I prefer The Beatles.
pic related
>>60454431
same
Beatles were more consistent, Beach Boys at their best were better than the Beatles.
>>60454431
Same
The Beatles > Phil Spector's bands > The Beach Boys
>>60454431
Beatles > Wings > Beach Boys
>>60454431
I prefer the Beach boys because Pet Sounds is one of my favorite albums of all time
Wich are better? The Beatles of course. I love The Beach Boys too.
Imo beatles have a shitton of good songs, and more pop-friendly.
beach boys on the other hand, has favorable/memorable songs.
both are equally timeless
also, i just started listening to beach boys recently. i grew up listening to beatles so im not sure if my comment is biased
>>60454454
this 100%
Objectively speaking?
Frank Zappa > Velvet Underground > Beatles > Beach Boys
Personally?
Frank Zappa >= Beatles >= Velvet Underground >> Beach Boys
>>60454626
>Objectively
How is something objectively better?
>>60454626
>Velvet Underground > Beatles
This is what people believe until they learn theory/composition.
>>60454662
>Beatles > Velvet Underground
This what plebs believe.
>>60454454
I disagree. The best Beatles song were better than the best Beach Boys songs. Beach Boys might also be more consistent.
>>60454654
By using objective standards instead of my own personal taste and feelings towards the music.
>>60454662
There's more to music than western classical music theory, you know?
>>60454626
>Personally?
>Frank Zappa >= Beatles >= Velvet Underground >> Beach Boys
Oh, we're playing this game? Cool.
Red Krayola > King Crimson > White Noise > Love > The Monks > Frank Zappa > Pink Floyd > Beach Boys > Velvet Underground > Beatles > Led Zeppelin > Rolling Stones
>>60454786
>objective standards
There is no objective metric by which to rate whether music is better or worse. You can use objective metrics to measure complexity of composition, production quality, and technical skill, but none of those equate to whether a song is good.
>>60454884
Is that a personal or objective list?
First of all, good and bad is an arbitrary concept. If you define good according to objective facts, you can accurately say that X is objectively good or not.
>>60454884
>Red Krayola
What an overrated band.
>>60454786
>There's more to music than western classical music theory, you know?
Both bands employ primarily Western harmony. One band is fluent enough to do a hell of a lot more with it than the other.
>>60454693
The fact that so many blogs still name the Velvet Underground as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far "alternative" music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all time are Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis, who were not the most obscure or unsuccessful or "inaccessible" of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly underrated Mozart over classical musicians who are highly popular on charts around RYM. Alt rock bloggers are still blinded by indie cred. The Velvet Underground influenced 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. Alt rock bloggers are often totally ignorant of most rock music of the past; they've made a point of avoiding the best sellers on principle. No wonder they will think that the Velvet Underground did anything worthy of being saved.
>>60454786
>By using objective standards instead of my own personal taste and feelings towards the music.
For example?
>>60454953
>Is that a personal or objective list?
Clearly personal given the second part of my post.
>If you define good according to objective facts, you can accurately say that X is objectively good or not.
Which I articulated in the second part of my post more or less, though this still means nothing. You are merely using observations of objective elements to better conclude why you enjoy something. There is no metric to definitively make an accurate declaration whether something is good or bad.
>>>60455108
>What an overrated band.
Every single one of the bands I listed could be called "overrated".
The concept of being "overrated" is entirely subjective, as ratings of music themselves are predicated upon a subjective appraisal on objective observation.
Well, The Beatles could never write anything like Wonderful, or Cabinessence, but, on the other hand, The Beach Boys couldn't write a song like Revolution #9 or You Know my Name (Look up The Number) so it's a toss up.
>>60455152
>Every single one of the bands I listed could be called "overrated".
Not the Beatles. They're underrated.
>>60455173
gr8 b8 m8 1/10
>>60455108
There's more to music than harmony alone.
>>60455111
Originality.
>>60455152
I know. But those elements are not the ones I use to evaluate what I like the most to what I consider to be the best.
>>60455202
>Originality.
That's subjective.
>>60455182
>Not the Beatles. They're underrated.
According to whom?
The fact that I can ask that, already makes the concept of rating irrelevant, as its a subjective measure. They are overrated and underrated and perfectly rated by millions of individuals across the globe.
>>60455202
You're right, Beatles compositions also tend to be more structurally innovative.
>>60455229
Your first mistake is believing that all opinions are equally valid.
>>60455212
It's not. It can be ambiguous though.
>>60455234
Except that not true. TVU were more innovative in terms of structure. For example, Heroin.
>>60455191
Prove me wrong. (Protip: You can't!)
lmao
>>60455271
>It's not.
It is. What you deem orignal, I could deem is not original. It is completely subjective.
>>60455275
>Well, The Beatles could never write anything like Wonderful, or Cabinessence
If I Fell, You Never Give Me Your Money, etc
>The Beach Boys couldn't write a song like Revolution #9 or You Know my Name (Look up The Number)
YKMN follows a modular approach that The beach boys pioneered with Good Vibrations. So in fact, they wrote one like it before The Beatles even did.
As for Revolution 9, if you are not strictly going by tape-pieces, Wilson has a number of sound experiments recorded during 1966-1967, many of them on The Smile Sessions and related bootlegs.
>>60455322
So what? I could think that gravity doesn't exist. Does that mean gravity is subjective? Of course not!
>>60455271
>softly alternate between I and IV while talk-singing
>loudly alternate between I and IV while talk-singing
>softly alternate between I and IV while talk-singing
>innovative structure
I mean, I can imagine a nonmusician being impressed because "omg music with no chorus" but...
>>60455348
Science =/= art.
Try harder, I know you are not this stupid.
>>60455355
Okay. What did Beatles do then?
Also, I'm literally a musician. Good or bad one, doesn't matter.
>>60455390
It's the same argument. Science is based on observations, originality is measured based on observations, therefore, originality can be measured from a scientific perspective.
>>60455421
>Science is based on observations
Only partially. It's based on the scientific method: predictions based on observations, then testing a hypothesis using experimentation. Gravity, in particular, has been proven. Read the Theory of General Relativity if you don't understand it.
>originality can be measured from a scientific perspective.
Explain.
>>60455461
I understand.
Now, what's that you don't get that we can make observations on originality and then measure it? What's there that is subjective?
>>60455322
>>Well, The Beatles could never write anything like Wonderful, or Cabinessence
>If I Fell, You Never Give Me Your Money, etc
>>The Beach Boys couldn't write a song like Revolution #9 or You Know my Name (Look up The Number)
>YKMN follows a modular approach that The beach boys pioneered with Good Vibrations. So in fact, they wrote one like it before The Beatles even did.
I'm not hearing any strong similarities in either example set. Wilson's and Lennon/McCartney's approaches are so distinctive that you could never mistake one for the other, even if you were just hearing them played on a piano. (Mature) Wilson is all about the second inversions and gratuitous 7s and generally keeping the tonal area hard to track, whereas Lennon/McCartney delight in setting up expectations and then subverting them with a sudden unexpected — but logical — modulation.
>>60454454
Fuck no. Why is Pet Sounds so overrated here? The best song on Pet Sounds or Smile (LOL) doesn't hold a candle to A Day In The Life or 90% of The Beatles output after 1966.
>>60455501
>Now, what's that you don't get that we can make observations on originality and then measure it?
Demonstrate your experiment and we will see.
The Beatles because I don't intend to listen to psychedelic barbershop quartet showtunes
>>60455548
Velvet Underground is more innovative than The Beatles because of their use of Noise. According to an observation, I drew a conclusion. Since it's a falseable experiment, it can be proven wrong, and the theory perfected.
>>60455542
cringe
beatlefags are fucking delusional
>>60455556
>not wanting to listen to psychedelic barbershop quartet showtunes
Both are trash
>>60455322
As for you analogy concerning songs like If I Fell, and You Never Give Me Your Money, I suppose, in some ways I could see Brain writing songs like that, but I still stand by my opinion and statement.
And as far as comparing Good Vibrations, and some of the sound collage experiments on various Smile bootlegs the discernible difference is there's a steady segue between pieces on YKMN while GV is quirky and disjointed.
And can you play any of the Brian Wilson tracks from the Smile bootlegs backwards? I think not.
Interesting point of view, but, again, I still stand by my statements and opinions.
>>60455589
>Velvet Underground is more innovative than The Beatles because of their use of Noise.
The Beatles were using "noise" before The Velvet Underground in the form of Ringo's use of an open hi hat on his drum kit.
>According to an observation, I drew a conclusion
As you can see, your definition of noise was subjective.
>>60455604
No, Brian Wilson cocksuckers are delusional, Beach Boys are a one album wonder. Everything they did post 1967 is absolute fucking trash.
>>60455626
>And can you play any of the Brian Wilson tracks from the Smile bootlegs backwards? I think not.
Oh do you not know how to use a wav editor?
>the discernible difference is there's a steady segue between pieces on YKMN while GV is quirky and disjointed.
That is an opinion on the technical accuracy of the editing; that doesn't change the fact they are modular in design.
>>60455643
>Beach Boys are a one album wonder.
and that one album is better than anything by the Beatles
>Everything they did post 1967 is absolute fucking trash.
literally "i've only listened to Pet Sounds": the post
>>60455632
That's an error with a definition of a particular element, and not because of the theory of originality itself. Therefore, we can actually say some music is more original than other from an objective point of view.
Even then, Noise, in this case, means the use of Noise as a compositional element itself, which wasn't the case of Ringo's drumming (because it was a side effect of his drumming).
>>60455606
I'm glad you enjoy the showtunes my tld friend
>>60455719
>and not because of the theory of originality itself.
Incorrect, because you will ALWAYS run into this problem because art is, by nature, subjective.
Come up with another experiment and I'll show you.
>which wasn't the case of Ringo's drumming (because it was a side effect of his drumming).
Incorrect. he was intentionally playing it like that. Have you ever played the drums before? You can control how opened or closed the hi hat is, thus creating more or less dissonance.
>>60455727
why even bother tripping if you have taste this shitty
i mean, you like oasis, for fuck's sake
The Beatles were better artists, he Beach Boys made better pop.
>>60455355
sounds like someone hates hip-hop
>>60455755
Well then, by that logic, music theory is flawed and subjective.
Ringo wasn't playing noise music, even if his drumming made noise, that's because to play noise you need to use the noise as an instrument itself.
Another observation.
Zappa was more original than Beach Boys because Zappa combined Rock with Musique Concrete (Cucamonga album).
>>60455632
How is that a disconnection of a sent signal?
>>60455643
>Everything they did post 1967 is absolute fucking trash.
I'm Team Beatles and this is a blatant falsehood.
>>60455589
>Velvet Underground is more innovative than The Beatles because of their use of Noise.
This sentence basically encapsulates the musical depth of the typical untrained (or worse, self-trained) TVU fanboy.
>>60455542
>after 1966
Further proof that early Beatles is underrated.
It's actually hilarious to watch you guys try to impose objectivity to popular music desu..
Originality might just be objective really, however what deems originality a positive or negative trait is not, so really proving this right or wrong is pretty irrelevant
Art is usually revised and critiqued through evaluating somewhere between method and how well the art itself communicates.
By the terms of art, The Beatles' White Album achieved something TVU never did, not even in their so beloved self-titled... much less The Beach Boys. But you guys are definitely right when you say that the innovations TVU, Capt Beefheart and Zappa brought in are definitely valuable to the development of popular music, although I'd also argue that these influences are fairly lost in its own time and what we tend to hear today are mostly variations of the beatles, both in pop and non-mainstream pop. I feel like it wasn't the original elements they brought in that made the difference; it was more of the freedom they brought into popular music that made it both awful (everyone makes starbucks albums) and rewarding to listen to. THAT is why albums like Sonic Youth are posted in the walls of the Pompidou. under the art objectivity, not whatever you guys claim to be.
>>60455868
I'm not a TVU fan boy. I haven't even listened to their self titled, while I have listened to every Beatles album since Revolver (and some early singles + AHD). I'm more of a Beatles than a TVU fanboy actually, since they have more songs I like the most.
Still, that's an ad hominem, and you haven't refuted my point.
>>60455846
>Well then, by that logic, music theory is flawed and subjective.
How so?
>Ringo wasn't playing noise music
He was creating a noise with an instrument. That's what you said, right? That's certainly what VU was doing.
>that's because to play noise you need to use the noise as an instrument itself.
Which the hi hat was. Is that not an instrument? Do you not know what a hi hat is?
>Zappa was more original than Beach Boys because Zappa combined...
Not originality/innovation. It had already been done before. And that shows you another reason why "originality" is subjective.
Which jogs my memory, you said
>Velvet Underground is more innovative than The Beatles because of their use of Noise.
But noise was alreday used by avant-garde composers, so thus any use of it was not innovative.
>>60455931
I disagree with your first point.
Good art (from a subjective point of view) is art that we perceive innovative, as long as it falls under our own personal tastes.
Good art (from an objective point of view) is art that is innovative, regardless of our own personal tastes.
>>60454454
This is the correct answer
The Beatles formula was always better than the Beach Boys one, and the band developed much better as well
that said, none of the Beatles had half the genius of Brian Wilson, and when he was at his peak, no one could touch him
>>60455985
>Good art (from a subjective point of view) is art that we perceive innovative, as long as it falls under our own personal tastes.
Not all people cherish innovation. YOU might, that's fine. But I might not.
>>60455985
usually, in an academic field, all art is innovative... if not it is disregarded. we reached a point where art is extremely fragmented so this search for innovation is both a mess and idiosyncratic.
>>60456025
i also ground "good art" after whether or not innovation has been delivered and thus making me want to look at the work. like most people who attend galleries i don't want to waste my time on something that doesn't deliver.
>>60455933
>you haven't refuted my point
No one can refute a "point" consisting only of semi-relevant music terminology smushed together for no discernible purpose. Give us something quantifiable. "Use of noise" is not quantifiable.
>>60455985
>muh innovashun
I thought I smelled RYM.
>>60455707
>and that one album is better than anything by the Beatles
LOL no. Are you implying an album that contains "Pet Sounds" and "Sloop John B" is better than Abbey Road or Revolver?
>>60455945
>How so?
Because art is subjective, and music is art.
TVU was playing Noise alone, while Noise in the Beatles was played with Ringo's drumming.
He was more original than Beach Boys according to that fact. Independent if he was the first one to play that music or not.
Notice the "more". It was MORE innovative THAN Beatles. Even if someone else already did it before.
Early Beach Boys < Early Beatles < Artsy Beatles < Artsy Beach Boys
>>60456007
Everybody does as long as it fits their personal taste. Can you find me an example that contradicts my theory?
>>60456025
Some art is more innovative.
>>60456050
Use of Noise is quantifiable...
First, as an exist/doesn't exist perspective. Second, as a more or less perspective.
>>60456063
>Because art is subjective, and music is art
No I mean specifically. Discuss some music theory right now and show me how certain scales are subjective.
>TVU was playing Noise alone
How so? What made it noise?
>He was more original than Beach Boys according to that fact
According to the fact that he did something unoriginal? Doesn't make sense.
>Notice the "more". It was MORE innovative THAN Beatles
Again, it wasn't because "noise" wasn't new or innovative.
OK, so let's get back in track here. This was your experiment, right? What did you examine here? How did you select your sample? What was your sample? How did you remove observational bias in your experiment?
>>60456116
>Everybody does as long as it fits their personal taste. Can you find me an example that contradicts my theory?
Well I can go to a million different stores and buy a Velvet Elvis or a Crying Clown painting. Why? because people like it, and they are not innovative.
>>60456116
please don't give me half assed responses when i gave you an entire argument to discuss, you're the only one here defending your point.
further, let me make a simple comparison here: andre breton created the surrealist movement and made works to support his manifesto, does that mean he is the best of the surrealists considering they all worked around his manifesto, since he is the most innovative and influential in that movement?
the answer is no, however. considering specially how timely his work was and how dated it feels to look at it. this applies to no-wave in music and several other movements.
>>60456068
middle Beatles (singles) > early Beatles > post-Pet Sounds Beach Boys > back-to-basics late Beatles > Pet Sounds and earlier Beach Boys > le experimentashun middle Beatles (albums)
This is the ranking for people who prioritize songcraft over gimmicky studio effects.
>>60456120
I don't disagree with that. You did, because you said music (therefore scales) was subjective (because it's art).
Noise elements. You can look at what the word means on any dictionary or encyclopedia.
Originality is relative, not absolute. He combined Musique Concrete with Rock. That combination was original.
Yes. Originality between artists. Sample was Zappa's Cucamonga and Beach Boys discography. Observational bias wasn't present because I'm using facts here. I could be proven wrong though.
>>60456138
And why do they like it? Because it fits their personal taste. And what are they going to like more? Whatever is more original that fits their personal taste.
>>60456176
I haven't seen any works by him (yet I have read his manifesto), but there may be surrealists that were more original than him. If not, then I guess he's the best. Otherwise, who would be and why?
>>60456180
>whatever is more original that fits their personal taste
>beatles' fanbase is massive
>fits a massive array of personal tastes
>thus more original by your argument
>>60455659
I was talking about physically playing the songs backward by hand, providing that one has a turn table for vinyl, or a special C.D. player that can play backwards.
Also I don't think "Technical Accuracy" can ever be a form of an opinion, only a fact. How a person feels about each individual song is an opinion. My point was that YKMN has a smooth transition that makes the song flow through evenly while GV has many different parts that make it sound like it's many different songs pasted together to create one song. It actually might be one of the earliest examples of "Sampling". I actually like and appreciate both songs equally DESU, so there's no need for bickering over the subject. And you are right about both songs being modular in design. You'll get no argument from me on that point.
Reminder that without Bob Dylan both bands would've been playing stupid love songs until the end of the 60's. Well, the Beach Boys kind of did anyway
>>60455306
I want to congratulate the people in this thread for ignoring stale b8.
>>60456210
No. That's not what I said. Read my post again.
>>60456216
>lyrics
>important
>>60456207
surrealism, as you have read, worked much like any other movements where the baseline was established by the manifesto and all works functioned as permutations of whatever andre breton intended.
no-wave functioned under a conceptual baseline and all of the musicians in that context worked with how music could deliver their timely struggles. some were more successful at it.
all of these are evidences that originality, the only argument you claimed to make art objective, are mostly false.
>>60456255
if they are there they were probably intended to be heard
>>60456180
>You did, because you said music (therefore scales) was subjective (because it's art).
How we *perceive* scales as *good/bad* is subjective. The existence of scales is objective. Nice strawman though
>Noise elements
It's your argument, you need to defend it, especially if you are attempting a Scientific Method for judging art. You need to define your terms. So I'll give you one more try
>Originality is relative, not absolute
Which is why it cannot be objective.
>That combination was original.
Again, that is a subjective value judgement. it was still rock, it's not original.
>Yes. Originality between artists
OK but what was your specific sample size though? You already said you haven't listened to either Beatles nor VU's full discography. So this is a problem with your Scientific Method, it is a bias sample size. Already, you are not doing so well because you are not really using scientific methods for this experiment. .
>And what are they going to like more? Whatever is more original that fits their personal taste
Neither is original though. Do you not know what I am referencing here? Are you intentionally arguing a Circular logic?
>>60456266
Are you telling me here that originality doesn't exist? Because some surrealists were definitely more original than others.
the Arctic monkeys and the kooks are the better bands.
>>60456288
Not him but if you knew anything about Surrealism, it often functions or is stemmed from the subconscious. Hence true originality is not a concern since that originates largely in the conscious mind, rather than the subconscious.
I prefer Little Richard, specially the gospel years.
I win.
>>60456276
Yes, the existence of originality is objective. You might not think of it as good or bad though.
Time is relative, but that doesn't mean it's subjective.
It was more original because of an original combination of already existing elements.
Beatles discography from 66 to 69 and AHD. TVU's self titled and WLWH.
Not a problem of size sample.
Are you telling me originality doesn't exist in any way then?
>>60456309
Yes, but the expression of their subconscious, their art, could he more or less original when compared to other artists from the same movement.
>>60456288
originality in an epistemological sense does not in fact exist, no. but i think that originality will often stem from a need for change of thought which usually will be again, a permutation of what is currently conceived. the only progression of thoughts are permutations of itself. this is a very contemporary notion, and a very needed one considering how much work exists once starbucks albums became a thing (i love this term so much, godbless whoever wrote whiplash). anyway, i can see you learned at least a thing or two from this conversation and there really isnt another goal to this. a while ago i came to /mu/ looking to be educated, didnt happen; im glad i can bring at least some contribution to you now. there is no point to continue in this line of thought without leaning into a heavily philosophical and epistemological area which is most complicated to argue through this format of message.
>>60456345
>Yes, the existence of originality is objective
It can't be, because it's only relative to context and how much musical knowledge the listener has (for instance, you were unaware The Beatles used Noise before VU because you have never played the drums before and hadn't listened to many pre Rubber Soul albums)
>Time is relative, but that doesn't mean it's subjective
We can do experiments on this, as people have; in contrast, your experiments on music analysis have not turned out well.
>It was more original because of an original combination of already existing elements.
Well the very nature of organized music will always have original combinations (different lyrics, different chord sequences, different instrumentation). Thus EVERYTHING is original and innovative (I think a different anon alreday stated that btw)
>Beatles discography from 66 to 69 and AHD. TVU's self titled and WLWH.
Why'd you pick those?
>Are you telling me originality doesn't exist in any way then?
It exists as a subjective criteria.
>Yes, but the expression of their subconscious, their art, could he more or less original when compared to other artists from the same movement.
But it wouldn't be relevant because it wasn't their intent.
>>60456396
>It can't be, because it's only relative to context and how much musical knowledge the listener has
and that is why we don't use this as a valid term in art critique, no one has seen everything or heard everything.
just thought it was an underrated post
>>60456395
I would argue that originality exists, even from an epistemological perspective.
If you want to keep discussing this we could continue through email. I would enjoy it at least.
>>60456396
Yes, and gravity doesn't exist because we can't know it works the same everywhere on the world because we aren't omniconscious.
It wasn't that I wasn't aware of their use of Noise, I disagreed when it came to their use of Noise as remarkable.
My experiments aren't very precise yet, but they could be in the future. Just like the relativity of time.
Everything is original, yes. But some is more original.
Seemed appropriate. Any suggestions?
To them? Sure. But that's irrelevant to their actual status as more or less original.
>>60456490
>Yes, and gravity doesn't exist because we can't know it works the same everywhere on the world because we aren't omniconscious.
It doesn't work the same way everywhere in the world depending on the distance to heavenly bodies. I alreday mentioned reading the General theory of Relativity, and you remarked "I understand" but clearly you do not.
>My experiments aren't very precise yet, but they could be in the future
Another quality of the Scientific Method is PEER REVIEW. Clearly we are doing that now, but the reason your experiments won't improve in the future is that I showed you two problems with your experiment, and you refuse to acknowledge them. That's not how science works. If you want to apply scientific method to art in order to be more objective, that's fine; but if you deviate from the process just to reassure your own tastes/beliefs, then it is not objective, it is subjective, and your experiment failed.
>Seemed appropriate.
Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29
>Any suggestions?
Your Theory stated the artists as a whole, so you need to take their art as a whole.
>But that's irrelevant to their actual status as more or less original.
What is "the actual status"? Who defines it? You?
>>60454431
I think that they are both mediocre bands and when i say mediocre i mean barley mediocre (really close to being called bad) but if i have to chose Beatles because they had better discography overall, tho Pet Sounds is better than any Beatles album ( i still think Pet Sounds is a mediocre album)
>>60456617
I understand that. The difference being about not being able to know what rules gravity everywhere in the world at the same time.
Okay then. But that doesn't stop something from making it scientifically possible. For example, there used to be people who thought it was impossible to determine smaller things than atoms, and this was proven wrong. Similar case with my originality point.
I'm going to restrict their sample size to measure their originality on simpler ways.
If not, I can conclude that TVU&N is more original than any Beatles album after Revolver.
The consensus of their originality.
>>60458059
>look mom! I won an Internet argument!
pathetic
>>60454626
Top kek
The Beach Boys are really good. But Paul McCartney just by himself is better than them.
The Beatles had 4 druggies who were willing to experiment to no end after they left their boy band phase.
The beach boys had one creative genius who was constantly held down by everyone around him, including the other members of the band because they wanted to stay in their boy band phase.
Brian is more talented than any individual member of the Beatles, but as a band the Beatles are certainly better.
>>60456748
Sorry, I had to engineer some recordings. I'm back.
>I understand that
You don't because
>The difference being about not being able to know what rules gravity everywhere in the world at the same time.
General Relativity Explains that. You don't know what you are talking about.
>For example, there used to be people who thought it was impossible to determine smaller things than atoms
Science =/= art critique. We already established this.
>I'm going to restrict their sample size to measure their originality on simpler ways.
Still sample bias
>If not, I can conclude that TVU&N is more original than any Beatles album after Revolver.
Yet any Beatles album after Revolver has elements not present on VU&N, so The Beatles are more original, right?
>The consensus of their originality.
As defiend by who, though?
Also can you explain this: >>60458059
>>60458843
Yes, General Relativity explains that. What I'm saying is that we can't be sure it happens everywhere. Why? Because we haven't experimented it on every place at once.
Art critique es subjective, you say?
Even if it was sample bias, it's still better than no sample at all.
Of course! I was just positing an example on TVU being more original, but I could have done the same for the Beatles.
We all know what originality means.
There's nothing wrong about my posture from that image. I was being honest, and while I might have made a mistake, it's not a reason to invalidate someone else's opinion entirely.
>>60455933
>listened to every album since Revolver
listen to Rubber Soul, it's their best imo
>>60459006
It's on my backlog, but not a top priority by any means. I don't even see a reason I should anyways.
>>60458930
>Even if it was sample bias, it's still better than no sample at all.
Not how scientific experimentation works.
>I was just positing an example on TVU being more original, but I could have done the same for the Beatles.
Doubtful. Reason being you and I have alreday had this conversation maybe a year or two ago, and you are using the EXACT same comparison. That tells me you really don't know what you are talking about.
>We all know what originality means.
We all know what "good" and "bad" means as well.
>There's nothing wrong about my posture from that image. I was being honest, and while I might have made a mistake, it's not a reason to invalidate someone else's opinion entirely.
There shitty thing is that you are going to continue believing these preposterous things and blab about it tomorrow, despite all these glaring holes in your process, as well as your admittance that you don't know the subject you are discussing.
>>60459064
Why not? If you're a Beatles fan, you'll enjoy it. It has the poppy soulful spark of the early albums, while the masterful composition and innovation of the later work first make an appearance.
>>60459073
That's exactly how scientific experimentation works.
We had the exact same conversation one year ago and you keep using the same comparisons. That tells me you don't really know what you are talking about.
Are there any doubts as to what originality means then?
It was a mistake. Nothing wrong with that ffs...
>>60459144
Sure, but I'm a fan of many other bands too that I'll probably enjoy too. From what I have heard, that album wasn't really innovative anyways.
>>60459230
sure it's not the most innovative, but it's the most fun listen in their catalogue for me :^)
>>60459230
>That's exactly how scientific experimentation works.
[citation needed]
We had the exact same conversation one year ago and you keep using the same comparisons.
What was our conversation? Post it.
>Are there any doubts as to what originality means then?
It exists as a subjective criteria.
>It was a mistake. Nothing wrong with that ffs...
But your whole argument rests upon it.
I suggest you just drop it This thread is being archived, that you want to claim "innovation" is the cherished aspect of music, but you admit you don't know how to gauge it. Just stop replying.
>>60459303
B-but you said it had innovation...
>>60459340
Would you even know if you heard it?
>>60459340
I said it was the first time they were innovative, i didn't say it was their most m8
>>60459331
You were the first one to mention our conversation. You should know which one we are talking about.
Yes, and I admitted being wrong. Not a big deal. I wish more people on /mu/ would admit it when they are wrong.
Well, are you one of those "all music is of equal value" that you say that? Because if not, you would be contradicting yourself.
I enjoy chatting with you btw.
>>60459351
Maybe. If not, I can always ask.
>>60459369
Oh, I see. How was it innovative though? I have only listened to Norwegian Wood so far.
>people still take AMG seriously
goddamn it cmon boys knock it off.
>>60459412
>You were the first one to mention our conversation
And then you erratically tried to quote me as a retort. So post our conversation since you think it's a valid retort.
>Yes, and I admitted being wrong. Not a big deal.
Will you cease your bullshit then?
>Well, are you one of those "all music is of equal value" that you say that
No I don't think so.
>I enjoy chatting with you btw.
I do too, which is why I continually instigate a discussion with you.
>>60459464
I don't think it's valid, that's why I said the same thing to you you did to me. Because it was irrelevant.
I will gradually improve my views thanks to the contributions of /mu/ posters like you.
How can we define good music then? Because any reason you say would be subjective if you claim originality to be subjective. Or am I wrong?
It's good to know that the feeling is mutual.
>>60459423
>music discussion is bad
Hurr
>>60454626
Zappa is objectively a tryhard fedora who wasn't funny
>>60459522
>I don't think it's valid
Why are you using the exact same example? Why not use a different one?
>How can we define good music then?
Music is not inherently good or bad. The listener perceives it as either good or bad.
>Because any reason you say would be subjective if you claim originality to be subjective. Or am I wrong?
Not following you here. What we perceive as music is just organizations of airwaves moving at difference frequencies--that is the only true objective view of music, measured by Hz and dBs. Any additional value to it is subjective that we are giving it, including good, bad or innovative.
>>60459064
>I don't even see a reason I should anyways.
You don't like great pop music? Rubber Soul is one of the most significant pop albums of all time because it was one of the first conceived as an album, rather than a collection of songs.
>>60459586
This is so wrong though.
Also, buzzwords
>>60459612
If you are the one who I think you are, our argument for TVU vs Beatles had to do with Sunday Morning and I'm Only Sleeping. Pretty different example to the one we are using now.
Of course! But we, as a collective of listeners, could agree on what the desirable qualities of music are, and if those happen to be measurable, we could then talk of objectively good music.
Yes, of course. But if we define originality as the combination of elements that a specific work has that are not present before, we could talk about objective originality (keep in mind the combination of non original elements can be original too).
Example, we have A B and C. Suddenly, we make D. D is original. Now we have A+B. A+B is original too, but not as much as D.
>>60459716
>This is so wrong though.
In your opinion.
>>60459695
I love pop music. It's just that there's so much more to it than just Beatles.
Yes, that's a good view of it. But I don't perceive it yet as important enough for my own taste.
>>60459754
name your favorite pop artists
>>60459754
>It's just that there's so much more to it than just Beatles.
Much more that's considerably less impactful and historically significant, sure.
>>60459716
>If you are the one who I think you are, our argument for TVU vs Beatles had to do with Sunday Morning and I'm Only Sleeping. Pretty different example to the one we are using now.
No I mean the statement
>Velvet Underground is more innovative than The Beatles because of their use of Noise
Why not something else?
>Of course!
Yes!
>But we, as a collective of listeners
Yes...
>could agree on what the desirable qualities of music are,
Sure...
>and if those happen to be measurable,
Not always...
>we could then talk of objectively good music
No, not at all. It is subjective. Not objective because it's a value judgement based on human emotions. The objective measure of music would be in Hz or dBs, not innovation or enjoyment.
>Yes, of course. But if we define originality as the combination of elements that a specific work has that are not present before, we could talk about objective originality (keep in mind the combination of non original elements can be original too).
>Example, we have A B and C. Suddenly, we make D. D is original. Now we have A+B. A+B is original too, but not as much as D.
OK I see what you are saying, but my two thoughts are:
1) Innovation isn't necessarily a positive quality over others and isn't the be all end all of art
2) What is or is not innovative is subjective, depending on context and the musical knowledge of the listener.
As for your A+B not D scenario, again, you are cherry picking what elements are being labeled "innovative" because all music is going to have different elements. Hard Day's Night is going to be more harmonically innovate than VU&N. So now you are back to square one.
>>60459738
Yours is an opinion.
>>60459809
Impactful?
Other than that, I agree.
>>60459807
Don't have a definite list now, but from the top of my head.
A. G. Cook
XTC
Yes
Beatles
Tages
Beatles
Paul McCartney is god.
>>60454431
When did you realise that The Beatles were punk as fuck?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll-mYwoT_G8
>>60455589
The Beatles is more innovative than Velvet Underground because of their use of tape loops. According to an observation, I drew a conclusion. Since it's a falseable experiment, it can be proven wrong, and the theory perfected.
Beatles are better.
>bigger, better pop tunes
>more weird
>more avant garde
>most consistent
B E T T E R
E
T
T
E
R
>>60456216
>>60456255
Dylan was a huge influence on both The Beatles and The Velvets. He got the former into marijuana which lead to a more soft and introspective focus in their music, as well as introducing acoustic guitars. Lou Reed's vocal style is clearly Dylan-inspired.
>>60459912
Rubber Soul didn't have an impact? Eastern instrumentation? No filler? It had lots of impact. Partially by virtue of it being a Beatles record that both art connoisseurs in New York and pre-teen girls paid attention to, of course, but it also introduced lots of new things to the sphere of popular music.
>>60460229
>No filler?
There was indeed filler on Rubber Soul.
>>60456290
kek
>>60460253
Brian Wilson didn't seem to think so.
>>60460269
That doesn't matter
>>60460307
Sure it does. It had impact on the musicians active at the time of it's release. Brian Wilson's realisation after listening to it that albums could work as whole pieces of work as opposed to simply collections of smaller works is an example of this.
>>60460332
>It had impact on the musicians active at the time of it's release. Brian Wilson's realisation after listening to it that albums could work as whole pieces of work as opposed to simply collections of smaller works is an example of this.
That doesn't make it not filler though.
>>60460432
Then it faked it really well. Well enough for it's perceived lack of filler to make other musicians propel themselves to greater heights, anyway, which is one of the ways in which it was a watershed moment for popular music.
>>60460432
My point is thus; the fact that the music world thought it didn't have any filler is more important than whether or not it actually didn't. Opinions lead to decisions lead to actions. Actions have consequences.
>>60460453
Yeah I know.
But don't be mistaken: The Beatles literally ran out of material and didn't have enough songs to fill the album. So they had to come up with bullshit that was not too great. So they scrapped it and revived an old song and then just gave Ringo a throwaway just to finish the album. I love Rubber Soul, but it does have filler.
>>60460502
Wait is from the Help! sessions and was tacked onto the end. Yeah.
>>60459866
>Why not something else?
I did one for Zappa vs Beach Boys.
>1) Innovation isn't necessarily a positive quality over others and isn't the be all end all of art
I would say originality is, but that's a whole other discussion.
>What is or is not innovative is subjective
It's ambiguous. An example of this on scientifig circles would be the 11 vs 12 dimensions theories. Maybe those are just lame theories, but that doesn't mean the theories there are subjective. Same case here with objectivity.
>depending on context and the musical knowledge of the listener.
Let's use a map as an example. It would be impossible, by your logic, to make an accurate map of the whole world. But it turns out it's actually possible. Why? Because we have been able to use the knowledge and context of various people to determine what the earth really looks like.
>As for your A+B not D scenario, again, you are cherry picking what elements are being labeled "innovative" because all music is going to have different elements.
Of course! But, some are going to have more original elements (various original elements), and some other are going to have more original elements (the originality of those elements is greater than that of their contemporaries).
>Hard Day's Night is going to be more harmonically innovate than VU&N
Sure. But that's one of many things we can consider to establish which one is more original than the other.
>>60460142
Of course!
We have tape loops versus noise in rock music then. Which one was more original though?
>>60460229
It's just that I didn't knew what you meant with impact. I agree with that, I guess.
>>60460707
>We have tape loops versus noise in rock music then. Which one was more original though?
You can say tape loops because they were the pinnacle of the studio-as-an-instrument revolution, and things like Tomorrow Never Knows, Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!, and What's the New Mary Jane represent this. No guitars, no rock n' roll, just technology and ingenuity.
Noisiness and distortion was also revolutionary, but I would posit that Hendrix mastered this better than The Velvets ever could, and spread it to a larger audience. I don't think any popular musician can match Tomorrow Never Knows for it's cacophony of illusions. Speeding up McCartney's laugh to imitate the call of a seagull? Genius.
>>60460707
>I did one for Zappa vs Beach Boys.
Oh I suppose you did didn't you?
>I would say originality is, but that's a whole other discussion.
Originality isn't necessarily a positive quality over others and isn't the be all end all of art
>An example of this on scientifig circles would be the 11 vs 12 dimensions theories. Maybe those are just lame theories, but that doesn't mean the theories there are subjective
There are mathematical equations that back it up though. There are no mathematical equations to back up "Wow! The sound of this guitar is innovative!" because it boils down to how you a) interpret the sound and then if you have a reference or not to it.
>by your logic, to make an accurate map of the whole world...
Once again, science (in this case geography) =/= art critique. How many times do I have to tell you this?
>Because we have been able to use the knowledge and context of various people to determine what the earth really looks like
Except the goal iof Science is to do that, to find one universal truth that can be expressed with an equation; in contrast art does NOT try to find one universal truth for everyone. It's a personal thing. Even you yourself are holding PERSONAL expectations and standards that no one else ITT does. Why? Because you view art differently. There is no Scientific method for it.
>But that's one of many things we can consider to establish which one is more original than the other.
Yeah, it would have to be a Hard Day's Night, right?
The Beatles are probably better. Although Pet Sounds and Smile are better than anything The Beatles ever did, The Beatles' entire catalog is unrivaled in terms of both popularity and innovation at the time. Simply incredible.
>>60460922
>Originality isn't necessarily a positive quality over others and isn't the be all end all of art
Like I said, I believe it is, but I don't want to talk about that today.
>There are mathematical equations that back it up though. There are no mathematical equations to back up "Wow! The sound of this guitar is innovative!" because it boils down to how you a) interpret the sound and then if you have a reference or not to it.
Well, even if you can (See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3126302/Move-art-critics-Computer-algorithm-reveals-original-masterpieces-time.html), if we assume we can't, we could always look at it from a more historical perspective. History s considered a science, even if it doesn't feature mathematical equations.
>Once again, science (in this case geography) =/= art critique. How many times do I have to tell you this?
Because I disagree with you "=/="
>Except the goal iof Science is to do that, to find one universal truth that can be expressed with an equation; in contrast art does NOT try to find one universal truth for everyone.
Not what we are discussing.
My only point here is that originality can be measured objectively.
>Even you yourself are holding PERSONAL expectations and standards that no one else ITT does. Why? Because you view art differently.
Einstein was wrong/being subjective for having a different view than that of their contemporaries? My point of view could be revolutionary (I know it's not).
>There is no Scientific method for it.
Not yet, but you can check out the link above. There is a scientific method to measure originality in art.
>Yeah, it would have to be a Hard Day's Night, right?
I wouldn't be able to tell here. Maybe that's right, maybe it's not. I can't be sure, but maybe you can.
>>60460855
Why tape "loops" exactly though?
Mr. Kite wasn't really relevant in 1967 though. I love the song though.
>Hendrix
Where exactly?
>I don't think any popular musician can match Tomorrow Never Knows for it's cacophony of illusions.
I wouldn't be sure about that, but TNK was certainly one of the best songs from the year and most important rock songs ever, even if it's my least favorite of their greatest songs.
>Speeding up McCartney's laugh to imitate the call of a seagull?
When does that play?
>>60461154
>History s considered a science
It's not. It's in the liberal arts sphere
>Einstein was wrong/being subjective for having a different view than that of their contemporaries?
No he had the mathematical equations to back him up. Be honest, have you read the Theory of Relativity or is it like the Noise thing stated here >>60458059 where you really don't know, you are just pretending?
This is my final post to you because you are now repeating yourself, arguing in circles.
>>60461172
>Why tape "loops" exactly though?
It's how they introduced elements of musique concrete into their music, and, as a result, popular music as a whole. Bridging the gap between Stockhausen and The Dave Clark Five.
>Mr. Kite wasn't really relevant in 1967 though.
I'm not sure why or how. It's one of the first pop songs to feature the use of chance techniques in the studio, with how Martin & Emerick sliced up the tapes at random and played them back at higher speeds for the middle eight.
>Where exactly?
What song of his didn't feature heavy distortion and feedback? Listen to Are You Experienced?.
>I wouldn't be sure about that, but TNK was certainly one of the best songs from the year and most important rock songs ever, even if it's my least favorite of their greatest songs.
I can't think of any popular group or musician that managed to paint as vivid a picture as TNK using tape manipulation. Which do you think can match it?
>When does that play?
Starts at 0:07 and fades out at 0:10, and re-emerges at various times throughout the song.
>>60461283
>It's not. It's in the liberal arts sphere
Okay then.
>have you read the Theory of Relativity
Yes, I have. My point wasn't what you implied, but rather than this argument
>Even you yourself are holding PERSONAL expectations and standards that no one else ITT does. Why? Because you view art differently.
was invalid.
What about the originality in arts study? That's a new argument.
>>60461322
>It's how they introduced elements of musique concrete into their music, and, as a result, popular music as a whole. Bridging the gap between Stockhausen and The Dave Clark Five.
Culturally? They would have been the most important. But Frank Zappa and The Fugs were already playing with musique concrete and tape loops as early as 1964.
>I'm not sure why or how. It's one of the first pop songs to feature the use of chance techniques in the studio, with how Martin & Emerick sliced up the tapes at random and played them back at higher speeds for the middle eight.
Yes, but at that time numerous bands were doing radical things. Pink Floyd, Red Crayola, Frank Zappa, Velvet Underground, AMMMusic, Fifty Foot Hose.
My point here being that, while relevant, it wasn't one of the most relevant of it's year, and even less for music as a whole.
A Day In The Life was the most original song from the year that competes with the bands mentioned before btw.
>What song of his didn't feature heavy distortion and feedback? Listen to Are You Experienced?.
What about the noise?
I have listened to it, but I don't remember any noise moments.
>I can't think of any popular group or musician that managed to paint as vivid a picture as TNK using tape manipulation.
Paint vivid pictures? Ozric Tentacles, A.D.D. Trio, Can, Faust.
>Starts at 0:07 and fades out at 0:10, and re-emerges at various times throughout the song.
huh, never noticed it.
>>60461474
>That's a new argument.
Goodbye. Argue with yourself
Beatles, no contest
>>60461557
What? Did you even see the study I posted?
>>60461474
>Ozric Tentacles, A.D.D. Trio, Can, Faust.
>popular group or musician
>popular
>>60461706
You are correct then. Or at least, I can't think of anything else.
>>60461474
>But Frank Zappa and The Fugs were already playing with musique concrete and tape loops as early as 1964.
Is there any recorded evidence of this? The Fugs' first tape-loop experiment on an album is "Virgin Forest" from their 1966 self-titled LP. Zappa didn't start releasing material until 1966.
>Yes, but at that time numerous bands were doing radical things. Pink Floyd, Red Crayola, Frank Zappa, Velvet Underground, AMMMusic, Fifty Foot Hose.
What radical things? Chance techniques like we hear on "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!? There's more than enough room for every band to carve out their space and create innovation. The Beatles just so happened to be doing it on the world stage. They were the most musically relevant act from when they played Ed Sullivan to when they officially disbanded and everyone, great and small, was tuned in.
>What about the noise?
Depends on what you would expressly describe as noise, I suppose. From what I know, noisiness is using feedback as an expressive tool. Hendrix did that better than anyone. Wikipedia lists him as a pioneer in this style. Along with The Who.
>Paint vivid pictures? Ozric Tentacles, A.D.D. Trio, Can, Faust.
I was talking about popular groups and musicians, to narrow down the field on an already abstract and incredibly subjective topic.
I think Tomorrow Never Knows' as a musical piece, coupled with it's psychedelic lyrics, describing the "ego death", is an unassailable watershed moment for popular music. From Ringo's previously unheard-of slack-tuned tom tom sound, recorded with enormous dampening, compressing and echoing, to the wavy and tumultuous textures of the droning tamburas and sitars. It opened up a whole new world.
>>60454431
haven't read the thread yet but from the 1000 other times we have had this thread, the general consensus seems to be: the beatles had a consistently better discography, but pet sounds was better than anything they ever did.
>>60461813
>Is there any recorded evidence of this?
Cucamonga by Frank Zappa. One of the songs there features musique concrete and is from an old tape he had from 1964.
Yes, they were innovative on that song, just not as much as the bands mentioned before. On the other hand, TNK was already one of the most impressive songs from it's year.
>noisiness is using feedback as an expressive tool
But that was just a by-product of Hendrix's guitar. Same as for The Who. If anything, The Monks were earlier. Actually, The Ethix used Noise before TVU did and in 1966.
>to narrow down the field on an already abstract and incredibly subjective topic.
Agree.
>It opened up a whole new world.
Yes, it was pretty impressive.
I like to think of TNK as Heaven and Zappa's Freak Out's D Side as Hell. Both are pretty interesting as a "sound picture".
>>60458059
was AMG the trip that got caught pretending he listened to some made up bands? there's a screencap of it but i can't find it.
>>60462020
No, that wasn't me.
>>60461944
>Cucamonga by Frank Zappa. One of the songs there features musique concrete and is from an old tape he had from 1964.
Which song? I'm intrigued to hear this. Also; I don't like "who did what first" contests. They're boring. I like finding what was the best, and so far as I've listened, Tomorrow Never Knows is it.
>But that was just a by-product of Hendrix's guitar. Same as for The Who. If anything, The Monks were earlier. Actually, The Ethix used Noise before TVU did and in 1966.
The Monks just sounded like bog-standard proto-punk garage rock to me. Maybe they sounded noisy because they didn't know how to play or record properly.
>I like to think of TNK as Heaven and Zappa's Freak Out's D Side as Hell. Both are pretty interesting as a "sound picture".
Freak Out sounds like what it says on the tin. A freak out. It's pretty cool, but doesn't transport me anywhere.
>>60462020
That was Hampus or CLT, I think.
>>60462172
>Which song? I'm intrigued to hear this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u_qIsXFFTo
> I don't like "who did what first" contests. They're boring.
You are boring
jk
I find those interesting. Now, he did it first, but I wouldn't call that effort to be remarkable.
>Tomorrow Never Knows is it.
I would argue Virgin Forest or Monster Magnet are at the same level.
>The Monks just sounded like bog-standard proto-punk garage rock to me. Maybe they sounded noisy because they didn't know how to play or record properly.
On Monk Time there's definitely some Noise there (or at least, noisier than Hendrix and Who).
>It's pretty cool, but doesn't transport me anywhere.
Music doesn't really transport me anyways, so, meh for me :/
>>60462020
This one?
>>60462345
I don't think what he did was bad nor that he was pretending to know those bands.
>>60462299
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u_qIsXFFTo
I was expecting something different. Sounds like a rock song with someone in the studio making funny voices in the background.
>I would argue Virgin Forest or Monster Magnet are at the same level.
Virgin Forest is ambitious, it's an enthralling collage, but the manipulation of sound to create entirely new sounds on TNK makes it a more worthwhile piece. Virgin Forest has the layers, but not the relentlessness of the pounding blend of anarchy and awe that TNK inspires. It's basically rave music. I must admit I have not heard "Monster Magnet".
>On Monk Time there's definitely some Noise there (or at least, noisier than Hendrix and Who).
I may give it a re-listen. I was not particularly impressed or taken aback when I had heard it.
>Music doesn't really transport me anyways, so, meh for me :/
That's a shame. Music implanting an image or memory in my head is partly why I'm so attracted to it. Tomorrow Never Knows is falling from atop the Cliffs of Dover into a bottomless whirlpool in the English channel.
>>60462567
>I must admit I have not heard "Monster Magnet".
Oh, my bad, I have, it's Side D on Freak Out!. Apologies.
>>60462567
Yes. That's exactly what it is. That's why I say it's not remarkable despite being the first.
Both bands used tapes to convey different ideas. None of them seems superior to the other to me right now.
Monster Magnet is the D Side of Freak Out (well, one of the songs from the Side).
It's their only song with actual noise. The rest is just proto-punk and garage rock. Still, that song is one of my Top 100 songs.
Music is more about emotion (not feelings) for me. It's exciting, and at its best, mind-blowing.
>>60462686
>Yes. That's exactly what it is. That's why I say it's not remarkable despite being the first.
Are the voices in the back looped? I don't get it. Anyone could overdub those.
>>60462976
I don't know.
What's your point?
>>60463564
Not him, but the claim that Monster Magnet was the first to have tape loops is untrue. People say the vocals are looped but there is no indication of it. He's asking you a rhetorical question so that you can realize there's no tape loops in the song.
>>60463987
I was talking about the Cucamonga album having Musique Concrete on it. Never said Monster Magnet was the first anything.
I wasn't even talking about Monster Magnet when this guy said this >>60462976
Reading comprehension, please...
animal collective 2bh
>>60454454
this is the only correct answer
>>60464735
The best Beatles songs (TNK, ADITL, Helter Skelter) were better than the best Beach Boys songs (God Only Knows, Heroes and Villains, Good Vibrations).
>>60463564
It just doesn't sound like tape music, is all. Sounds like a rock song with whacky vocal interjections overdubbed.
how about neither
>>60464765
I wouldn't put Helter Skelter anywhere near the Beatles' highlights, or even the White Album highlights. I do not need McCartney weedily shrieking over a backdrop of tape-echoed out-of-tune thrashing, no sir. The Beatles were better being themselves than being better versions of bands they competed with.
>>60465256
What's the song you are talking about on here? Just in case.
>>60465367
>I wouldn't put Helter Skelter anywhere near the Beatles' highlights, or even the White Album highlights.
What? Why not?
That song was one of White Albums' highlights.
>>60465505
>What's the song you are talking about on here? Just in case.
The 1964 one.
>What? Why not?
It's completely unconvincing and unsophisticated. A hasty McCartney misstep, he didn't make many, but that one was a dud.
>>60465537
You are right then. It doesn't sound like tape music. It just has a few seconds of musique concrete on it, but nothing remarkably special other than that and being the first rock songs to do that.
>It's completely unconvincing and unsophisticated.
Personally, I love it.
From an impersonal point of view, that song was a combination of garage rock, proto-punk, hard rock, and noise. It also featured a false ending-beginning with a climax towards the end and screaming. Those elements are what makes the song interesting and my candidate as one of the best Beatles songs. But you can disagree, of course.
Now that I think about it, it sounds way too much like The Monks, huh
>>60465701
Are the voices what makes it musique concrete?
The ending fake-out is a neat trick, Strawberry Fields Forever does it too, I was being overly critical, but I think Paul has a good number of tunes even just on The White Album that beat it. Martha My Dear, Blackbird & Honey Pie I would rank above it.
>>60465701
Not sure if I would draw a link to The Monks, if find the guitar tone to be a great deal more piercing than anything on Black Monk Time.
>>60456000
Paul McCartney is infinitely superior.
>>60466291
No. The first three seconds. Instrumental.
>tunes
Yes, that's why. Helter Skelter was more than just a tune. It's actually one of their less melodic songs even.
Never noticed the SFF trick though (I don't like that song anyways).
>>60466347
Yes, but the noise, screaming, and punky spirit/style are what made me think of them as similar.
>>60466584
I just use tune as a synonym for song.
>>60466584
Shame you don't like Strawberry Fields Forever, it's a mesmerising psychedelic soundscape.
>>60455643
SMiLE is better than Pet Sounds.
Wild Honey and Friends are good.
Sunflower and Surf's Up are great.
Your opinion is trash.
duahhhhh hello there im a typical retarded /mu/tant and i constantly compare a band that had 3 prolific songwriters to another with only 1 and think this will result in meaningful discussion hdduhh hhdhhrr drruuurhj duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh buhhhhhhhhhhhh
