve that title more? Kanye is just more popular.

>The Beatles were already very popular before George Martin
But the argument here isn’t popularity, it’s revolutionariness. Nothing about being popular is revolutionary. Plenty of popular acts have come and gone and I don’t see why the Beatles would have been any different without being effectively carried by George Martin.
>George Martin was there helping them get the sound they wanted
So George Martin was the real brains of the whole operation either way. No one would consider Mozart a brilliant composer if all his music was in his head and he didn’t have half a clue on how to put it in paper. The only reason the Beatles are considered to be remotely as important as they are is because of George Martin, full stop.

I was arguing just now that Ringo was a good drummer but the other guy was adamant that Ringo sucks and also A Hard Days Night is a shit album and Keith Moon sucked too.
Who was in the wrong here?

God I feel bad for your friend having to put up with you. How are the Beatles not influential or revolutionary? They influenced and revolutionized popular music by introducing (but not outright creating) nostandard compositional and recording techniques. All musicians built on previous musicians’ work anyways, so I don’t see the problem other than you wanting to be a pedantic asshole.

>How are the Beatles not influential or revolutionary?
I'm sure they were influential. Justin Bieber is influential. Popular musicians are influential because they make a lot of money and people want a slice of the pie. It doesn't make them deified artists.

Your friend is an idiot, dude. That's the long and short of it.
Pic related

Attached: 1553633827999_0.png (2906x1704, 1.7M)

I think his argument is that they’re influential but not revolutionary.

Somewhere along the way, the retarded baby boomers began to mistake the recording industry and popular music for the general concept of "Music" and musical compositional history as a complete whole. The Beatles innovated jack shit besides putting lyrics on their album packaging, having the first unlisted "hidden track" on an album, and borrowing sampling/musique concrète and a few classical Indian instruments into their pop songs.

Those are pretty nebulous concepts though. It just sounds like he wants to be contrarian and shit on [popular thing]

Or maybe he just has his own opinion and you’re being a crybaby redditor shitting his pants over someone not liking [popular thing]

If you're asking questions like this. You're hopeless.

>But the argument here isn’t popularity, it’s revolutionariness
Yeah I was responding to you saying they would be 4/4 pop ditty nobodies by saying that they wouldn't have been nobodies
>So George Martin was the real brains of the whole operation either way
No man, they were both figuring this shit out together, they didn't just fuck off after telling him how to make it sound, they would try different things. From what I can tell, George Martin couldn't give two shits about the weird stuff on albums like Revolver and MMT, so it was the Beatles who were pushing him to help them with that. Martin was just the one who allowed them to do that. He wasn't the "full stop" reason, he was just part of the equation.

Kek now the buzzwords come out. This whole thread is bait after all.

>weird stuff on albums like Revolver and MMT
In what way did this weird stuff revolutionize music?

>weird stuff on albums like Revolver and MMT
Those are both typical pop albums.

It revolutionized popular music

>they would be 4/4 pop ditty nobodies by saying that they wouldn't have been nobodies
Tears for Fears were pretty big in the 80’s. Dare you to find a single person who gives a shit about them today.
>so it was the Beatles who were pushing him to help them with that
And if Martin had worked with someone like Zappa then we wouldn’t even be discussing the Beatles because folks like Zappa would have made him come up with even wackier and more out there shit, you know, stuff that might genuinely be revolutionary. So the Beatles may have been an impetus for Martin but they weren’t even that good of one. The only constant here is Martin, not the Beatles. See?
>weird stuff on albums like Revolver and MMT
Nothing is weird on those albums unless you came here from /r/music.

It's a joke, it's a complete fucking joke when you spend your life playing the piano, and actually studying music and its development, and then people who have only ever listened to [flavor of the month indie band] and dadrock come along to lecture you on what amazing geniuses The Beatles were. This will rub Yea Forums the wrong way but nothing of your sacred Yea Forumscore canon even comes close to something like the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven. It's not even close. "Hey Jude" is a catchy song. Sure. But that's all it fucking is.

The Wu-Tang Clan is bigger than than the Beatles and there are more of them

>Beethoven
Uh ever heard of a little thing called BAROQUE, classicalfag?

Here's a really neat one: the use of extended form in rock. Rock, until then, had generally focused on structures of repeating verses in terms of form. The twelve bar blues is the big example. The Beatles are a lot closer to traditional pop, with a heavy use of AABA form early on. Later they completely break away from it, even, and explore form much, much more. They're the first to really do it.

Comparing Justin Bieber to the Beatles is like comparing a fish to a shark. Production aside the beatles are Modal Pop Gods.

Nothing about modality in the 1960s is revolutionary, not when classical music had been doing it for centuries and Davis applied it to popular music in the late 50’s.

Completely unrelated, but I do like Tears for Fears a lot.

Dude, 90% of what I listen to is classical music, and The Beatles are still an amazing group. Within the trappings of pop music, natch, but within that, they're great.

I'm not interested in a dick measuring contest of which classical period/composer is the best because even the worst of the Western "composer canon" is in an entire league of his own when compared to pop music or indie music or whatever. Fantano gives TPAB and The Money Store a 10/10, what would he give Tristan und Isolde, or Bach's Matthew Passion? It's all a joke. Stop pretending your hip and cool indie band or hip-hop artist even comes close to people like Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven.

Beefheart and Ornette Coleman are better than Beethoven and all other pompous boring pre-20th century classical music.

You say Mozart - I say Bach
You say Beethoven - I say Vivaldi
You say Schubert - I say Handel
You say Haydn - I say Pachelbel
You say Classical - I scream Baroque!
You say Paganini - I punch you in the face!!
92% of teenagers have turned to Classical. If you are part of the 8% that still listen to real music, copy and paste this message to another 5 threads. DON'T LET THE SPIRIT OF BAROQUE DIE!!!

Literally seething because of their own retardation.

>I say Pachelbel
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

>like Zappa then we wouldn’t even be discussing the Beatles
Zappa was a shit who couldn't write a catchy and memorable song to save his life.

>It revolutionized popular music
>the beatles are Modal Pop Gods

Go back to r/music.

Neither could the Beatles so looks like we’re even.

People still care about Tears for Fears retard. That kind of shit isn't super well-respected in music circles, but some normies still like them, which is what I imagine would happen to the Beatles
If the Beatles would've had a different producer they would have tried similar shit, which is what I was trying to say. You seem like a fucking retard, so I'll say it more clearly. The Beatles were the driving force behind their production choices. Just because Martin helped doesn't mean they weren't part of the process. And like I said, Martin was not the person who was interested in these new techniques.
If you seriously think that The Beatles recording methods were not influential you are retarded. It's okay if you don't like them cause I don't either, but they were important for the way music was recorded
Fuck off you faggots, Tomorrow Never Knows is incredibly weird for pop music. Just because it's not The Magic Band playing four different rhythms and melodies at the same time doesn't mean it's not weird.

>waaaaa, this isn't CATCHY
>why isn't he going NANANANANANANA NANANANA before each chorus
>I hate music I can't sing along with
I recommend a book of nursery rhymes, user. It's more up your alley.

Attached: E2874944-C2F2-47E5-90AC-41F477C4044C.png (625x626, 149K)

The Beatles were very good at making catchy pop tunes. When they were established artists, their experimentation was given more credence simply because they had made popular songs in the past, and they were played on the radio and sold records on name recognition alone. Their so-called "experimentation" does not stand on its own merit, it piggy-backs off their commercial success.

>Tomorrow Never Knows is incredibly weird for pop music
Nah, Venus in Furs is weird for pop music. Tomorrow Never Knows is just George Harrison ripping off the Yardbirds.

>People still care about Tears for Fears retard
Aged yuppies and late boomers do. People that will die when the pension fund money runs out. That’s hardly what I’d call relevant in any grand scheme of things.
>If the Beatles would've had a different producer they would have tried similar shit
And not gotten remotely similar results because George Martin is the guy who made it happen. It’s like expecting to get a Les Paul’s guitar tone out of some chinese Fender knockoff.
>Martin was not the person who was interested in these new techniques
You’re just repeating yourself, so I’ll invite you to reread the post you replied to, specifically the bit about what if Martin had someone else equally as interested in studio techniques as his motivation.
>If you seriously think that The Beatles recording methods were not influential you are retarded
I do. Too bad the recording methods were Martin’s, not the Beatles’.

That's like being the first kid in your kindergarten class to successfully recite the 1x multiplication table, while being ignorant of the last 500 years of advances in the mathematics of astronomy and particle physics.
You're focusing only on the last 70 years of rock and pop music while completely ignoring a thousand years worth of recorded musical history (on written scores). When you do that you set the bar so low through your own sheer ignorance of musical history that someone regurgitating something that literally had been done centuries ago seems like a big accomplishment to you.

>They're the first to really do it.
Listen to early Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Red Krayola, 13th Floor Elevators, Holy Modal Rounders, Zappa, Beefheart. Beatles accomplished nothing without those groups. Hell, they owe most of their sound to ripping off The Beach Boys and black rock artists like Chuck Berry and are really closer to that vein of popular music for schoolgirls.

You legitimately sound braindead. Where the fuck do you hear the Yardbirds? Just kill yourself

Your the retards thinking he'll better with George Martin without understanding why him and The Beatles go hand in hand.

I don't really like the beatles. But the facts are out there user, they were very eclectic and combined a lot of styles that weren't heard in pop music. They were influential because they were famous, if not they would have been just another ''unique'' band. They influenced music to come for years so you couldn't say they weren't influential. A fuckton of artists have confessed to being influenced by them. That said, i think people overblows their music quality, they werw unique, but technicalky they sucked dick.
And you are pathetic if you argue with a friend and get so buttblasted that you have to look for validation in Yea Forums.

>someone regurgitating something that literally had been done centuries ago seems like a big accomplishment to you
It is a big accomplishment. For POP music. You’re butthurt that people are ignorant of centuries of music techniques, but when a popular band helps expose them to a wide audience, you’re still butthurt.

>Your the retards
epic

>tried to steer the thread away from his Zappa comment
L O L

Try actually listening to some older music besides The Beatles before you claim they're the best band ever because Panic at the Disco and Foxygen said they were the best band ever.

>Doesn't prove me wrong
>Resorts to meme tactics
Typical for somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about.

They weren't the first to do that, though. You're just fucking wrong. Plenty of bands had already eschewed traditional song structure in a pop or rock context before the Beatles did it.

God damn, do you not read posts? I specifically said I was repeating myself because you do not get it. I am saying that George Martin was not the driving force behind these innovations, so it's silly to say they were his alone. George Martin was incredibly important to the Beatles, but the Beatles were also incredibly important to George Martin.
If someone else had used Martin, sure he could have been more revolutionary, but there's no point in trying to rewrite history, just look at the facts and try to determine his impact with The Beatles

>Can't actually pin point the sound
>"um....just listen to more music!"

Attached: 1492015700588.png (183x275, 4K)

>They weren't the first to do that, though. You're just fucking wrong.
Where did I say that they were the first? Why are you mad that a pop band used non-pop techniques?

>woah, this straightforward pop album sure is WEIRD
>the Beatles were the first pop band to ever use non-traditional song structures
You're not going to fool anyone with your silly wojaks you saved from /pol/ retard.

It’s not a meme tactic if you can’t differentiate your and you’re and have the gall to call someone else retarded.
>I am saying that George Martin was not the driving force behind these innovations, so it's silly to say they were his alone
And I’m saying this thought process is flawed because he would have innovated with any other equally creative driving force, so it doesn’t matter.
>just look at the facts and try to determine his impact with The Beatles
His impact would have happened with or without the Beatles so it doesn’t really count as the Beatles’ accomplishment.

I don't even dislike The Beatles. I think they have a lot of good pop songs. It's silly to claim they were innovative in their musical experimentation, though. The simple fact is that they were not. Also, a lot of their music sucks, like any album before Rubber Soul is just shitty versions of Little Richard and Chubby Checker songs.

All of your posts are baseless speculation. You say Martin would have done this without the Beatles, where the fuck is your proof retard? He wasn't working alone and he wasn't a solo producer like Spector or Meek who made these innovations all by himself. Your ideas are all theoretical, stick to facts if you wanna discuss influence

>Where did I say that they were the first?

>They're the first to really do it.

Are you high?

I mean, I am very much aware of it, hell, it's not even the first time within pop music (go back like 30 years before The Beatles start, and it's all over the place in Tin Pan Alley); by classical music you're looking at the works of Nielsen and Sibelius and that's completely going out of the window, but within the (fairly small) scope of rock, it's a pretty unique thing for the age. Erudite music is always the most "out there" thing, that's undeniable. But that doesn't mean that non-erudite music isn't at least worthy of study in its own terms. We don't look to folk music (as in, true folk music, if we're going with the three spheres of folk, commercial and erudite music) through the same lens that you'd look at, say, Babbit or Varese; why should we look to commercial music the same way? The circularity and repetion of Russian folk music is one of the main elements of Russian composers - Tchaikovsky's lack of straightforward development is an example of such a thing. Does it necessarily make someone better? An universal aesthetic judgement is not only borderline impossible, it is far too much beyond my own scope.

Motherfucker, I'm talking about them in 1963, when they're the first rock artist to get going with structures that are more closely related to traditional pop than with the blues. I'm not talking Happiness is a Warm Gun or whatever, I'm talking all the way back in I Want to Hold Your Hand.

>where the fuck is your proof retard?
Right back at you with your claim that the Beatles would be remembered without Martin.

Im not the same user, dummy

Attached: 6ABE009B-E065-4A16-B9C4-8D081831E439.jpg (798x383, 55K)

Different dudes. There's more that one person in this conversation.
You idiot, I was saying they were bringing traditional pop structure into rock, not breaking out of it, and that was the main gist of it all.

Then don't jump into conversations you haven't read.

>Proceeds to post no other examples because they know they’re full of shit
>if you can’t differentiate your and you’re and have the gall to call someone else retarded.
You know somebody is starting to lose when they resort to pointing out simple mistakes.

>It's silly to claim they were innovative in their musical experimentation
True, they just happened to be famous enough to show that stuff to the masses. What’s your fav album of them btw? I’m partial to Magical Mystery Tour

Whatever, I'll fucking cede that point cause I don't give a shit. Do you wanna go back to your point now or are you gonna deflect to something unrelated to what we're arguing about now again? You don't have any proof that Martin would have done anything important without the Beatles because he didn't do anything important before or afterwards, fuck off

Lose what? This argument? This was never an argument, it was just 3 people laughing at your dumb ass.

>they were bringing traditional pop structure into rock
Buddy Holly did it first.
>no other examples because they know they’re full of shit
You have posted no examples of anything beyond baseless claims about how weird and kooky you think MMT is, moron.

>You don't have any proof that Martin would have done anything important without the Beatles
And you don’t have any proof that the Beatles would have done anything important without Martin either so I guess we’re at a bit of a stalemate huh? Thanks for playing.

>What’s your fav album of them btw?
Revolver

That’s on you for assuming that “Anonymous” is always one person, dummy. There are 21 unique posters ITT that could jump in.

But I fucking acknowledge that you retard. I literally said, George Martin was important to the Beatles and the Beatles were important to George Martin. You're the one who's making claims otherwise, Jesus Christ I hate you so much. You're so smug about being braindead

Actually, no, that's a fair point, I'd forgotten about Buddy Holly, Oh Boy is in AABA form for instance. John was a huge fan of Buddy Holly anyway and you've got all those slow triplets all over. In any case, the entire point of The Beatles isn't "innovation" and more just how well done their stuff is within the grasp of pop music. It's the connection of disparaging elements.

Except you don’t have proof that George Martin wouldn’t have gone on to do better stuff without the Beatles ever showing up at his doorstep either. So essentially this whole argument is one big Schrodinger’s Cat and you’re screaming about the cat being dead when it’s really neither. Whoops!

You still don't understand. I'm saying that George Martin did nothing innovative before after he met the Beatles. I talk about things that happened in real life because I understand how talking about history works. This isn't a theoretical argument about Schrodinger's Cat, it's an argument about things that happened in the real world and what occurred because of them

>George Martin did nothing innovative before after he met the Beatles
Because he didn’t have the creative driving force to push him. You can’t prove he wouldn’t have been just as innovative had he collaborated with someone willing to push his production techniques to the next level.
>This isn't a theoretical argument about Schrodinger's Cat
It is because we’re discussing what the Beatles and George Martin would have been like minus the counterpart.

The argument started off as saying whether or not the Beatles were revolutionary and you argued that it was actually George Martin, while I argued that it was George Martin and the Beatles together. You then proceeded to go off into your own argument where you wanted to discuss alternate realities and possible futures. That is a stupid line of thinking because it does not factor in the reality of the situation. You are stupid because you are still trying to make that argument

BABY YOU'RE A RICH MAN
BABY YOU'RE A RICH MAN
BABY YOU'RE A RICH FAG JEW

They showed the world that popular music could experiment and still be successful

Attached: 1342ff8.jpg (598x600, 47K)

You’re right, we both argued futile speculatory points based on nothing, and I’ve come to admit that and am now laughing at your dumb Beatles defending ass.

They didn't experiment. They copied other people's experiments.

Verifying experimental results through duplicate studies is important though

I wasn't arguing speculatively at all
>not mad, laughing btw
lol

They were innovative as popular musicians. Beatles were master assimulators and made peak pop with it. They'll never be surpassed in that regard. Whether what they did was actually all that artistically compelling is up for debate. Personally I think it's all kind of overblown but their mass public status as basically geniuses is pretty much unsinkable.

You were considering your claim of “the Beatles would be remembered without George Martin”
>y-you’re mad because I say so!
Sucks to be you.

They introduced a new harmonic language into rock music. Compare If I Fell to any rock song before 1964 for example.

Jesus no one on hear understands how the Beatles revolutionized SONGWRITING. They were extremely popular due to the fact that they wrote the best pop music. John and Paul used strange chord changes in songs that created incredibly catchy songs. I Want to Hold Your Hand for example has no real lead singer and the song seems conventional except for a few pieces that differentiated the Beatles from their contemporaries. This song was noted by Dylan for its unique chord changes and Brian Wilson was incredibly inspired by it.

Other than that the Beatles helped pave the way for pop music in other ways by incorporating other musical styles, production techniques, and concepts for albums.

The points made by other people are pretty moot. It does not matter if the Beatles are overrated or not, this does not change their influence. Of course other people were doing stranger things at the time. However pop will always top the charts and will be the most influential, that's why the Beatles are regarded as being revolutionary. It's because they were.

Rolling Stone Magazine's top 500 albums is compiled by music critics and musicians' favorite albums, this creates more of an influential list than a best ever list (the list is pretty bad).

Point ceded and not central to my argument. Lrn2Argu

>Lrn2Argu he says while being hoisted by his own petard

>strange chord changes
Not a technical term.
>I Want to Hold Your Hand for example has no real lead singer
Lots of duets in pop music.
>noted by Dylan for its unique chord changes and Brian Wilson was incredibly inspired by it
So Dylan and Wilson gave it passing praise, must be a revolutionary masterwork.
>the Beatles helped pave the way for pop music in other ways by incorporating other musical styles, production techniques, and concepts for albums
The Pretty Things and The Who were doing actual concept pop albums, while the Beatles couldn't even hold one together for 13 tracks and Sgt Peppers ends up being half concept album half filler. The Beatles weren't popular because they had concept albums, they were popular because Paul McCartney was cute.
>pop will always top the charts and will be the most influential
On other pop, but The Beatles had very little influence over the progression of rock music or avant-garde music despite their attempts at surpassing their roles as pop stars.

Yeah alright man. You're a faggot by your own retard lol

You’re the one who decided to bring up the “b-but this argument is all just speculation” card, not me. Keep that in mind when you go to bed tonight, ok sweetie? Good stuff.

I can't even begin to respond to your idiocy, but anyway here we go.

>strange chord changes
chord changes not typically used in popular music which catch listeners off guard and wouldn't make complete sense according to music theory. However, they balanced these strange shifted chords (about 1 or 2 per song) exactly diagonally. They also paired these changes in turn with their lyrical changes, highlighting certain parts of the song. They created meaning to the own madness they created, their results were catchy and drove people insane.
>I Want to Hold Your Hand for example has no real lead singer
It is a two-part vocal harmony, not a duet. Extremely uncommon especially with the type of song. And yet again, the Beatles made the style most popular therefore they were the most influential.
>Dylan and Wilson gave passing praise
No, Wilson described the time he heard the song extremely vividly, as though he had been woken up by something greater. Later he would create Pet Sounds with the Beatles and Phil Spector as the main influencers, much more than passing praise.
>Beatles were popular for McCartney being cute
No, they were popular because of their songwriting. They wrote the catchiest pop songs.
>Sgt Pepper is half filler
Yet again, it was the first big one and it made a bang in music. It's commonly cited as one of the most influential albums of all time. It is no half filler, the production quality is forefront pushing the extremely colorful and vibrant album that it is. Starting, Paul introduces the fictional band and leads straight into Ringo as the singer of this band. Next John takes us further into the acid trip fictional wonderland with Lucy. After that the songs create an environment that feels bright and exaggerated such as the circusy Mr. Kite. On the Reprise, the fictional band leaves and leads the listener directly into A Day in the Life. The song starts with a mellow guitar strumming that feels dull and somber and drab, especially (1/2)

compared to the vibrant "concert" the listener just went through. The lyrics only highlight this fact and then Paul comes in and sings in his style contrasting John's but instead of breaking each part down they work with each other. It is literally A Day in the Life. It is sad, beautiful, and philosophical without even trying. I won't even begin to talk about Abbey Road.
>Beatles had very little influence over progression of rock
They pioneered pop music by incorporating many genres. They are cited by many artists as one of their main influences, Nirvana, Beach Boys, Queen, Oasis, Flaming Lips, Bowie, Radiohead, Byrds, Police, CSN, Neil Young, Green Day, etc.

name ONE (1) song that sounds like tomorrow never knows before the Beatles released it

THANK YOU
and even if there were, the Beatles took it and made it the best and enjoyable
doing something first doesn't mean anything if it sounds like shite

>be beatlesfag
>unironically link wikipedia article
Sucks liking a band and sharing my taste with fucks like these.Beatles are a pop band and there is NOTHING wrong with that,they sound fucking good and they're the best music in the world for a hardworker that needs something in the background while doing work,and it also is great for teaching kids about music and merely to have FUN because its as fun as music gets,but the whole "best band in the world evar" claim is so ridiculous ,I legitimately believe that only baby boomers can believe this,or people that see the beatles as some sort of religion rather than a band that was great at its thing:making catchy fun songs for everyone to listen

You're right im gonna rewrite a zappa song so it becomes better
Mothers of Invention-King Kong ft.Paul McCartney
Doo wee doo wee
KING KONG!
LOVE love LOVE LOVE LOVE
I LOVE YOU KIIIING KOOOONG
doo wee doo wee doo wee
wee wee!
LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE
YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH
ITS KINGKING KING KING KINGKING KING KING
KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG
*plays indian instrument for half a second*
I DID DRUGS YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAHYEAH YEAH YEAH
LOVE LOVE LOVE YOU LOVE YOU KING KING
KING KONG BABY BABY YEAH YEAH BABE BABE BABE
KING KONG I LOVE YOU YEAH YEAH YEAH
>song ends
Woah thanks Paul!That song is way better now!fuck Zrank Fappa!

are there any peer reviewed publications by any qualified (academic) musicologists / music historians that actually try to claim that the Beatles weren't influential or revolutionary?

Stop arguing with him, he's clearly baiting.

youtube.com/watch?v=krT_hGvEvhg
Are you actually retarded?

>being influenced by something in the process of making something new invalidates one's originality
Idk, are you retarded?

This is literally the most entry level contrarian "music nerd" opinion of all time. Please consider not embarrassing yourself with such statements when claiming to know anything about music.

>moving the goalposts this much
Dude, you asked if there was anything that sounded similar to Tomorrow Never Knows. I provided you with a link to an album from 1956 which predates that sound by a decade. Now you're getting all butthurt about muh influences.

these dont sound similar at all. the only similarity between the two is George's use of the sitar. which in fact isn't that prevalent in TNK and is only a small part of the song. there aren't any other similarities in structure, production, vocal melody, vocal manipulation (use of leslie speaker), percussion, use of sampling, tape manipulation, use of guitar effects and other orchestration (such as the use of the Hammond organ) among other instruments

>these dont sound similar at all

Attached: 1534830186130.jpg (623x713, 62K)

>there aren't any other similarities in structure
They're both literally just a one chord drone lmao

>structure means harmony
what

Kanye is revolutionary for 808’s
Although Yeezus adds some nice bonus points for popularization of indsturial hip-hop.
That’s without even going into how his inclusion of experimental elements in his discography does so seamlessly with the poppier elements making an accessible, yet fresh sound.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Structure means form, which means harmony is part of a song's structure (which seems fairly obvious, but for some reason you don't seem to understand this). Just think about harmonic tension/resolution and how they relate to specific chord progressions. Of course, this isn't really present in single chord drones.

industrial hip hop existed back in the mid to late 80s I don't know why people think death grips "own" that style of music and why kanye would be considered "stealing" from them

Fanboyism and/or fantanodrones

it takes 0 effort to make a fire, doesn't mean that the act of making fire itself wasn't revolutionary

>structure means form
yes
>which means harmony is part of song's structure
you could say this for early beatles songs but i don't know why that would apply here. i understand what you're saying how a verse/chorus (i.e. section) ends in a certain cadence that shows the ending of that section but this is a pretty rudimentary idea of structure at least beyond the structure of standard pop tunes

just because the song is in one mode doesn't mean it has no structure. just because two pieces are both stay in a single mode doesn't mean they have the same structure. there are many other musical elements that show structure beyond harmony and you can break down TNK into certain sections that aren't related to harmony.

>you can break down TNK into certain sections
Sure, but I'd argue that there's no definitive ABAB structure, for example. If you were playing bass, you could just play C for three minutes and it would sound exactly the same.

>one chord drone
one chord is what a drone is fucking tard

also the point of what the Beatles did was put these forms in popular forms of music, that's like saying ITCOTCK isn't revolutionary for it's use of classical music and jazz inspired sections

And another, it would be the same thing with the Velvet Underground too for their use of viola drone, yet they are also one of the most influential bands as well. Truly revolutionary.

Honestly don't even know what it means when you say harmonic tension/resolution aren't in drone songs? It's not like the drone is the only instrument, the other ones are playing harmonies, that the drone supports (which isn't technically one chord due to the tape speed changes)

you're using pop as some sort of detractor of how good the Beatles are. That's retarded.

>Honestly don't even know what it means when you say harmonic tension/resolution aren't in drone songs?
Compare the possibilities for harmonic tension/resolution in a III-VI-II-V-I to the possibilities in a single chord song and see what I mean

But the point of the a drone is to remain the same. Also, the drone isn't what makes the song revolutionary, it is the whole composition, Paul's laughing, backwards guitar and cymbals, The lack of rhyme scheme with still an interesting chord progression over the vocals.
The Beatles still put avant garde techniques on their songs and made them sound good, that's what is revolutionary.

here's a basic structure of the song

>Intro
0:00-0:10
8 bars long
the part before John's vocals come in
pulsating tamboura drone establishes a tonal centre of C
hard rock drumming
seagull tape loop

>Verse(s) 1,2,3
0:10-0:55
24 bars in total (8+8+8)
John vocals come in - new section begins
verse is a ordinary eight bars long in C mixlydian is repeated in mantra like fashion
Esoteric text and Lennon's eerily disconnected delivery
simplistic melody with buldge in the middle when moving to Bb chord
while simple mantra-like melody sits on top of the mix, instrumentation and orchestration is a disorientating concoction of foreign instruments, field recordings and tape manipulation creating dreamlike sound world

>Instrumental break
0:55-1:27
16 bars (6+10)
supporting instrumentals from the background come to the foreground
sonic bursts from other worldly sounds (?hammond organ perhaps i really cant tell what)
use of stereo panning for immersive quality
hypnotic accompanient continues

>More verses 4,5,6,7
32 bars (8+8+8+8)
1:27-2:34
Lennon's vocals come back this time compressed and somewhat muffled - processed through leslie speakers

>Outro
16 bars
2:34-2:57
extension of last phrase of the verse - repeating to give slowly echoing out effect
few final seconds feel all the of the mix elements petering out as this representation of this (sound) world crumbling away

there is much more to be said about the song but there is a basic structure even if the harmony is mainly static

>interesting chord progression
Again, it's a one chord song

can you not read, it says vocals

Redditors and retards only have to answer these three questions for me, and I will never listen to the Beatles again:
1. Name a song like Tomorrow Never Knows from before Tomorrow Never Knows
2. Name a song like Strawberry Fields Forever from before Strawberry Fields Forever
3. Name a song like A Day In The Life from before A Day In The Life
People who hate the Beatles are always able to get away with vague shit like saying “oh well Zappa was more experimental” or “The Velvet Underground experimented more first” like there’s some objective measure of how “experimental” a band or artist is. I’m saying this, if the Beatles were not innovative or experimental, there should be equivalents to these songs from before them. There are not, because the Beatles were an innovative band

not the guy you're replying to but having more chords and more complex harmony doesn't make songs any more impressive or "better". staying in a single mode was a musical choice the band made when they took influence from ravi and his drone-like music. the main accomplishments of the song are its production, instrumentation etc.

this. based

youtube.com/watch?v=CWPo5SC3zik
I'm just gonna leave this here

youtube.com/watch?v=4UWDNfUN_po
And if you think Pet Sounds is overrated, here's some earlier stuff

youtube.com/watch?v=2bO0yAY7rIg
This was all before Revolver

None of these songs are similar to what user mentioned other than the superb production on God Only Knows

>None of these songs are similar to what user mentioned
You're right. They're better.
youtube.com/watch?v=qkIw6SMt2bs

it was a revolution in jew money making. they created a new market.

this is the only one that is remotely similar in production. all three tracks you posted aren't really musically similar at all. the beach boys mainly wrote baroque pop and the beatles mainly wrote psychedelic pop.

>the beach boys mainly wrote baroque pop and the beatles mainly wrote psychedelic pop
Dude, you're splitting hairs and moving the goalposts again. This is considered one of the first "baroque pop" singles.
youtube.com/watch?v=3f33ZUM1RjM
theguardian.com/music/2007/sep/21/popandrock1
>In the UK, baroque's starting point was the Zombies' She's Not There, which didn't feature any oboes but stuck out rather dramatically in 1964, the year of You Really Got Me and Little Red Rooster.

i dont really know what you're trying to saying. the three beatles tracks that the guy posted up above are are undeniably psychedelic pop and this is more baroque pop again - and doesn't really share many musical similarities with the beatles' tracks at all. the zombies only moved to psychedelic music when they released Odessey and Oracle in 68 after revolver and after sgt peppers

>the three beatles tracks that the guy posted up above are are undeniably psychedelic pop
Strawberry Fields and A Day In The Life are Art Pop, you fucking moron

Is it me or are all B. Wilson fanboys pathetic incels?

Brian Wilson singlehandedly created incel-core

Attached: Screenshot_2019-08-18 The History of Rock Music Beatles biography, discography, reviews, links(3).pn (425x1515, 108K)

>I Beatles appartengono certamente alla storia del costume degli anni '60, ma i loro meriti musicali sono quantomeno dubbi.

>I Beatles vennero alla luce all'apice della reazione nei confronti del rock and roll, quando innocui "teen idols" (rigorosamente bianchi) prendevano il posto dei selvaggi rocker neri che avevano scosso le radio e le coscienze di mezza America. L'arrivo dei Beatles rappresento` il salvagente per la middle-class bianca, terrorizzata all'idea che il rock and roll rappresentasse una vera rivoluzione di costume. I Beatles tranquillizzarono quella vasta fascia di pubblico e conquistarono i cuori di tutti coloro (soprattutto al femminile) che volevano essere ribelli ma senza violare i codici imperanti. Ai volti contorti e lascivi dei neri del rock and roll si sostituiro i sorrisi innocenti dei Beatles; ai ritmi scatenati dei primi si sostituirono le cadenze orecchiabili dei secondi. Il rock and roll poteva finalmente essere accettato nelle classifiche del "pop". I Beatles rappresentarono la quintessenza della reazione a una rivoluzione musicale che non era finita, e per qualche anno riuscirono ad arenarne l'impeto.

Attached: 1563273254524.jpg (190x186, 6K)

why are seething over a dead man, boy?

who?

Attached: Screenshot_2019-08-18 The History of Rock Music Beatles biography, discography, reviews, links(4).pn (425x599, 42K)

A lot of DG fans just don’t listen to that much hip hop, so they assume that they’re the ones revolutionizing stuff. They’re great but not because their sounds revolutionary, more because of their attitude and message. Their beats are also insanely energetic compared to others in the genre

>down to a level of silliness and childish humour
why didn't he talk about Lennon's lyricism addressing themes of death and transcendence from material concern? that hardly seems silly or childish

art pop just refers that the music is pop and contains artistic merit, it can be any type of pop as well. Sgt Pepper and MMT are both art pop and psychedelic pop, Pet Sounds is both art pop and baroque pop.

>Sgt Pepper and MMT are both art pop and psychedelic pop
I think you mean art ROCK and psychedelic ROCK

this

no, I do not at all. It is much more popp than . rock but both could be used.

If it's rock then it is embarrassingly tame and shallow. It isn't though. McCartney's music is closer to vaudeville than to rock.

it may surprise you to learn that Scaruffi literally has no clue what he is talking about

More than you if you think The Beatles are important for anything besides watering down 60s counter culture for suburban teens.

seriously have sex

I do every day, beta faggot.

nice

yes, it is only here that you will find scaruffi drones trying to say otherwise

So far nobody has given real answers to the questions. The Beach Boys songs were good, but didn’t fulfill the requirements. I was right, once you get down to specific songs the seething anti-Beatles fans go away. Frank Zappa and TVU could NEVER do what the Beatles were doing

You've pointed to nothing in any of their work that was innovative in a pop context beyond saying "no song sounds like this" which of course is true because all songs are different even between performances of the same composition. So what particular musical technique or instrumentation is so novel and important about those Beatles songs?

The Beatles weren't particularly musically innovative. Their marketing, however, was.

>DURRRRR NAME A SONG LIKE STRAWBERRY FIELDS FROM BEFORE STRAWBERRY FIELDS
oh fuck man, you're right, musicians dont have time machines, how will we ever recover

See what I mean? It breaks them

Nobody is "broken," lmao. Everything about how you type and your posting mannerisms point to you being a 13 year old who just got into music and think the Beatles are truly le best band ever because they're accesible and you fell for the hype.

You've proven nothing, and this conversation is now beneath me.

See what I mean?

You're not gaining points with anyone by giving up on the argument and still replying. Shouldnt you be back to school shopping?

See what I mean?

Cope

See what I mean?

Cope

Find me a song that's anything like Tomorrow Never Knows before Tomorrow Never Knows came out.

See what I mean?

Cope

A song that's "anything like" Tomorrow Never Knows would encompass every piece of music ever created. What specific aspect are you claiming is new or original?

Cope

A song entirely comprised of a series of looped, manipulated tapes, creating a soundscape that is unlike anything conventional recording could create at the time.

>imagine thinking the importance of The Beatles resides in its innovation
classical-fags are hilarious

Attached: GI79OoV.png (340x406, 150K)

Can you read? It was his friend who wouldn't shut up about innovation.

Anything Terry Riley put out in the late 50s.

The beatles didnt event music made from tape loops you complete dumbass

Find me a song that sounds like "Baby One More Time" before "Baby One More Time". And whatever you post, I'll just disagree.

actually songs do sound similar to each other beyond basic musical elements of rhythm, melody, harmony and lyrics because of musical genres and styles that have certain shared traditions or aesthetic conventions. the reason why a song like tomorrow never knows for instance was innovative because of pushing aesthetic boundaries of what was considered popular (i.e. pop) at the time through production, instrumentation (use of tambura, sitar and hammond organ), use of vocal manipulation (early use of leslie speaker), tape manipulation and field recordings all tied together with Lennon's eerily disconnected delivery with lyrics alluding to a dissociation from a material existence into one of pure awareness

>event
Invent

See what I mean? You guys are content to say “Zappa’s random wank is more innovative” or “TVU loudly playing like shit is more innovative,” but once you start asking about specific songs it becomes clear the Beatles are the greatest

based and dare I say, will I be brave enough to call you or just merely mention it, redpilled.

you're like 12. lmao. listen to bands before you criticize them.

Since you need it clearly pointed out to you

>becomes clear the Beatles are the greatest
Beyonce has sold more albums and her work is technically superior on a musical level. So your argument really falls apart on closer inspection.

If you already know there's nothing innovative about The Beatles, then why make a thread about it? Unless you enjoy discussing with tards that much, I see it as a complete waste of time.

Terry Riley, as well as Steve Reich and others, created great stuff from loops. But it's one thing stacking loops against each other to see what comes out, and another thing entirely to build a song out of them. The application is completely different. There was nothing like it at the time.

Whitney Houston - I Wanna Dance With Somebody Who Loves Me
Madonna - Material Girl
Pretty much most female centered pop
I’m not arguing in bad faith, there legitimately just are no songs similar to those three Beatles songs from before them. None. That’s why you can’t name any, the most you can do is say “some people used tape loops before Tomorrow Never Knows,” which I think even you know is weak

>Terry Riley didn't start releasing music until 1963
>He didn't start releasing music involving tape manipulation until 1967

Attached: file.png (1258x983, 300K)

I’ve listened to TVU’s entire discography multiple times (except Squeeze, which I listened to once).
I’ve listened to Freak Out!, Absolutely Free, We're Only in It for the Money, Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, Uncle Meat (I skipped the forty minutes of movie dialogue shit though), Burnt Weeny Sandwich, Weasels, Ripped My Flesh, The Grand Wazoo and Over-Nite Sensation
The Beatles are better and more interesting than this shit

Holy fuck, anti-Beatlesfags btfo yet again
This is so sad

They're fine if you're a teenager or girl. But if you're a man seeking inventive or original rock music you couldn't really be satisfied listening to them. They're a good gateway into actually good bands though.

What, you don't like shitty pop songs about holding hands or Paul McCartney roleplaying as a 1920s song and dance man?

Nobody is yet to give a real answer. This is because the Beatles are the greatest band of all time

spoken like a true 12 yr old

HAHAHA ANTI-BEATLESFAGS CAN’T EVEN ENGAGE WITH THE DISCUSSION ANYMORE THEY’RE SO BTFO

Attached: 28086CF9-33FF-42BA-AAFB-EC4A3103F210.jpg (912x905, 96K)

stfu The Beatles are great and revolutionary, but so are TVU and Zappa.
They were on different fields though, the Beatles reinvented pop music while TVU basically created adult rock.
To the people who say the Beatles can’t be the best bc they didn’t do stuff first or aren’t the most experimental you’re retarded entry level fags, stop using pop and accessible as insults.
To the people who say TVU and Zappa aren’t good bc they aren’t accesible you’re also retarded, it’s different fucking music.

Yeah, only a 12 year old would hate Burnt Weeny Sandwich

reminder scaruffi is a pedophile

It’s pop you retard, you aren’t more mature for liking different genres

I'm an idiot but let me try to answer. I like the Beatles way too much and I'm a normie so don't expect much.

The Beatles weren't the innovators of all that much, but they were very good at being early adopters, finding niche, fledgeling concepts and innovations in music, and making them their own. Packaging them in a melodic, digestible but still powerful and effective way. They weren't the most influential or experimental band, but they were able to take experiments and innovations and make them into something pretty great, introducing them to the mainstream. And that's very important.

Cope
Zappa > Beatles

in terms of pop music they were innovative though

They’re literally the most influential band ever, regardless if you like them or not

Yeah, you’d have to be 12 to not enjoy Don’t Eat The Yellow Snow

>what is muffin man
>what is willie the pimp
>what is help i'm a rock

Again, influential does not equal revolutionary.

Wu Tang Clan >>>>>> the Beatles. Facts.

Yeah and Wild Honey Pie is a genius piece of songwriting and Ob La Di Ob La Da is a post ironic masterpiece. Go buy yourself a new backpack and some pencils.

Good questions, what is all that shit?

isn't the point of a revolution to radically transform a musical, artistist, or political landscape such that everything that follows it can no longer like it was?

But I’m agreeing with you, I’m sick of these 12 year old shits who hate Frank Zappa masterworks like “Chunga’s Revenge”

Fucking pleb. Disgusting.

>old genre with 30 minute songs good!
>new genre with 3 minute songs bad!
Brevity is the soul of wit

yes and in that sense, the beatles were revolutionary

Cope. Even Zappa's worst work is leagues better than the Shitles.

When I said "they're not the most influential" I think I mean "they're not the most innovative." Not too sure tho, cuz I'm really tired.

either one fits desu

Modern rock and pop music is insultingly simple. It's pop for a reason.

The user I replied to said influential, but otherwise they did lead a revolution in pop music

...

youtube.com/watch?v=PMMe3iwBV-I

>when you talk about the Beatles and martin’s working relationship, you are just speculating
holy shit

based lenny

>technically superior on a musical level

Attached: 1507365859189.png (1000x1000, 1.11M)

>Not a technical term.
Then call them modal mixture or borrowed chords, holy shit. You have nothing.

When I listened to Zappa, I still preferred the Beatles, but c'mon dude. You can't deny Zappa's 60s and early 70s stuff are still bangers, and extremely innovative. To dismiss it all as shit seems dumb.
This.
Different tastes are different tastes, but I don't see what's so hateable about Burnt Weeny Sandwich.

Yeah man I agree with you. His decision to name that Beefheart song Old Fart At Play will always stand out to me as a defining display of his genius

Are you gonna keep on with your tirade against song names or are we gonna talk about music?

I love threads like this where you find posters who know what they’re talking about and can communicate it clearly, who get no responses because they are debating intellectual cowards

you goddamn well know what they are

Attached: angry tapir.jpg (183x275, 7K)

I’m not on a tirade, I’m agreeing with you. Only 12 year olds would hate Weasels Ripped My Flesh

Anytime you ask someone to show you evidence of an innovation pre-Beatles, you always get some flippant bullshit half answer that (surprise) never checks out.

Bye

What? Why? Don’t you wanna talk about how great Frank Zappa is with me?

He had the dates wrong, but Terry Riley did use tape looping before The Beatles, and yes it was a proper song. Sorry it wasn't in pop song structure, but that shouldn't matter anyways since the Beatles were magically transcendent artists.

Bad musicians, trite lyrics, good production and marketing.

>they weren’t the most influential band
nah

They influenced a lot of garbage pop music like Elton John and Journey.

>insultingly simple
In what way? Lyrical content? Harmonic sophistication? Motivic development? Make a fucking argument

Tomorrow Never Knows came out in 1966, Terry Riley’s tape music experimentation started in 1967

Attached: Screenshot_2019-08-18 Terry Riley - Wikipedia.png (1518x87, 17K)

Anti-Beatlesfags BTFO AGAIN LMAOOOOO

And don’t forget Pet Sounds, and conversely, every album influenced by that album as well.

>The Beatles were the worst of the British Invasion that was all at once, but nothing at all at the same time.
Their lyrics were never on the level of a Jim Morrison
They never broke ground like a Silver Apples
They never broke the rules like TVU
They never wrote a timeless classic like The Moody Blues
They never had the swag of The Zombies
They never wrote a Rock Opera like The Who
They never Made fun of or satirised like Zappa or The Fugs
Their singing was never on the level of Arthur Brown, Janis Joplin or Ian Gillan
They never were raw like Them or The Stooges
They never composed suites and went batshit insane like Pink Floyd or the Krautrock bands
They never went to their country's roots and folk music like Jethro Tull
They never wrote Trippy drug anthems like Jefferson Airplane or Pracual Harum.
They never had the melodies of The Beach Boys
They never opened the Rock world to different fans of other genres like Beefheart or Dylan.
They never were anti-establishment like The MC5
And they could never play like The Nice or Hendrix

>They were a "critic" endorsed band meant to be used as a psyop to destroy The Soviet Union fuck niggas.

Attached: 1539099011531.jpg (670x459, 36K)

Beach Boys are cheesy as fuck. Who even cares about them anymore?

Doo doo, I love to surf doo doo calypso shit and string sections so artsy

>he doesn't know

Try actually looking something up before you started vomiting memes.

damn guess i got btfo huh

>wow it sounds exactly like the beatles, who would've thought huh?
youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=lMcmMhfYkNI

Imagine being this proud of hating beautiful things

why is every Beatles thread a shitshow? Can The Beatles get their own generals

Annoying fans with little knowledge about other music.

annoying scaruffi drones with little knowledge of music in general

They are like K-Pop threads that clog up the board when we could have something better.

Nice boogeyman. I love Black Sabbath despite Scaruffi hating them, but he's completely right about The Beatles legacy.

Scaruffi is just jealous that he never had girls scream for him

John Lennon beat his wife, and The Beatles used to jerk off together at John Lennon's house. Also, Ringo likes underage girls and wrote several songs stating such.

Most of what scaruffi said about the Beatles is factually incorrect

Anti-Beatleheads are also pretty annoying too. The Zappa hating kid is the worst though.
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that they didn't write any timeless classics, or that they didn't write drug anthems or that they didn't have melody.

You're probably right about them being psy-ops tho.
Have you listenned to Pet Sounds, friend?

>Have you listenned to Pet Sounds, friend?
Even the best songs are shallow pap about crushes and teenage love. Yeah, it's well produced and the harmonies are well arranged. It's trivial though.

i'm honestly believing this more and more everyday

Attached: file.png (1080x671, 248K)

That's hilarious.

he doesn't know what he's talking about

>Countless readers ask me what are the "criteria" that I use to come up with my ratings of musicians, albums, and works of art in general.
>I have no idea how I judge music.
scaruffi.com/music/criteria.html

>not having an arbitrary objective measurement you apply to myriad disparate works of art means you're ignorant and unqualified to judge art
Very cerebral post.

...

It's true that it's mostly romance songs, but something about all the songs in Pet Sounds, the instruments, the melodies, the lyrics. Just give a really calming, serene. dreamy feel, which I think is rather spectacular. I understand if it's not your thing, and there's probably other music out there that does it better, it's just that "surf do da da" seemed like a dismal dismissal of it.

It's really hilarious listening to Yea Forums trying to argue about what is good or bad music or what makes it one or the other while so obviously lacking in any sort of actual coherent musical knowledge, terminology, experience etc. All the most of you can say is "it sounds like this", but not why or how or anything lmao, or you just regurgitate genre tags and namedrop phrases like "psychedelic" and "experimental" with zero direction.

I'm guilty. I don't know jack about music theory. Pet Sounds is still good tho.

>thread has multiple comments talking about specific song structures and musical techniques such as modality and tape looping

>multiple
The minority. And I was right: I said the majority.

>I just wasn’t made for these times
>I know there’s an answer
>teenage love and crushes
listen to the album one time before commenting

>anyone who finds Pet Sounds' teenage angst ballads shallow hasn't heard it
Love this meme.

BAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAHA

THIS is the “original tape loop pioneer” at work, and you can see where Tomorrow Never Knows draws its influence, with its five tape loops running concurrently, all matched to create an ethereal pop song, you can see how it draws its influence from LOOP PIONEER Terry Riley, the man who played multiple horn scales and arpeggios simultaneously in an atonal and directionless dance of noise.

He didn’t write a fucking song, you cretins. He did not use this technology to write a song in popular folk/rock style. He did not pioneer that use of this technology. It’s intellectually dishonest to say that what he did with tape loops is the same sophistication of Tomorrow Never Knows

>I am cynical
ok

Tomorrow Never Knows is boring dude. Terry Riley's work is beautiful.

a rainbow in curved air is a masterpiece but it came after revolver and sgt peppers. no way the beatles were influenced by riley's early stuff

>no way the beatles were influenced by riley's early stuff
They may have been. John Lennon was very interested in the US avant-garde music scene.

Too many people on this board are focused on who did something first, and not who was the first to do it well. Using a technique in a way that is disorienting and unpopular is not the same as using it in an inspiring way that captivates millions.

>blah blah my opinion
No one fucking cares bro. Tomorrow Never Knows is more influential. That is the topic, please stick to it.

I like how the goalpost has moved from "most innovative influential band ever" to "first band to arbitrarily use tape-looping in one single that isn't even close to being their most mentioned work."

unlikely since "music for the gift" was only released in 2007 (while it was recorded in 1963)

>popular thing good
>unpopular thing bad
JK Rowling sells more than James Joyce, so she must be the better author! Beyonce sellse more than The Beatles so she must be better!

Because the OP’s main, original point was that the Beatles did absolutely nothing first, so they shouldn’t be considered as innovators. Hence Tomorrow Never Knows being brought up as the de facto “no, this was a first.” No one moved the goalposts, you’re just scrambling for a way to downplay the evidence.

He was performing tape pieces live during the entire decade. He wasn't the only one either. Not all inspiration comes from recordings. Live music was the main transmission method for millennia.

Who cares if he was the first. The Beatles weren't the first but they were better. That's what counts

>Tomorrow Never Knows being brought up as the de facto “no, this was a first.”
It isn't, though.

Pop song format buddy. It’s a different beast than experimental noise or ambient orchestral soundscapes. Try and get it through your skull. Being the first to do something in POP MUSIC, which has its own rules for what is acceptable, its own rules for composition, harmony, form, and completely redefining the rules of what is acceptable in POP MUSIC with your experimental song, is significant. I know you think you got me with a gotcha, but your point is just dumb.

>they were better
They were not on any level other than sales. So I guess you should really be talking about Rihanna since she sells more albums today than the Beatles did when they were releasing music.

>Being the first to do something in POP MUSIC [...] is significant
Sure, in a really arbitrary way, like being the first guy to stuff 80 cigarettes in your nostrils or something.

Ringo's solid. Fantastic on songs like in my life, rain, and she's so heavy.

>someone spent time making this

cringe and yikes

Show me a composed song in a common song format then faggot. You can’t.

>b-b-but my hero made ambient soundscapes first!!
Different type of composition. Comparing etudes with preludes. Not the same type of music at all. Also barely accessible, for obvious reasons.

What is music? Music is sound. Or, perhaps more accurately, a sequence of man-made (usually) contiguous sounds. You seek to quantify something you *hear*, but cannot hold in your hands or see. It's a futile exercise.

The Beatles were simply VERY GOOD. And they were very good t a time when the rest of music was better than it usually is. So, they were the best of the best.

Now, there are a lot of haters. And haters gonna hate. There will always be people who just don't get it. There will be people who sincerely will tell you that the sun ain't so bright, or that Antarctica ain't so cold. People whose brain cells do not work correctly.

The Beatles are the Alpha and the Omega. There will only ever be one Beatles. Their like will never occur again. And if you disagree or don't understand it, then you can't be reasoned with and there is no hope in even trying to convince you.

>they're just GOOD bro trust me
Brainlet tier arguments.

No, not in a really arbitrary way. Modern song format is it’s own artform. The 3-5 minute, usually two or three motivic ideas, with lyrics. It’s its own thing. Expanding that artform is significant, because modern music is a result of those previous expansions.

i don't know, a lot of Paul's basslines are amazing.

this. the idea of experimentation and innovation is that expands aesthetic boundaries. the beatles had a hypothesis and tested it and it worked. you would think that revolver with its links to the avant-garde would make it lesss accessible but it was one of the band's best selling albums. the beatles were successfully able to bridge the world of pop music and the avant-garde

This board is full of poseurs who know nothing about composition while also hating their dads. It was bound to go this way.

>they were the best of the best
They weren't even the best fucking pop band of the era, let alone 60s music in general. Eat a bag of dicks retard, you have no argument.

>a time when the rest of music was better than it usually is
Yeah dude, I love boomer shit. New music suks amirite? Wrong generation bro.

>fuck my daaaaaaaad!!!!!!!
it’s ok user, we can just talk about the music. You don’t need to constantly bring up your dad (I’m sorry)

in your humble opinion dear user. They still made more money then al most iof thoseno-name artists mentioned in this thread

why do people respond to name calling baiting post, but whenever someone has a thought out post it gets no replies?

I see the assholes are out in force today. Like most days.

Hey? Like what you like. If you don't include The Beatles in that, you're not breaking any law.

Making money has nothing to do with quality of music. What is even your argument? Miley Cyrus makes more than any Jazz musicians ever did.

Because there is only one side of this debate that knows what it’s talking about. They can’t engage with specifics because the specifics reveal them to be charaltans arguing a biased and wrong premise.

>dude lmao trust me it's GOOD music
It's okay brainlet I was 16 once too.

I take back everything I said about The Beatles. You have won me over with your debating skills and prowess. And you're simply being a swell, lovable guy didn't hurt either. You're right. I'm wrong. I've always been wrong. You've always been right. Thanks for putting me on the right track. The Beatles suck!!! God, I feel so such better now! This is liberating.

No need to act like a sarcastic ass, kid. You clearly fit into this description nicely >dude lmao it's GOOD because you just gotta get it lol

>when you have absolutely nothing to say but you keep posting
I wonder how long he’ll keep going

lusty negro attitudes

embarrassing "opinion"

>>when you have absolutely nothing to say but you keep posting
Ironic.

>no u
You haven’t made an argument I over 300 posts.

That guy is completely correct.