Wilson or McCartney?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Wilson or McCartney?
McCartney master race
>>63387959
Wilson in a hearbeat. Guy was an absolute genius.
>>63387959
uuhhh, can't decide. both are great
McCartney
Although I will say that Wilson had the unenviable burden of having to drag a whole band kicking and screaming through the mud to make his masterpiece whereas McCartney was surrounded by other musical visionaries.
Both huge cucks.
Both qts tbphwyf
mccartney easily
>>63387959
Wilson for sure. He wrote more experimental and explorative pop music. McCartney seemed to play it safe.
>>63390210
I don't know man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdCH7ZewAfY
>>63387959
McCartney wasn't even the best brain in the Beatles
>>63387959
George Harrison
Which one?
>>63387959
McCartney wasn't shit without George Martin. Brian arranged and produced everything himself
>>63390920
George Harrison
>>63390866
Well, to be fair I haven't heard a lot of Paul's solo stuff.
But this doesn't really tickle my fancy. Sounds pretty amateur in my opinion. Like he's trying to emulate DEVO and Bowie.
Mccartney.
>>63387959
Brian. McCartney wasnt even the best Beatles and Brian single handedly competed with McCartney AND Lennon while at the height of their partnership. Not much of fight here. If Brian didnt implode before SMiLE and kept going on his streak, history wouldnt be the same
>Pebleian
McCartney
>Contrarian
Wilson
>Patrician
McCartney
>>63391671
d e e p
e
e
p
>>63388158
>having to drag a whole band
You mean Mike Love. Even then, it's exaggerated how much of an ass he was being.
Carl, Dennis and Al were pretty supportive of Brian. Carl in particular was absolutely chuffed Brian had written God Only Knows for him to sing and he adored the song.
>>63391671
Oh, that explains everything
>>63390920
I CAN'T WAIT
Brian = Paul (the golden boy)
Mike = John (the critic)
Dennis = George (the ignored)
Carl = Ringo (the heart)
>>63387959
Brian Wilson
>>63388214
Die.
>>63392033
did you just equal John Lennon and Mike Love
thats just disgraceful
>>63392033
Holy shit John Lennon was a prick, but he was no fucking Mike 'Don't fuck with the Formula' Love.
>>63387959
Mike Love
>>63391671
Lennon is plebeian
Brian was a better producer/arranger.
McCartney was a better instrumentalist/songwriter.
I like Paul better but I can understand the other way.
>>63394189
You just feel personally wronged by Mike cause he contributed to SMiLE being shelved.
Mike is a dick who bullied people and sued his own family but Lennon was a woman beater, hypocrite and an outright terrible father.
I mean, I inherently want to dislike Mike as a person more because he was mean to Brian but John did worse stuff, just to people we don't really care about.
>>63387959
oh it's the paul meme again. autists even come close to thinking mccartney is better than Wilson.
Brian>Lennon>George>Muh shitty showtunes every fucking song-ney
>>63395928
Yesterday, Temporary Secretary and Elanor Rigby are pretty good showtunes though.
>>63396120
compare that to
>honey pie
>Your mother should know
>Birthday.
> Getting Better
>Martha My dear
paul's shit song quanity is apalling.
>>63391671
kind of true
sometimes plebs just like the right things for the all the wrong reasons
>>63396261
this
>>63396230
Why would you judge an artist based on their worst work? Brian Wilson has written worse songs than Paul could ever dream of coming up with.
>>63396230
>>63396303
Also, Your Mother should know and Getting Better are well written songs, even if you don't enjoy them.
Also, if we're gonna bring up the worst of TWA, it'd be wrong to not mention Piggies, Revolution 9, Ob la di, etc.
Love and Starr are my fav from each band. Love being my fav musician of all time.
>>63396384
>putting Rev 9 on the worst of list
oh great we're looking at this type of beatles fan
>>63396417
It's a poorly made sound collage m8. Art musicians did that stuff better well before and since The Beatles did and it shouldn't have been put on a studio album any more than those other failed experiments should have.
>>63396303
the difference is Paul's shitty work is so uninspired so bland so mike love esque that it actually manages to outshine his best work (which I will concede is no easy task; the man made the masterwork of arrangement that is Let it Be). John and goerge were the innovators they kept the beatles fresh and interesting, Paul was good but his beatles work pales compared to John and his solo work pales compared to George.
>>63396460
explain why it's poorly made.
>>63396495
outshine was wrong maybe negate or murk or spoil would have been a better word
Based Brian Wilson is better and it's not even close
>>63396514
Well firstly, it bares basically no relation to the album and is out of place in the context it was released in.
The strings and orchestral textures sound cool through the tape loops and such but beyond that, the sound palette and all the random vocal snippets don't grab my interest.
It all feels a little aimless too. Like it was just putting a bunch of random edited motifs together. Compared to the way to noise artists, Stockhausen, Cage, Frank Zappa or even a band like the Olivia Tremor Control uses it, I don't think they do anything fantastic with the form.
>>63396495
>>63396535
I'd hate to experience music like this. It must be terrible to not be able to fully appreciate the good stuff an artist has done because you're too busy being a cynic about the bad stuff.
>>63387959
McCartney
>>63396777
wow
okay first of all what "relation" are you talking about? What Coherence? what context? Do you not understand what the white album IS? And if we consider the context being the social and historical context then there is almost no other song that the beatles have made which perfectly encapsulates the context of the sixties than Revolution number 9.
>it all feels a little aimless
this is what plebs actually think. Beefheart is "aimless" Merzbow is "aimless" Rev 9, a song with motifs, reoccurring vocalists, crescendos and panning is far from "aimless".
>random
yes a song that was worked on for days by three artistic mavericks is DEFINITELY rnadom nice one.
>>63396910
It's an 8 minute piece of music concrete shoved in at the end of an album made up largely of short pop songs. I find that disconcerting and don't think it works as part of the flow of the album.
>And if we consider the context being the social and historical context then there is almost no other song that the beatles have made which perfectly encapsulates the context of the sixties than Revolution number 9.
Could you explain that comment? I didn't know Rev. 9 was socially or historically significant.
>Beefheart and Merzbow
I'm actually quite fond of a lot of the stuff those two have done. The Merzbox stuff is some of my favourite ambient music and TMR is one of my favourite albums. I'm not sure why that's relevant to the conversation though. My favourite band could be Fall Out Boy but that doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid.
Motifs come and go but for the most part they get introduced, looped and there isn't exactly thematic development going on. Some of the loops get repeated a few times over the course of the piece but I don't qualify hearing the same squashed clarinet recording or "number 9, number 9..." as good thematic development.
The sudden dynamic shift and disconcerting vocal clips make it difficult to appreciate some of those melodies that are used. Some of those melodies are actually really pretty but all the other shite makes it hard to appreciate the piece as a whole.
>yes a song that was worked on for days by three artistic mavericks is DEFINITELY rnadom nice one.
I'm not sure why it's relevant who made the piece. Good artists are still well capable of making poor songs as we were discussing a few posts ago.
