Reminder that The Beatles are effectively the Mozart to Pink Floyd's Beethoven and both are objectively the greatest musicians in rock music.
Beatles = Mozart because:
>first half of their career is boring and derivative
>second half all boundary pushing, tremendously creative
>mastered the idioms of their day beyond the capabilities of any of their contemporaries
Pink Floyd = Beethoven because:
>very beginning of career spent imitating their original teachers (psych rock of Syd Barrett)
>eventually evolved into intensely conceptual and lengthened music
>effectively pioneered the idea of music as literature for their forms.
Also, because Pink Floyd had transcended the Blues connection with Rock by Meddle and instead were composing music with a distinctly new, unique language: similar to Beethoven with his 3rd symphony.
How about Brian Wilson? Where does he fit into this concept?
>>65664333
Haydn
>>65663254
Here's your (you). Don't spend it all in one place.
>>65663312
>by Meddle
yeah Seamus isn't blues sounding at all....
>>65665603
true but that's just a lighthearted 2 minute break between the first half and second
Good!
I liked Beethoven better anyway
>>65663254
Interesting idea, op, but there isn't much discussion which can be bright out by this concept, is there.
>>65665634
san tropez is blues and so are the other singles besides echoes...
>>65665754
yeah i agree with you 2bh. I think OP probably should have replaced the word Meddle with Echoes in >>65663312
>first half of their career is boring and derivative
This is the easiest way to spot that someone has no idea what the fuck they're talking about. The changes in the musical landscape brought on about by their earlier stuff are arguably some of the most important things they ever did. You can call it boring (but even that's dumb since its pretty much perfectly crafted pop music), but by no means was their early work derivative. The later stuff of course is still significant, but it's just way easier to spot how and why exactly that stuff is still revered.
Like come on. I like The Beatles and Pink Floyd even though they're not the "coolest" things to like on here, but this thread is fucking stupid.
>>65665920
Prior to Rubber Soul they did nothing worthy of great acclaim.
>>65663254
I like this a lot
I'm not big on classical music, but I need to know which composers, in this system, are these artists and why
>The Who
>The Kinks
and after that, moar
>>65666139
trying to extend it even more will make this stupid
>>65666179
You say that like it isn't already.
>How to spot a pleb who cares more about looking cool that listens to good music
>He hates the well made pop of the beatles' early career
>He likes the shitty experimental phase of ther latter career only because it was influential
>>65666217
it's stupid but at least it makes a little bit of sense. Unlike what this idiot wants, hurr durr bach is elvis and haydn is the who
>>65666247
have you ever been so much of a contrarian that you became a poptimist?
>>65666247
>shitty
>>65665991
This is absolute bullshit.
They flipped the entire fucking popular music scene on its head by legitimizing the idea that pop stars themselves could be the sole creative force behind their music. Of course people had done that before, but not on the level The Beatles had, and not with the same musicianship, energy and pure songwriting talent that they had. Their early sound may be cliche by todays standards, but genre blend of skiffle, merseybeat, rock n roll and rhythm and blues absolutely blew peoples minds. Nobody had heard that kind of energy, that tight groove they locked into when performing, and of course those melodies that John and Paul so effortlessly crafted.
>hurr people only liked them because their jew producer marketed them well
Sure, the marketing played a role, but that doesn't explain why people were going nuts over them prior to him ever meeting them, when they were still disheveled leather clad teenagers playing loud and dirty rock n roll (that was by many accounts, borderline proto-punk) in sleazy German night clubs, and eventually Liverpool. There are countless prominent musicians that point to their early work as hugely important. Can't Buy Me Love is what convinced Bob Dylan to go electric. Georges jangly Rickenbacker 360 12 on A Hard Days Night is the sound that ended of defining the folk rock movement of the mid 60's. The idea that they did nothing of acclaim prior to Rubber Soul is absolute horsehit.
>>65666247
your comment is just as fucked as what you're complaining about
>>65666283
I want to hear the op's thoughts, he didn't say "dae pink floyd is beethoven lol" he explained his thoughts and seems like a clever person
zoom out and look how fucking stupid and petty you are here, you're getting hormonal like the sad, awkward teenager you are and need to tone it down a few notches
>>65666462
What did the beatles do that Bob Dylan didn't do more radically and more importantly?
>>65666550
>getting this mad over someone criticizing you on /mu/
k
the comparisons in the OP are tenuous at best. plenty of holes. in spite of that, it somehow works a little bit. Trying to extend it further will do literally nothing but ruin any credibility it had
>>65666139
Stamitz and Vanhal
musicians who weren't good but were popular
>>65666589
tomorrow never knows, strawberry fields forever, i am the walrus, a day in the life, revolution 9, helter skelter, and eleanor rigby
>>65666589
I don't even understand how that's relevant, but see the first sentence of my post. The Beatles legitimatized the idea of pop musicians being able to craft their own music, and Bob Dylan legitimized the idea that pop music could actually be critically evaluated as art. You can't have one without the other. But again I wasn't even claiming that they were more culturally important there. (For the record, I do think they are in the grand scheme of things but its certainly a close match).
