Am I the only one who enjoys listening to early beatles?
They're really great 60's pop and I don't see why people hate them so much.
I guess it's because people compare it to their latter work which was more experimental and consistent, but there is nothing wrong with their merseybeat phase,
>>61282109
Because it's so samey and it gets boring, maybe
No, I also like listening to bands who tour instead of taking acid and running the tapes backwards.
because muh album and float downstream lyrics x_X
a hard days night and with the beatles are perfect merseybeat beat music albums
The Beatles never put out a bad record. From the the opening notes of "Please Please Me" in England, and "Introducing The Beatles" in the U.S. to the singles "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love" everything they did was great. And what they did between 1962-1966 is definitely some great music. So, fuck the haters. The Beatles still rock, as far as I'm concerned, no matter what era you prefer.
>>61282750
>fuck the haters
Go back to reddit
The 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 times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics 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. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
>>61282938
>The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "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 times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe”.
Well, Beethoven is probably the most famous classical composer today; and even in his time, he was one of the most influential, successful, and well-known composers in the world.
>Rock critics 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”.
That's not at all the reason why rock critics rank the Beatles as the best. They were very successful, but that's not why they were good, it's the other way around.
>“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”.
A contemporary rock critic who is reviewing the Beatles is reviewing the rock music of the past. And most rock critics tend to appreciate the 50s, 60s, and 70s as the best era for rock. Look at Rolling Stone's "500 greatest albums of all time" list: almost all the albums on the list were from the 60s and 70s. If the Beatles were a contemporary band that's successful, I could see this argument being made (those critics are just following success and don't know the classics of the past)... but the Beatles are the classics of the past.
>>61282938
>No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved. In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention 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, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him”.
Again, not true. Rock critics a) tend to prefer the classic stuff to modern music which they rightly deride as trash, and b) when it comes to modern music, they prefer obscure indie bands to the overproduced popular trash. Scaruffi might be looking more toward pop music critics, rather than rock critics... They're guilty of a lot of what he's saying.
The big difference between today and the 60's-70's era is that the bands that were good back then were also the successful bands. Some of the best rock music in history comes from very successful artists from the 60s and 70s: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Don McLean, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Eagles, Iron Butterfly, etc. Today, success and quality often seem to be inversely correlated, as can be seen by the success of Nickelback, Linkin Park, Green Day, and all their ilk.
>>61282669
Define post-rock
>>61282978
HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HOW NEW
>>61282978
>>61283010
you just got scaruffi'd lmao
>>61282978
>>61283010
>ACTUALLY BEING THIS FUCKING NEW
>>61282978
>>61283010
Holy shit just go back to reddit
>>61283018
>>61283026
>>61283057
ITT: Newfags gettjn triggered.
>>61283010
>replying to Scruffy pasta
>ever
The funniest thing is that this nigga didn't get baited like a newfag. He's just trying to be a special snowflake
>>61283122
>not recognizing old anti-Scruffi pasta
>>>/b/
>>61282978
>>61283010
>>61283073
>today success is inversely related to quality
Scratch going back to reddit, go back to 9gag
>>61282978
>>61283010
just give up. you can't take apart an award winning highly acclaimed essay in two 4chan comments. Face it, scaruffi is a god
>>61282978
>>61283010
Haha! u 8 it raw m8
>>61283149
>>61283144
Cry more about it though.
this thread is so post-trans-inter-ironic
>>61283166
Oh what instrument does he play again?
>>61283167
Embarrassing
>>61283189
>The value of art depends on the values of the artritic. Most art is born as imitation, not innovation. The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it. The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
>The critic is the real artist.
>>61283229
>I want to fuck 13 year olds
Why would I listen to 60s pop when there's so much that came after that does what they were trying to do better?
>>61282938
I'll go back to Reddit, when you stop posting the same stale, old, copy pasta.
>>61283260
>Scaruffi once tried to seduce me on omegle D:
>>61283018
>>61283026
>>61283057
>>61283071
>>61283122
>>61283149
>>61283166
>>61283167
Wow anons gettin b8ed hard here
what the penis is going on here
Here's the thing about Paul
That man had some serious pipes
>>61283584
Some serious pipes of peace
>>61283584
Definitely! The man could sing! George was also incredibly fucking melodic! Man could chugged some of the greatest chord progressions known to man!
>>61283674
>could chugged
>>61283674
>could chugged
>>61282109
For a long time I didn't listen to anything post-1966 Beatles.
