Theories as to how they were so incredibly and objectively great? Was it the intense practice in Liverpool and Hamburg? (Also if any ritual posting homo wants to bully me, I'm waiting lol)
>>129063341>objectivelyno no.
they weren't that great but normies love to think in black and white
>>129063341They were a Tavistock Institute creation with ties to powerful freemasonic aristocrats. Genuinely talented, but more importantly, highly connected.
Because of John and Paul. Paul catered to the teeny-bopper whores because of his Timothy Chalamat-tier face. John catered to the autistic "troubled teen boys" with a circlejerk of his own.Together they dominated both gender markets. The trash threads we get involving those two should be evident.
>>129063426So you got a shameful boner from the yaoi thread. We get it, that's embarrassing, but no one thinks it's your fault.The jannies are here to take care of you. Everything is going to be okay, this is a safe space.
>>129063366Define>normie
>>129063473That shit gave me ptsd.
they had two prolific songwriters in a single band who would've been more than able to carry separate bands entirely.they also had a third songwriter who would've been moderately successful if they were in a separate band but also just so happened to be a member. [spoiler]paul and george were also decent multi-instrumentalists[/spoiler]
>>129063341I just think it was their nonconformist ideals. Their unwillingness to ever do the obvious thing, stick to a formula or rest on their laurels was the most important part of the equation.
>>129063341initially they were so bad they were good
>>129065407>>129065456>>129065495>trying to spoiler on /mu/outing yourself as a newfag. did you know back then this board used to hate the beatles? it's true, you'd be crucified for even saying you like them. there was recently a literal porn thread about them on here, it was fucked up and just proves that beatles posters are mentally ill, look at this.
>>129063341From a sociological perspective, I think a major reason lies in the intersection of class, opportunity, and IQ. Lennon and McCartney both had IQs around 140 (McCartney's was measured at 137). Both would have had the raw aptitude to succeed at most anything. Importantly, they grew up in Liverpool. Already a working class city, economic opportunities were further devastated by bombing in WW2. It's often argued that the Beatles overstated their working class origins, but this is largely false: McCartney's father was a cotton salesman; Lennon's was a merchant seaman and ne'er do well. In a landscape like this, the relative benefit of pursuing a "respectable" career - as well as the relative risk of pursuing music - was much lower. Consequently, there were many more high IQ individuals, especially from working class backgrounds, who were willing to make the "irresponsible" choice of starting bands. In the decades since the 1940s, education systems became much more efficient at sorting students by aptitude and grooming them for a narrow set of white collar professions - law, medicine, engineering, academia, etc. The effect of this has been a brain drain on working class communities and a higher concentration of intellectual capital in the upper-middle class. Today in western countries, it is far more unlikely for two individuals as intelligent as McCartney and Lennon to be born across the street from each other in a community as poor and lacking in opportunity as Liverpool circa 1940. If they were born today, it would probably be to third-generation white collar helicopter parents in a well-funded school district (to use U.S. parlance) who tightly control their time and plan from a young age for them to go to university and be conventionally successful. The result is that, with each decade, there are fewer high IQ individuals in the arts.>>129063424This would be a cool conspiracy theory if there was literally any evidence to support it.
>>129063341They were in the right place at the right time. Sheer luck. If they'd started making music at a five year delay, (you) never would have heard of them.
>>129066114Paul McCartney lived at Richard Asher’s house and dated his daughter Jane. Richard Asher WORKED FOR TAVISTOCK. George Martin “took oboe lessons” from Richard’s wife, Mrs. Margaret Asher. There’s just a few clues for your flippant ass. Now deflect some more, faggot.
>>129065830Based. Girls who want to fuck the band members/want the band members to fuck each other are getting a whole extra layer out of the music.
>>129065830>women being cute is… BAD!!!rope tonight faggot
>>129066376>Richard Asher WORKED FOR TAVISTOCK.No evidence of this. >George Martin “took oboe lessons” from Richard’s wife, Mrs. Margaret Asher.You're spooked that George Martin received oboe lessons. This is a problem of low human capital. Go watch Candace Owens.
>>129063341The 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 time are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all time. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics, instead, 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. In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena 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, most 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.
>>129065830Gramps don't you have a life you supposedly have?
>>129067020Candace Owen is almost as disingenuous a bitch as you are.
>>129063341Their music hits a sweet spot between simple, well written pop melodies and genre experimentation that makes their music very versatile, enjoyable to the uncomplicated masses and the discerning art-y crowd
>>129067020Where there’s smoke… but you wouldn’t know it from your own farts, or all the hot air you blow on about IQ, yada yada. Only the most insufferable midwits drum on about that tripe. I’ve got nothing to prove to mouth breathers like you. This is for the young’ns with some sense.
>>129067107Wimpole St., the street Asher and McCartney lived on, was less than 3 miles from the Tavistock clinic.
>>129063341Great songwriters at the right place, right time and right marketing. It's really that simple.
>>129063424And they would've got away with it too if it weren't for you meddling trannies!
>>129067506Psyops change with the times.
>>129067044God Scaruffi is such a hack. Couldn't write a decent tune even if a muse came and gave it to him already completed in his sleep. Just complains and complains about the most inane shit in the name of being a "real" artist."The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest." Doesn't (not true, by the way) undermine his whole argument here? I don't see Elvis being critically acclaimed in the same way as the Beatles if you catch my drift.
>>129067892>Doesn't (not true, by the way) undermine his whole argument here?Yes. But y'know, he's Italian. That's punishment enough, so we just let it slide. >I don't see Elvis being critically acclaimed in the same way as the Beatles if you catch my drift.I think ol' Scruffy hates Elvis even more than the Beatles actually.https://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/presley.html
