Eleanor Rigby

>So you are saying it's underrated then
How so?

>I like it less than the commonly held belief
Thus you are underrating it

That's one way to see. Another one is that the majority of people are overrating it.

>Another one is that the majority of people are overrating it.
Why would you believe that?

>everyone else is wrong and I am right!
kek

>Why would you believe that?
Because I have an opinion about the song, and people usually have a more positive opinion, therefore on my oponion they are overrating it. It's pretty simple.
>wrong / right
I'm not claiming to be right, nor claiming that people are wrong. What are you doing?

>Because I have an opinion about the song
Oh, do you know music theory?
>I'm not claiming to be right
Hence it's not overrated...

>Oh, do you know music theory?
Nope.
>Hence it's not overrated...
It is on my opinion, since people claim the song to be better than I think it is. It's pretty simple.

>Nope.
Ah. I see.

Then you are defiantly underrating it.

>Then you are defiantly underrating it.
How so?

...

>Sometime around the fourth or fifth day of “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da,” Emerick said John “went ballistic” and walked out of the studio “ranting and raving.” When he returned visibly intoxicated, things got even more tense.

>We know John was quite a performer, and Emerick said he made a grand return the day he left the White Album session. “I am fucking stoned!” he yelled walking in the door, to the shock of everyone present. (The late Emerick recounted this story in his book, Here, There and Everywhere.)

>“I am more stoned than you have ever been,” John continued shouting. “In fact, I am more stoned than you will ever be! And this is how the f*cking song should go.” With that, he hammered the opening chords to “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” on the piano. Emerick said Paul was furious.

>“A very upset Paul got right in Lennon’s face,” Emerick wrote. “For a moment I thought fists might fly.” Instead, Paul swallowed the provocation and accepted John’s idea. (He used it in the song, in fact.) Eventually, somehow, they finished the album.

But I already replied to that, lol. See

But you already showed us you have an uninformed opinion. So it's more likely you are underrating it, than everyone is is overrating it.

>uninformed opinion.
How so?
>it's more likely
No. Both ideas exists at the same time: at the same time that I think they're overrating it, they're thinking that I'm overrated. How it's not about an objective statement, but about opinions, both contrary ideas can (and do) coexist.

kek
John is /ourguy/

they're thinking that I'm underrating it*
Sorry. Lol.

topkek if you believe this
>How so?
Oh, did you just learn music theory within the last 8 minutes?
>Both ideas exists at the same time
Not possible. if so, the whole concept of over/underrating it should not exist as a valid critic.

>Oh, did you just learn music theory within the last 8 minutes?
What? No.
>the whole concept of over/underrating it should not exist as a valid critic.
It doesn't exist as a valid critic, though. Over/underrating concepts are consequences of your criticism's conclusion. It shouldn't be the critic itself.

>No
Then you have an uninformed opinion

How so?

user formed an opinion about music without knowing music theory

if only you knew how bad things really are

no, he's saying it's good but overrated. is english not your first language?

And how is this uninformed?

If you knew music theory, you'd understand.
See

>If you knew music theory, you'd understand.
Apparently you can't explain.

Oh, do you not know what "informed" means? Or is it the word "opinion" you don't understand? Possibly the combination of both?

>Oh, do you not know what "informed" means?
I do! That wasn't my question, silly. Read it again.

>I do!
Then I'm not sure why you're confused. Maybe you need to read the thread again?

great thread fags

>Then I'm not sure why you're confused
Oh, I see, let me spoonfeed you:
I fail to see the logic connection between not knowing music theory and having an uninformed opinion. I thought it was clear.

lol I love the music theory gatekeeping on this board. the man just doesnt know the difference between under and overrated

>I fail to see the logic connection between not knowing music theory and having an uninformed opinion
Oh I see, you don't know what music theory is, OK
>the man just doesn't know the difference between under and overrated
How so?

All songs from The Beatles are pop songs

>Oh I see, you don't know what music theory is, OK
Apparently you can't support your argument by presenting said logic.

>Apparently you can't support your argument by presenting said logic.
As you can see, knowing theory would allow you to have a more informed opinion on music.

Do you see how that works?

are you some right winger whos FUCKING DEAF?

youtube.com/watch?v=YgbzfA8fvdQ

>knowing theory would allow you to have a more informed opinion on music.
I agree, although not necessarily. That's now what I asked, though, nice backpedalling.
The logic problem here is: how not knowing music theory makes your opinion uninformed?

>how not knowing music theory makes your opinion uninformed?
Because it's literal information about music. If you don't know it, you are literally lacking information. Thus it is uninformed, literally speaking.

>Because it's literal information about music. If you don't know it, you are literally lacking information. Thus it is uninformed, literally speaking.
Hearing the song is obtaining an information about the song. Therefore, it's not an uninformed opinion. Try again.

If you hear it AND know music theory, you will have more information than someone who just heard it without knowing theory.

>If you hear it AND know music theory, you will have more information than someone who just heard it without knowing theory.
Not really, because you both heard the same thing, and both perceived the inherent music theory that structures the song. Therefore they have the same information to decide if they like or not the song.