How can a music critic be so correct?
>>129652501Some of their psych tunes are pretty dope. The other crap ala I wanna hold your hand were just to sale to the groupie girls.
Beatles are the greatest just because of how much they make everyone seethe
>>129652540I agree, a lot of their later output is quite good. If it had just been Beatlemania poptunes through to the end of their tenure, they probably wouldn't have been remembered as fondly as they are.
>>129652553Even if that were true, it's an idiotic reason to like anything.
Beatlemania was a Jewish invention and evidence of their capacity for inducing mass psychosis for sheer profit.
>>129652501
The beatles were legitimately interesting in the context of the early 60s.People don't remember but there genuinely wasn't any music like I Wanna Hold Your Hand on American radio before they released that song, there were a couple of records you could find that were maybe a but close in the late 50s and early 60s, but it wasn't very common, in fact, it was borderline "underground". Rock was a lot more developed than pop, but the Beatles made music more accessible. The psychedelia stuff was mostly copped from other artists who were much better than the Beatles in terms of song writing.
>>129652566I think it was around Revolver is when they ditched the whole silly love songs thing (Well, besides Paul)
>>129652634The shift started when they get in contact with the burgeoning experimental art scene. That was in 65.
Why does anyone still feel the need to talk about this boomer hippie nonsense?
>>129652681>guy who's obsessed with gen x slop
>>129652646I hate to say it, but it’d be like One Direction changing their sound to something like Animal Collective
>>129652501>no difficult content>no technical innovations>no creative depthHes objectively wrong on all 3 accounts
>>129652695I mostly listen to bluegrass, country, and doom metal but go off
>>129652501"The seething din of millennials faded into the warming night, their cries of "the Beatles fucking suck" and "Boomers are to blame for all my failings" were dampened to silence by the mist, and drown by the morning dew.But they'd be awake by early afternoon, only to start the plaintive ritual again; the melancholy wailing bouncing off the backlit screens and cereal boxes surrounding them, while members of other generations, working, raising families, contributors all, heard nothing of it. The local flora turned as deaf an ear as the fauna, and the cloudless sky, too; and so continued the spiteful blameful opera voiced by the directionless adherents of America's voluntary class of malding malaisial millennials."-- Magnus Olympus, from The Saddest Clowns in the World
>>129652501What a pretentious faggot. The Beatles were great because they did challenge technical limitations and to be innovative as well as having some of the most melodically beautiful melodies ever recorded. Most of what this ass blasting cum guzzler listens to is boring as fuck in comparison
>>129653544Ah yes Scaruffi, that well known millennial
>>129652501Truth nuke. If you want to listen to 60s music try some Shostakovich.
>>129652501literally nobody gives a fuck about the beatles, i have not met a single person that said "i like listening to the beatles" or some type of variation
>>129654059Say what you want about the Beatles but they did make a genuine effort to work on the actual craft of the music itself. They go from club players to boy band to mature band to solo projects. They simply put in the work and develop new styling every so often. Exceedingly few bands and solo artists bother with all that and it shows. There is simply nobody quite like them. Not even close. You also have three major talents in one group, McCartney, Lennon and Harrison.
>>129652540>lol muh drugzfaggot.
>>129653545Dude listen to more classical music if you think the Beatles have the most beautiful melodies ever. What have the fucking Beatles made that's anywhere close to Ode to Joy?
>>129652501>and they were photogenicThe Beatles were aggressively British looking. They were considered attractive because they were famous, not the other way around.
>>129654661Maybe you need to take some, that would change your attitude, little one.
>>129652501he was right, this is what /mu/ looks like now btw>>129643822
>>129652721I mean, that happened to The Beach Boys too, who's somebody to blame them?
>>129652501Most of it is bullshit, but he’s got a point about Sgt Pepper. That album has developed a legacy as a fleshed-out experimental concept album, but it’s more (good) Beatles pop rock aside from the title track, George’s song and A Day In The Life
>>129652501>>129652607>>129652681>>129654049
>>129654058*drum roll*And the award for Most Pseudo-intellectual Post of 2026 goes to this anon, also know as pic related!
>>129654863Paul is cute even in this photo, thougheverbeit
>>129660685>listening to classical music is pseudointellectual
>>129652501Their harmonic and compositional complexity is well documented. Music theorists frequently point to the band’s unusual harmonic ideas.>Unexpected key changes – e.g., Penny Lane and Here, There and Everywhere.>Modal mixture and non-standard chords – common in Michelle.>Irregular song structure – A Day in the Life blends two different compositions and an orchestral crescendo.>Indian classical influence through George Harrison’s use of the sitar in Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown).Musicologist analyses regularly note that their chord progressions are more varied than most pop of the 1960s. They moved far beyond the early 3-chord rock formula.
>>129661118It's so much worse than classical music though
>>129654729Ode to Joy would not make the top 50 in a list of the Beatles’ greatest melodies. Probably not even the top 80.
>>129661126Measuring pop or rock music by the classical music yard stick is retarded.
>>129661159Why? Do you not know how popular Wagner was in 19th century Germany? He was the Beatles of 1800s Deutschland.
>>129661195Different genres try to accomplish different things and excel at different things.
>>129661481Not really. Classical music is just better.
>>129661497At what?
>>129661710Harmony, form, melody, development, rhythm
>>129661734>Harmonyyes>formyes>melodyFUCK no, classical is not only inferior to pop/rock in this regard, but also folk and arguably even religious music. Drunk poor people in 19th century bars BTFO of classical melodies.>developmentyes>rhythmnoAnyway it's off topic because not even Scaruffi compares the Beatles to classical musicians here. He only compares them to other rock musicians.
>>129661872>classical is not only inferior to pop/rock in this regard, but also folk and arguably even religious musicI wholeheartedly disagree. I think the melodies in pop music often sound samey and in classical they often sound very fresh. Listen to Tchaikovsky, he has incredible melodies. What pop music has better ones than him?>rhythm >noRite of Spring. Nuff said.
>>129652566Their evolution was a core part of the Beatles longevity and popularity
>>129654059I know tons of people that like the Beatles, do you actually know many people or do you live out in bumfuck nowhere? The only thing worse than fags who dislike shit simply because it's popular are people who pretend that nobody else likes it actually or that they've never heard of it
>>129661085Not necessarily but pretending to like (You) is.
>>129660685>>129663653Whites will never understand classical music
>>129652646Lennon didn't get involved until like 66 when he met yoko
>>129663688>Beethoven's symphonic algorithm>catch the vibelmao this nigga is a pseudI'll bet Steve knows more about classical music.
>>129661195Wagner is illegal in Isreal HOLY BASED
>>129652575Where do you think we are?
>>129653411First and only song of the Beatles to grab my attention was While My Guitar Gently weeps and guess what? The leads aren't even by neither John Lennon nor George Harrison, they were by Eric "formerly into cocaine" Clapton
>>129654863>Risnagutra Sahtari
>>129652501Scaruffi's Beatle Review got a lot of views not because it was the greatest review but simply because its outrage was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical language, it had no creative depth. He wrote a bunch of quirky 3-sentence ragebait owns and they were memegenic. If somebody had not invented "4chan" in 2003, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these memes about such a trivial reviewer
>>129664044based
