Who is The Beatles of this generation?
>>60876710
>inb4 Tame Impala
>>60876710
One direction
Skrillex
>Makes shitty music
>Retarded teenagers thinks he invented a genre
>>60876710
Probably Radiohead tbqh
Coldplay
deafheaven
>>60876710
How?
>>60876743
What genre do teenagers think The Beatles invented?
the magic numbers
>>60876710
Oasis
>>60876758
music
>>60876758
You don't know how many times I've heard 14 year olds say The Beatles invented rock music
>>60876798
Literally no one thinks that, everyone know Elvis at least
justin bieber.
he was shit pop at 16 and now he is starting to get good just like beatles
kanye
>le one direction of the 60s maymay
Admittedly, yes a lot of their older works was kinda poppy, marketed towards teenage girls. Their later works however were actually relatively experimental (as far as mainstream music goes anyways)
>>60876798
but the beatles did invent rock music
>>60876782
>>60876744
one of these two
more modern i'd say arctic monkeys (excluding AM)
>>60876710
Oasis
>>60876857
oasis are gone though...
he means currently
>>60876844
There's an entire generation of pre-Beatles rock n' roll musicians and if anybody was the first to make the leap from "rock n' roll" to "rock" it was Dylan.
I'm replying to bait, though, so joke's on me, I guess.
>>60877266
i dont know any though, and that is all that matters. and i wont go out of my way to listen to it. the aim is to be known
>>60876744
My vote for this.
>>60877266
>the first to make the leap from "rock n' roll" to "rock" it was Dylan
top kek
definitely Kanye in terms of influence and musical innovation
>>60876710
Oasis
>>60877372
Top argument.
>>60877659
The Rolling Stones existed way before Dylan picked an electric guitar.
>>60876710
Wings
in terms of pure popularity?
One Direction.
In terms of cultural significance and innovating with the times (and sort of comparable popularity)?
Radiohead, RCHP, Green Day, or U2.
Radiohead...oh wait Radiohead is actually good. Idk
>>60877835
OK, fair enough. I'd still argue that Dylan did more to broaden the scope of rock music, both in terms of lyrical subject matter and musical influences, but the Stones probably still helped to define the sound and aesthetic more than he did.
>>60877835
>Zimmerman formed several bands while attending Hibbing High School. In the Golden Chords, he performed covers of songs by Little Richard[9] and Elvis Presley.[10] Their performance of Danny & the Juniors' "Rock and Roll Is Here to Stay" at their high school talent show was so loud that the principal cut the microphone.[11] In 1959, his high school yearbook carried the caption: "Robert Zimmerman: to join 'Little Richard'."[9][12] The same year, as Elston Gunnn [sic], he performed two dates with Bobby Vee, playing piano and clapping.[13][14][15]
>>60876710
Oasis
>>60877943
>Radiohead is actually good
Ha
>>60877266
>to make the leap from "rock n' roll" to "rock"
What does that even mean?
>>60876710
Obviously Animal Collective. Two members far more important to the band's success and output than the others, started out in harmonious collaboration but now they seem to have a slight competition with each other, one is more focused on raw emotions, the other is more interested in poppy good times, they evolve every record, they use lots of call and response, and they both popularized things that had previously been seen as avant garde.
One significant difference is that they had sort of an inverse relationship with their mixture of pop and avant garde. The Beatles started out making straight pop music and slowly made their way into more experimental territory, and AnCo started out far more experimental and slowly made their way into more pop sensible music. They both ended up in a sweet spot where they were able to present ideas that arose from experimentation through familiar traditions, giving them crossover appeal to people who only want to listen to music to have fun, and people that are more interested in hearing new ideas.
Then there's a member who is seen as underrated, and a member who is made fun of for being useless, even though he definitely had significant contributions to some of their best music.
It's not a perfect match, but I don't think a better one exists.
>>60876838
No one actually thinks 1d are the beatles of this generation, only real normies do.
>>60876838
>yes a lot of their older works was kinda poppy, marketed towards teenage girls
Most rock bands of the early 60s were.
>>60878047
He worked with existing elements from '50s rock n' roll and add influences from other artistic traditions - in his case folk music and modern poetry - in order to support his own creative vision.
>>60876744
>>60876782
these
>>60878238
*added
>>60878238
The Beatles worked with existing elements from '50s rock n' roll and add influences from other artistic traditions - in his case vaudeville music, rockabilly and jazz chordal structures - in order to support his their creative vision.
Nobody have ever achieved, and will ever achieve the amount of mainstream success The Beatles had. We're living in completely different times now, popular music have been much less relevant in the last two decades.
>>60877890
kek
The only correct answers here are either Kanye West or Radiohead
Everything else doesn't really fit.
>>60876782
>>60876857
>>60877658
>>60878006
based anons
Phish?
>>60878314
Michael Jackson. The Biebs
>>60878025
at the very least better than The Beatles.
can you name another album that sounds like Kid A?
by comparison Beatles were not remotely original or interesting.
>>60876710
there is no Beatles of this generation
there was only one Beatles
>>60878357
Radiohead literally ripped off The Beatles at least twice on OK Computer alone.
>>60878351
>Michael Jackson
Maybe, but we're talking about bands here.
>The Biebs
What?
>>60878396
how so? OK Computer sounds nothing like anything The Beatles ever did.
>>60878412
Karma Police rips off Sexy Sadie, Paranoid Android rips off Happiness is a Warm Gun.
>>60878357
>by comparison Beatles were not remotely original or interesting.
How so?
>>60878295
Again, fair enough. And I love the Beatles, didn't mean to wind up arguing against their having influence, they definitely did more than most.
what the fuck even is this thread
Michael Jackson? Oasis? that is not this generation. that was already like 8 generations ago.
the weird thing is that MJ and oasis' music sounds 80 x more dated than the Beatles' does
>>60878457
I guess I'm still confused what you think "rock" is, as compared to "rock n roll".
I love both Beatles and Dylan btw, so we're on the same page
>>60878357
lol you exclusively listen to the /mu/core chart don't you
>>60878403
talking about mainstream success, I'd say so, at least for MJ
>>60878460
Oasis and britpop was the 90s lad
>>60878430
in what way?
>>60878455
they literally took a style that had been around for years and watered it down to a friendly pop sound for the masses.
>>60878540
>>lol you exclusively listen to the /mu/core chart don't you
doesn't answer my question, also no
>>60878568
>they literally took a style that had been around for years and watered it down to a friendly pop sound for the masses.
Oh like Kid A
>alt-rock + Can + Warp Records
Oh like Ok Computer
>alt-rock + Can + Pink Floyd
See how that works? Radiohead is guilty of the same thing you bash The Beatles for.
>>60878568
>in what way?
Are you a musician?
>>60878568
They made said style far more interesting and melodic though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v69ptLuC40
https://soundcloud.com/proper-villains/jumpin
>>60878615
there's a difference between combing genres/styles to make something new, and watering something down, you fucking retard.
>>60878705
How was it watered down?
>>60878523
I guess I associate "rock n' roll" specifically with the original '50s generation. Chuck Berry, Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly. All excellent artists, but it was still relying on pop song structures and teenage lyrical subject matter. "Rock" is the umbrella term that covers much more territory, in my view.
>>60878568
Radiohead cite The Beatles as a major influence. Beyond that, it's stupid to compare the two like this, because Radiohead was using technology that didn't exist when The Beatles were making music. You're just viewing the two through different lenses. One says "Radiohead is the greatest and they made music that was totally original and without external influence" which isn't true, and one that says "The Beatles are pop garbage and they just copied other people and didn't do anything original" which isn't true. You can like RH more than The Beatles, that's fine, but to totally disregard the context of what The Beatles were doing when they were doing it is literal stupidity, and Thom Yorke would agree.
>>60878778
Like a Rolling Stone had a pop structure, and Dylan specifically sought out to make a pop song. If that's your rubric, then rock n roll didn't become rock until prog rock was created. But obviously there is a difference between rock and prog rock.
So the simplest answer is rock and rock n roll is synonymous. There really is no need to differentiate between the two, and especially not to separate the accomplishments of rock artists from the 50s and 60s. That's just a myth perpetuated by the 60s Was The Greatest Decade! wrong generationers.
>>60876782
maybe twenty years ago, but now? bitch c'mon
Radiohead
>>60878868
Rock N Roll was danceable while "Rock" wasn't.
>>60878926
You can dance to rock. Ever heard of American Bandstand? There were teens dancing in ever7y episode.
>>60878705
You can cast one in a positive light and the other in a negative light, but that doesn't mean what you're saying is true. They both had influences, they both expanded on them, and they were both good. Watered down is just a negative adjective that you're arbitrarily applying to The Beatles, but you aren't making any concrete observations. There were no songs like A Day in the Life until The Beatles made it. And before the whole Pet Sounds argument comes up, Revolver came out a month after PS, far too soon to have any influence, and they still had Elenor Rigby, I'm Only Sleeping, Love You To, and Tomorrow Never Knows, all of which were new and different, despite any influences you could cite.
>>60878705
>watering something down,
that's literally all radiohead was doing. you really don't know all that much about music
>>60878868
Like a Rolling Stone has a verse-chorus structure, sure, but it also has a sophisticated rhyme scheme, a messy, improvisational arrangement and harshly confrontational lyrics that would've been unthinkable just five years before. Not to mention that it was twice the length of anything else on the radio to date.
I guess my main reason for the distinction is that rock n' roll did sort of fall away in the late '50s and early '60s. Elvis moved to singing schmaltzy ballads and starring in bad movies, Chuck Berry went to jail, Little Richard converted to Christianity, Buddy Holly died, etc. There's a reason the Beatles were told that "guitar groups are on the way out," it really did seem like stuff like the folk revival would overtake rock as the hot new thing.
>>60878944
Haven't listened to it, but is it really rock? If yes, is it in the vein of 50s Rock n Roll (dance oriented), or 60s Rock (not dance oriented)?
Now, of course you can dance to rock, but the divisive point between 50s and 60s rock was the change from dance oriented music to non dance oriented music (generally speaking).
>>60876782
If you think Oasis are similar to the Beatles in any way you have no clue
>>60876782
Are you 40 years old?
>>60879124
>Like a Rolling Stone has a verse-chorus structure, sure, but it also has a sophisticated rhyme scheme
A A A B
A A A B
C C
D D
E
Eh not that sophisticated. The rhyme scheme is a superficial analysis. Dylan's use of imagery is more important.
>a messy, improvisational arrangement
As much as most other bands at that time. Listen to The Animals or The Rolling Stones or The Who or The Zombies.
>I guess my main reason for the distinction is that rock n' roll did sort of fall away in the late '50s and early '60s
Again, it's not essential and just dilutes the waters. I would recommend against it.
>>60879188
>Haven't listened to it
Ugh c'mon man.
It's not a band. It's a television program that showcased rock and pop bands, hosted by Dick Clark.
>dance oriented music to non dance oriented music
Early 60s rock was dance-able by design. 4/4 on the floor. I would argue that shift didn't happen until your favorite Zappa, who intentionally made rock music that was not dance-able. This was 4 or 5 years after rock "came back".
There isn't a Beatles of our generation. Music is a commercial commodity now and there's a formula for generating pop hits. The current era is simply incompatible with groundbreaking artists who are also massively successful. The closest we have is Kanye West and Radiohead, and they're been absolutely shit for almost a decade now compared to The Beatles.
>inb4 I trigger /r/lwg/ and /r/hhh/
>>60879287
Yeah, but I still haven't listened to it.
Early Beatles, Beach Boys, and Kink singles weren't particularly danceable.
The "rock came back" could be a good division between rock n roll and rock anyways.
>>60879331
>Music is a commercial commodity now and there's a formula for generating pop hits.
John and Paul had a formula for writing their songs, and they wrote them to sell as a commodity.
>>60876828
>good
just because he's better than he was doesn't mean he's good
>>60879360
They intentionally broke their formula all the time.
>>60879360
False equivalence by implying that the the mega hit "artists" of today write their own songs.
drake was pop rap at first, now hes pop art rap, just like the beatles hehe
>>60879359
>Early Beatles, Beach Boys, and Kink singles weren't particularly danceable
Look up early footage of those artists. You will see people dancing (well, I suppose you'll see more girls screaming at The beatles, but I stand by my assertion that they were danceable by design; the word "beat" is in The Beatles for a reason).
>The "rock came back" could be a good division between rock n roll and rock anyways.
genre descriptors should describe the musical attributes, not a chronology.
I will agree though, that a distinction between rock n roll and rock could be when rock n roll attempted to be a serious art rather than disposable pop. In that case then the first rock song would be... Like a Rolling Stone, just as anon was saying earlier and I disputed!
Isn't that funny?
>>60879451
Strawman
As others have said, the closest equivalent would be Kanye or Radiohead but even those only begin to scratch the surface of what The Beatles were culturally.
>>60879424
Not relevant.
>>60879476
>Strawman
Huh?
Regardless, to compare an artist of today to The Beatles, this artist would have to take pop music and completely turn it upside down. The most recent change in direction for popular music has been the "EDM" craze of the last 5 or so years, and it was nothing more than really simple and formulaic (but loud) house music.
>>60879476
>In that case then the first rock song would be... Like a Rolling Stone
Eh, would've said Subterranean Homesick Blues, but close enough.
>>60879683
>Huh?
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]
>>60879638
I'm saying that they didn't have a formula. The Beatles weren't formulaic, having two clearly distinct and different vocalists and songwriters in one band is proof enough of that.
>>60879754
>I'm saying that they didn't have a formula.
How much have you read about The beatles?
>having two clearly distinct and different vocalists and songwriters in one band is proof enough of that.
Both wrote with a pop songwriting formula in mind, often together.
>>60879754
In fairness, Paul did admit once that he and John were fond of using the phrase "let's write ourselves a swimming pool" whenever it was time to put out another single. They were good at giving people what they knew they'd like, but I also don't think they sacrificed any of their integrity to do so.
>>60879719
So do you want to talk about The Beatles or discuss logical fallacies? Go back to reddit, dipshit. How's that for a strawman?
>>60879835
>So do you want to talk about The Beatles
I did, see >>60879360
But then >>60879451 starting talking about other artists.
>>60879805
>I also don't think they sacrificed any of their integrity to do so.
White Album and posterior Beatles' releases could prove you wrong.
They were still good though.
>>60879803
What "pop songwriting formula"? Can you outline it?
>>60879921
How is the White Album lacking in integrity? They were doing pretty much anything they wanted at that point.
>>60879921
>White Album and posterior Beatles' releases could prove you wrong.
How would the White Album prove him wrong?
>>60879937
Have you read McCartney's auto-bio?
>>60879960
I haven't.
>>60879956
>>60879960
Check out what they were going through as a band when they released Sgt. Pepper.
Things were going from great to bad between them.
>>60879990
He talks about it there. It's very interesting. He and Lennon started out be deconstructing Buddy Holly songs to try and decode his formula. He also said some interesting tips, such as to avoid using the lyric "ring" because you'd be apt ro rhyme it with "thing", whihc is a poor lyric to use since it's too ambiguous and non specific and doesn't communicate.
>>60880026
Not answering the question. How does that prove anon wrong?
Muse
>>60880051
Just read some about it.
If you don't want to, it's okay, it's just that I don't want to type the whole story out.
>>60880026
I didn't mean "integrity" in the sense of "the band working together cohesively," I meant that they didn't make creative decisions based on how much money it'd make them. They always made music they liked and kept challenging themselves to do better just for the sake of it.
>>60880051
I think that's applicable to their earlier work, certainly. Everyone uses a certain framework to create, unless you're recording improvisations. But doing things like beginning 'She Loves You' with the chorus, or the chords on 'From Me to You' certainly demonstrate them intentionally deviating from the norm.
>>60879865
What's your response to >>60879683
>>60880104
>Just read some about it.
I know more about it than you alreday.
So answer the question. Or is this another example iof you tlakign about something you don't know about?
>>60880111
>Or the chords on 'From Me to You' certainly demonstrate them intentionally deviating from the norm.
They were using their formula to do that
>>60880139
Not relevant.
>>60880110
Ah! That changes the whole argument then!
In that case, yes, I agree with you.
I'm not a Beatles fan, but they don't have a modern day equivalent. Especially not hype-wise.
>>60880165
Yes, you probably do.
To answer your question see >>60880168
>>60880180
Kanye West probably
>>60880226
I see.
>>60880165
>They were using their formula to do that
That's not a commercially-oriented pop songwriting formula. It's one that intentionally goes against it. Things using formulas exist in all music and it's not something specific to pop or music created to sell.
>>60878092
tbqh
>>60880262
>That's not a commercially-oriented pop songwriting formula
You mean a formula used to create commercially-oriented pop songs is not a commercially-oriented pop songwriting formula?
>>60880238
Fuck no. I can't think of any modern artist who caused such a widespread, hysteric reaction when they first blew up.
>>60880314
They sold, but I wouldn't argue that they were written to sell. Why would they bother to write chord structures that rebelled against the general trends of the time? There'd be no need to.
>>60878201
>No one actually thinks 1d are the beatles of this generation
I sometimes say this just to piss off rockists and the LE BORN IN THE WRONG GENERATION idiots.
>>60880375
>They sold, but I wouldn't argue that they were written to sell.
It was their job. They specifically sat down to write hit singles, and John and Paul competed against eachother. Look it up.
>Why would they bother to write chord structures that rebelled against the general trends of the time? There'd be no need to.
Verse/chorus/verse/chorus/middle 8/chorus was rebelling against the Verse/chorus/verse/chorus/middle 8/chorus trend at the time?
Super Furry Animals has made tons of great Beatles tier pop music, with hints of psychedelic experimentation.
They've had a consistently amazing discography for almost 20 years, and they're criminally underrated.
It's truly a shame they never got bigger.
>>60880447
>It was their job.
So every professional musician uses a "commercially-oriented pop songwriting formula"?
>Verse/chorus/verse/chorus/middle 8/chorus was rebelling against the Verse/chorus/verse/chorus/middle 8/chorus trend at the time?
No, the bridge specifically avoids the tonic-subdominant modulation cliché by going another route from I to IV than the standard I-I7-IV. There's nuance at work here.
I think in terms of music itself I'd say Of Montreal is quite similar
>>60880556
>So every professional musician uses a "commercially-oriented pop songwriting formula"?
Nope.
But in the case of The Beatles, they did. It was their job, and they devised a formula to wrote their songs. This is a simple concept, not sure why you don't understand.
>No, the bridge specifically avoids the tonic-subdominant modulation cliché by going another route from I to IV than the standard I-I7-IV. There's nuance at work here.
Not relevant to the fact of (see above)
>>60880706
>This is a simple concept, not sure why you don't understand.
Because you don't seem to see how often they deviated from it. The original poster's premise was, I assume, that pop artists of today do not deviate from their formulas often, if at all.
Also; the McCartney-Lennon rivalry was described by McCartney, the Anthology documentary, as much more a musical one than a commercial one. They wanted to write songs better than eachother first, not ones more popular.
Well, the criterias would have to be:
>hugely popular, most popular in their genre
>experimental & willing to change their style to create new things
>has an almost instant influence on other artists of their time
I'm not big on Kanye West, but I guess you could legitimately compare him to The Beatles in those aspects.
>>60876732
this
>>60880763
He's close but also miles away. There's nobody like them, because they came around at a time where 1; music drove popular culture, and 2; popular music was ripe for ground-breaking experimentation. People were into the idea of change, socially and musically. Today, not so much.
>>60880706
You still didn't explain the formula
>>60880755
>Because you don't seem to see how often they deviated from it
See >>60879960
>The original poster's premise was, I assume, that pop artists of today do not deviate from their formulas often, if at all.
Not my argument. I am not talking about other artists. Maybe that's where you are confused.
>the McCartney-Lennon rivalry was described by McCartney, the Anthology documentary, as much more a musical one than a commercial one
According to McCartney. Lennon saw it though a more commercial lens. That was one of his chief reasons for recording Double Fantasy, he was resentful of all the hits McCartney had throughout the 70s, while he hadn't.
>>60880813
Read the book.
>>60880853
No because its your argument that they used a formula therefore you should outline it
>>60880913
That doesn't explain the 'formula' in the slightest
>>60880812
>1; music drove popular culture, and 2; popular music was ripe for ground-breaking experimentation.
Not only these, but the lack of anything like the Internet means that people listened to more of the same music, allowing a band like the Beatles to have this almost monolithic presence in pop culture. Nowadays, with pretty much all popular music ever made only a few clicks away, there's no way for just one, or even just a handful of artists to have such a hugely devoted following. There probably never will be again, honestly.
http://www.stereogum.com/1469481/deconstructing-lcd-soundsystems-all-my-friends-and-trying-to-define-the-best-song-of-the-millennium/franchises/deconstructing/
This article sums it up pretty well, i think, even if it doesn't say anything about the Beatles specifically.
>Any music fan living during the ’00s — whether they were coming of age then or simply existing — has had the ability to experience everything at once. You no longer need to rely on a well-stocked local record store or that one good radio station in town to explore an artist for the first time. You can just YouTube anything you want regardless of era, style, or how popular or niche it was.
>A lot of people seemed to hold a fervent belief that R. Kelly’s “Ignition (Remix)” could (and deserved to) be named the Best Song Of The Millennium; I, on the other hand, experienced that song through a Chappelle’s Show skit, and otherwise spent 2003 reading about and listening to grunge bands online.
>>60880853
>According to McCartney. Lennon saw it though a more commercial lens. That was one of his chief reasons for recording Double Fantasy, he was resentful of all the hits McCartney had throughout the 70s, while he hadn't.
While he wasn't writing and releasing music, yeah. I'm not sure how much that speaks to their rivalry (which, again, only really applies to their earlier years) during their time in the band.
>>60880978
Do you think Carnival of Light doesn't exist because you've never heard it?
>>60880994
There are countless examples of either of them discussing their friendly rivalry to one-up eachother while they were in The Beatles. You should be able to find them easily.
>>60881032
I know. I'm saying it was to raise the bar with what they could write, not how much they could sell. They wanted to impress each-other, essentially.
>>60881046
>I'm saying it was to raise the bar with what they could write, not how much they could sell.
I didn't state otherwise.
>>60881102
Good, because you'd be wrong if you did.
>ctrl f
>no migos
smfh family
>>60881254
Much like these guys >>60879331 >>60879451
>>60881317
Pretty much.
>>60878092
Fuckinnnnnn this but only if AnCo had a bigger discgroaphy and was more well known
