Prove you aren't a drone, /mu/.
Why?
>>60895932
Because I'm not convinced that 90% of this board aren't P4k/Fantano/TMT/similar drones.
>>60895958
why do you need convincing? Why do you care about what other people listen to?
Division Bell is subjectively better than Dark Side.
>>60895920
Dire Straits is top 10 band ever
>>60895967
Because we all have to discuss music with them.
I'm a scaruffi drone, objetively superior.
>>60895999
this
Because if a certain music publication writes reviews on the music you happen to like - you should avoid it.
>>60895994
Well just discuss it instead of posting threads that go nowhere.
Revolver is, objectively speaking, the best Beatles album.
>>60896036
RYM drone
Kanye a shit and I generally avoid indie shit that melonhead and p4 likes
>>60896045
nope RYM has Abbey Road at the highest mark if you can believe it
>>60896036
for once you are correct
>>60896045
I thought Abbey Road was the RYM choice.
>>60896068
Most of the time I'm right though.
>>60895920
i actually think for myself
Bjork is shite and her fans are obnoxious
Grindlink is the best band of all time
>>60896090
>Most of the time I'm right though.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
i am but ive droned and am droning too many people, and none of those consistently enough, for anyone to identify me as one particular type of drone
>>60896099
Most of the time, I said c;
Of course I'm going to make some mistakes from time to time.
I hope you are not that guy from yesterday btw.
>>60896098
Why Grindlink?
>>60896144
That doesn't count as droning, imo.
I don't like Spiderland
My favourite band of all time is Dark Tranquillity
>>60896099
Who cares when she's a chilean qt
>>60896211
literally find a flaw in any of Gridlink's work
it's just flawless on an purely objective level, it's very original and on a subjective level it's also emotionally resonant
>>60896098
>i actually think for myself
BZZZT So said the robot pretending to be human
>>60896211
depends i guess. im seeing it used in a very loose sense, where it basically just means "adopting an opinion from someone else", aswell as in the a strict sense
>>60896254
eh idk dude, what counts as a flaw or not is too open to interpretation in most cases innit
>>60896254
I don't think being flawless is a requisite for a band to be the best ever.
The two other things could be said about many other bands, like Godspeed You, King Crimson, or Frank Zappa.
So, what makes them so special to deserve the place of the best band ever?
>>60896239
:3
>>60896303
Sure, but we all adopt opinion from everywhere, whether we like it or not. Actually, "droning" a lot of different people has a different effect than the usual "single droning"
I never listened to Neutral Milk Hotel
>>60896239
>she
>>60896328
They play extremely complex music but not wank, all songs are extremely carefully crafted
every single member of their band pushes their capabilities to the max
quite simply, there's no one doing what they do and even if it is, they probably do it better
i don't, know, what makes nay band so special to be the best band of the world?
>>60896036
Culturally and musically, it's Sgt. Pepper. It's so obviously superior that ever since the 90's people have been trying to chop it down. Nothing else they did was a totally complete or cohesive.
>>60895920
I like Courtney Barnett.
>>60896369
Culturally? Sure!
Musically? Maybe.
Musically relative to it's contemporaries? It's Revolver.
Why? Because at the time Revolver was released, that album had few "competitors" when it came to the most original albums of that year, but when Sgt Pepper was released, they were not releasing the most original rock there was when compared to 1966 (even if it was pretty original anyways).
Now, for this
>It's so obviously superior that ever since the 90's people have been trying to chop it down.
The same can be said about Revolver and Abbey Road.
>Nothing else they did was a totally complete or cohesive.
Many, many people will disagree with you for this.
>>60895920
This is the album I'm most looking forward to for 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FGPDau_QwA
>>60896443
>The same can be said about Revolver and Abbey Road.
Check out RYM if you don't believe me. A site full of people, born in the 90's, rating Pepper below Revolver and Abbey Road, and equal to The White Album, which is my personally favourite Beatles record, it's emotional character is so rewarding and revealing.
Nothing sounded like Pepper. It was a whole world on vinyl. A mini-music-verse condensed and defined in 40 minutes.
>>60896482
>Check out RYM if you don't believe me. A site full of people, born in the 90's, rating Pepper below Revolver and Abbey Road, and equal to The White Album
I wonder why that might be...
My argument there remains. It can be said the same when it comes to Revolver or Abbey Road.
>Nothing sounded like Pepper.
Pink Floyd's Piper and United States of America's self titled sounds a lot like it if you ask me.
There was a lot of other music that didn't sound like anything else at the time anyways, like Red Crayola, TVU&N, The Doors, Frank Zappa, Jimi Hendrix (maybe), Moody Blues, The Nice, and a few others.
>>60896552
>Pink Floyd's Piper and United States of America's self titled sounds a lot like it if you ask me.
Nothing sounded like it on June 1st 1967. Records like Piper At the Gates of Dawn that were either being recorded concurrently or after Sgt. Pepper were understandably influenced. Pepper took over every facet of modern culture. You couldn't not hear it.
>There was a lot of other music that didn't sound like anything else at the time anyways, like Red Crayola, TVU&N, The Doors, Frank Zappa, Jimi Hendrix (maybe), Moody Blues, The Nice, and a few others.
You can say this about 1966 too.
>>60895920
I havent bombed any Yemeni weddings lately.
>>60896552
>Pink Floyd's Piper and United States of America's self titled sounds a lot like it if you ask me.
Moron, those sound nothing like it
>>60896576
>Nothing sounded like it on June 1st 1967.
>Sgt Pepper was recorded during February 21, 1967 - May 21, 1967
I'm not disagreeing on their cultural influence, mind you.
>You can say this about 1966 too.
But for fewer albums, which means that Beatles were way higher at the ranking of original rock recording of the year.
>>60896595
They do sound similar, just not identical.
But if you have to call anyone who disagrees with you a retard, then I don't think I should expect much.
>>60895932
/thread
how do i know if i'm a "drone" ?
>>60896626
>I'm not disagreeing on their cultural influence, mind you.
June 1st is when it was released, is what I was making reference to. On that day, there was no album you could buy similar to it. That's partially why it was so successful, as I said earlier, it was a whole new world of sound. The novelty, as a piece of music and as a material product, was huge.
>But for fewer albums, which means that Beatles were way higher at the ranking of original rock recording of the year.
You can easily make the argument that 1967 being such a productive year for original music was at least partially due to Pepper's impetus.
>>60896679
Got a last.fm?
>>60896697
yea
>>60896728
Post it.
>>60896746
u first
>>60895920
nah
>>60895958
I'm pretty much a Death Metal Underground drone, does that count?
>>60896685
>On that day, there was no album you could buy similar to it
Agree. But it was one of the many original albums by rock artists. From the same year, the were no albums similar to the ones Red Crayola, TVU&N, The Doors, Frank Zappa, Jimi Hendrix (maybe), Moody Blues, The Nice, and a few others released in 1967.
>You can easily make the argument that 1967 being such a productive year for original music was at least partially due to Pepper's impetus.
It would make more sense for the year to be 1968 instead of 1967, because of how much time it takes to listen to the album, write your own album, record it, and distribute it, all of that in less than 6 months. Also considering the fact that few 67 albums had Sgt Pepper influences, or even Beatles influences.
They were not the only ones responsible for making rock music what it was in 1967.
That hypothesis you are making here is unlikely.
>>60896781
>few 67 albums
should be
>few of the most original 67 albums
5 favorite bands
Radiohead
Death Grips
Animal Collective
My Bloody Valentine
Godspeed You Black Emperor
>>60896781
>From the same year, the were no albums similar to the ones Red Crayola, TVU&N, The Doors, Frank Zappa, Jimi Hendrix (maybe), Moody Blues, The Nice, and a few others released in 1967.
Like Blonde on Blonde and Pet Sounds in 1966? I don't see how a thicker field devalues what Pepper represents. The fact that it remains so emblematic and iconic both culturally and musically amongst such a stalwart list of competitors only adds to the case for it.
>It would make more sense for the year to be 1968 instead of 1967, because of how much time it takes to listen to the album, write your own album, record it, and distribute it, all of that in less than 6 months. Also considering the fact that few of the most original 67 albums had Sgt Pepper influences, or even Beatles influences.
You can't undercut inspiration. Many artists have talked about when The Beatles did something nobody thought about, it spurred them on to greater heights and more adventurous musical ideas. If there's one thing Pepper is chock-full of, it's those.
>>60895976
They're both shit
>>60896852
>Like Blonde on Blonde and Pet Sounds in 1966?
Yes
>I don't see how a thicker field devalues what Pepper represents.
I'm not saying that, just that, musically speaking, Sgt Pepper wasn''t very relevant in relation to it's contemporaries. The album itself is still great though.
>The fact that it remains so emblematic and iconic both culturally and musically amongst such a stalwart list of competitors only adds to the case for it.
Abbey Road is far more emblematic and iconic.
>You can't undercut inspiration. Many artists have talked about when The Beatles did something nobody thought about, it spurred them on to greater heights and more adventurous musical ideas. If there's one thing Pepper is chock-full of, it's those.
You completely missed my point. We are talking about music from 1967 here only. So, which bands recorded an album from 1967 that was musically influenced by Sgt Pepper?
>Many artists have talked about when The Beatles did something nobody thought about
The same can be said for Frank Zappa and TVU
>>60896912
>I'm not saying that, just that, musically speaking, Sgt Pepper wasn''t very relevant in relation to it's contemporaries.
Not relevant how?
>Abbey Road is far more emblematic and iconic.
It's album cover is. The album itself is not.
>You completely missed my point. We are talking about music from 1967 here only. So, which bands recorded an album from 1967 that was musically influenced by Sgt Pepper?
Pink Floyd's debut is, for one.
>The same can be said for Frank Zappa and TVU
Far less people were affected by their music.
>>60896932
>Not relevant how?
Musically, in relation to it it's contemporaries.
Was it original? Yes
Was it the only original? No
Was it the most original? No
Therefore, it's not particularly relevant when it comes to the music itself when compared to it's contemporaries.
>It's album cover is. The album itself is not.
It's the highest rated Beatles album on RYM. I think that speaks for itself. Or do you have another source to consider Sgt Peppers as the most emblematic?
>Pink Floyd's debut is, for one.
Yes, I agree, I even said it before. But is there anything else? From 1967, of course.
>Far less people were affected by their music.
We are talking about musical influence, not cultural.
>>60897011
>Was it the only original? No Was it the most original? No
Was Revolver? You can make a case for many records from 1966 or 1967 that weren't Beatles records. Or, you can make a case for The Beatles records themselves.
>It's the highest rated Beatles album on RYM. I think that speaks for itself.
I don't think that says anything more than people like it more. Virtually nobody on RYM was alive or concious of the fact when Pepper was released, so their appraisal, unless they research, of it's status and impact on society, isn't that informed.
>Yes, I agree, I even said it before. But is there anything else? From 1967, of course.
You then have 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' by The Rolling Stones, of course.
>We are talking about musical influence, not cultural.
Of course. I stand by what I said. Both King Crimson and Can only came into existence due to Beatles songs from 1967.
hey /b/ i have a question: hypothetically speaking, what would you send a very good friend's ex, who's hurt him badly, for his birthday? ideally you would send it per e-mail
>>60897099
>Was Revolver?
Yes, Revolver was because it had fewer competitors.
>You can make a case for many records from 1966 or 1967 that weren't Beatles records.
What about Red Crayola then?
>I don't think that says anything more than people like it more. Virtually nobody on RYM was alive or concious of the fact when Pepper was released, so their appraisal, unless they research, of it's status and impact on society, isn't that informed.
Fair enough then. Keep in mind that was a discussing about their cultural importance btw.
>You then have 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' by The Rolling Stones, of course.
Oh, definitely.
>Of course. I stand by what I said. Both King Crimson and Can only came into existence due to Beatles songs from 1967.
Sorry, didn't meant to say musical influence, but musical originality. Now, King Crimson and Tago Mago and Future Days Can had few Beatles musical influences, despite them being inspired by the band to play music.
>>60897176
>Yes, Revolver was because it had fewer competitors.
Pet Sounds is right there with it. I wouldn't be overly confident ranking either record above the other.
>What about Red Crayola then?
Definitely highly ranked in 1967. Crazy album.
>Sorry, didn't meant to say musical influence, but musical originality.
Well, I think The Beatles in 1967 were just as original as Zappa and The Velvets.
>>60897211
>Pet Sounds is right there with it. I wouldn't be overly confident ranking either record above the other.
Of course it was! Both recordings where at the top of the year, while it can't be said the same for Sgt Peppers.
>Definitely highly ranked in 1967. Crazy album
Nice
>Well, I think The Beatles in 1967 were just as original as Zappa and The Velvets.
Zappa in 1967? Maybe. Absolutely Free was pretty new when compared to what was going on during 1967
Velvets? No.
TVU&N was pretty original when it came to almost every song from that album, while I would argue that the only remarkably special song from Sgt Pepper was A Day In The Life (and maybe Mr Kite).
>>60897246
I think to take Pepper in as a whole, rather than in a song-by-song basis, is the key to understanding it. It was made that way, with the songs bleeding into one another.
>>60897282
Yes, I'm aware of that, but the album as a whole wasn't particularly interesting when you had things like Moody Blues, for example.
>>60897307
The album as a whole, with it's thick, patented, tape-echoed sound over practically all of it, was very interesting. Critics collectively lost their minds over it like they'd never done so before.
>>60897331
Yeah, you are right. The overall sound of Sgt Peppers was pretty innovative.
>>60897353
Hello :3
The Cure is my favorite band
>>60895932
wow dude that's líke totally meta af yo
