?
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
?
>>60877956
me on the left
What is George doing on Paul's ear?
Best Beatle desu.
Solid album, probably my favorite of theirs
I figured something out today.
Fast forward any Velvet Underground song x2 and it becomes a Beatles song.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2_2Z2u74Tk
This album is so bad it bothers me when people like it.
Objectively best Beatles album and their only relevant album when it comes to rock music.
They still made relevant songs afterwards, just not albums .
>>60879966
lol literally the best regarded piece of work in all of popular music is not relevant?
>>60880181
Sgt. Pepper's?
Because Revolver is generally regarded as their masterpiece together with Abbey Road.
>>60879966
>Objectively best Beatles album and their only relevant album when it comes to rock music.
Are you going to pretend Sgt Pepper is not rock (it's psychedelic pop!) and Rubber Soul isn't rock (it's folk rock!)?
>>60880294
Uhm, no.
Just saying that Sgt Pepper (as an album) wasn't very important to rock music when compared to albums released in the same year, unlike Revolver.
I can't talk for Rubber Soul though.
>>60880347
>Just saying that Sgt Pepper (as an album) wasn't very important to rock music
But a shit ton of other artists specifically cited it as an influence and/or inspiration, such as The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, etc
>when compared to albums released in the same year
Are you actually just talking about your own favorites here?
>>60880399
Of course, it's influence was massive, but just saying that the album itself, when it comes to it's artistic/musical properties, wasn't one of the most important from the year of it's release.
No, I'm talking about the most groundbreaking and original albums from that year here.
>>60880507
>No, I'm talking about the most groundbreaking and original albums from that year here.
Except that's not what we are talking about. You said
>relevant
Not "best" which is just your favorite, based on arbitrary standards you can't measure.
Or do you mean "relevant to me personally"?
>>60880561
Musically relevant, of course.
I'm not basing this on favorites, just the ones I consider to be the most original (which doesn't usually overlap with my taste).
And who cares that it can't be measured? History can't be measured yet we seem to trust it most of the time.
>>60880657
>Musically relevant, of course.
Relevant to other musicians? Yes, Sgt Pepper was.
>Just the ones I consider to be the most original
Changing goalposts.
>And who cares that it can't be measured?
If it can't be measured, it can't be "best" or "worst".
>>60880657
>History can't be measured
>what is a date/time/location?
Its probably the best album of all time after Sgt. Peppers.
>>60880741
I'm not denying it's influence (relevancy to other artists), I'm not even denying it's musical influence (which was huge), just saying that it wasn't one of the most important releases from a musical perspective when it comes to music released during 1967.
Musical relevance is defined by it's originality when compared to it's time of release, in my opinion.
It can be measured though. For each element present in a recording, if said element isn't present in previous recordings, said recording can be said to be as original as the sum of the number of original elements present in the recording. Keep in mind that a combination of elements is an element itself too.
>>60880768
>what is music analysis?
Just saying that history and originality can both be measured.
>>60880999
>from a musical perspective
Just stop.
>in my opinion.
You admitted you don't know what you are talking about. Your opinion is not relevant.
>For each element present in a recording, if said element isn't present in previous recordings bla bla bla
Revised your statement, huh?
We've been through this before. By your rubric, either ALL or NONE recordings are original because of the evolution of Western Music utilizing shared musical ideas and how no two recordings are exactly the same when every single element is compared.
>>60881084
Of course no two recordings are going to be the same, but some are still going to be more original than others. Compare Stockhausen's Gesang with Pet Sounds using Revolver as frame of reference. Which one do you think is more original in this context?
>>60881179
>but some are still going to be more original than others.
They are not because:
>no two recordings are going to be the same
You are contradicting yourself if this is your rubric.
Furthermore you admitted not knowing enough about 60s music to accurately state if any of these albums are more original than another.
>Compare Stockhausen's Gesang with Pet Sounds using Revolver as frame of reference. Which one do you think is more original in this context?
Not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking to compare and contrast the three albums?
>>60881282
1. It's not contradictory.
2. I only spoke when it came to Rubber Soul, not 60s music as a whole. Even then, this discussion was about music from 1967 initially.
3. I'm asking you to tell me which one you think is more original. Or are you telling me originality as a whole doesn't exist?
Fun fact: did you know, that on The Beatles' last world tour in 1966, not one song from Revolver was ever played in concert?
>>60881406
>Or are you telling me originality as a whole doesn't exist?
No, I am saying it's not measurable on an objective scale; it is relative to 1) context and 2) the listener's knowledge of music, so is thus completely subjective.
You initially said "relevant" which I interpreted as influence and inspiration for other artists (which is more objective and measurable). If you actually meant "relevant" as a sphere of "being original" then I don't even want to debate you because I of the above concerns and it is a pointless discussion you will never concede, only use circular logic.
>>60881490
But they did perform a song from that album's recording sessions.
>>60881554
Even if I disagree about those things making originality subjective, for the sake of simplicity, let's just assume that originality can be measured through intersubjectively terms.
Measure influence and inspiration then.
Let's shift the focus from relevancy to originality then.
Seems logical we will never reach agreement if you assume I don't want concede a point and neither do you. I mean, how can you claim originality isn't objective and then you suddenly claim influence is when it can be proven wrong with the same arguments you used for originality?
>>60881673
>Let's shift the focus from relevancy to originality then.
See >>60881554
>I don't even want to debate you because of the above concerns and it is a pointless discussion: you will never concede, only use circular logic.
>I mean, how can you claim originality isn't objective and then you suddenly claim influence is
Because you have specific artists literally stating they were influenced by a certain artist or album. .
>>60881554
>talking to a tripfag
>ever
>>60881725
That's subjective because it's relative to your knowledge on artist's assertions of their influences.
>>60881804
Fuck off
>>60881833
>That's subjective because it's relative to your knowledge on artist's assertions of their influences.
Which is why you shouldn't make a claim without research first.
>>60881833
>Just saying that Sgt Pepper (as an album) wasn't very important to rock music
Discusion claimed itself as "retarded" there.
Not going to talk to a Tripfag
>>60878758
Name one bad thing about it.
later beatles are best. white album and let it be are golden. abbey road is mediocre..
>>60881883
Still subjective according to what you said before.
The same could be said about originality.
>>60881884
ok
>>60881998
>Still subjective according to what you said before.
>The same could be said about originality.
Knowing the influences of an artist entails simply researching interviews of that one particular artist;
Knowing the originality of that artist entails knowing an entire working history of modern music.
\Which is easier?
>>60882141
Knowing the influence of an artist entails simply researching the totality of interviews from every artist that came after it
Yeah, very easy
>>60882282
Easier than knowing the complete history of modern music, no?
>>60882348
Both are impossible.
>>60882387
Also look at the answers: when an artist states his influence, the answer is concrete, it's not really open for interpretation. But when looking at originality, it's not a concrete answer, and it's open for interpretation.
>>60882438
Even if it's open for interpretation, that doesn't make it completely false. Scientific models are open for interpretation all the time (for example, atomic models).
>>60882475
>Scientific models are open for interpretation all the time
By using the scientific method.
Our last conversation determined you don't know what the scientific method entails. Do you remember? it includes:
>developing a theory base don observation
>theory must testable and make predictions
>others in the scientific community must test theory and publish findings for peer review
>theory is either refined or proven as a law
As you can see, you are not able to do this with your assumptions that "originality is objectively measurable"
>>60882643
>By using the scientific method.
Still interpretative.
Yes, I remember that, and I never disagreed with any of those points. Why is that you claim that I don't know what the scientific method entails then?
>originality is objectively measurable
It can be "proven" through Falsifiability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
>>60882773
>Still interpretative.
It's not. Art is interpretive. Science is not.
>Why is that you claim that I don't know what the scientific method entails then?
Because you just said science is open to interpretation.
>>60882862
>Science is not.
For data X and Y, I can estimate that those were caused by Z, while someone else could estimate that it was caused by W.
Both are interpretative, which doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid.
>Because you just said science is open to interpretation.
See above
>>60882882
I am done talking to you because you are either 1) insane 2) an idiot or 3) trolling me.
>>60882937
Yeah, that's what you call someone else when you are out of arguments.
Explain to me why this isn't true
>For data X and Y, I can estimate that those were caused by Z, while someone else could estimate that it was caused by W.
>Both are interpretative, which doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid.
You can't. Because that's how science works.
This is really lame on your part right now.
>see beatles thread
>assume avg has already shown up and autismo'd the thread to shit and people have already humored it
>be right
i hate being right senpai
>>60883002
Yeah, turns out /mu/ doesn't like discussion as much as they claim.
>>60883047
Quality over quantity
>>60883047
it's not a discussion when you shitpost the same fucking tired arguments over and over until people get sick of you and move on. then you do it again later after a few days/weeks/whenever the fuck another thread tangentially related to your autism crops up.
get off of your "i like to be proven wrong, really!" pedestal bc you argue like a petulant child
>>60883072
No quantity implies no quality
>>60883117
So, you have time to reply to a post like that but you can't say what's wrong about this post? >>60882882
>i like to be proven wrong
It's true. Otherwise I wouldn't bother discussing my ideas.
>>60880347
If you haven't listened to Rubber Soul, why are you even posting in a Beatles thread?
>>60883310
I have only listened to Norwegian Wood so far, but do you really need to listen to every Beatles recording to participate in a Beatles thread?
I don't think so.
>>60883228
>No quantity implies no quality
"Quality over quantity" does not imply nothing of either.
>>60883334
If you want to speak intelligently about it, yes.
>>60883228
you realize most people site sgt pepper as the most influential record of all time? not only just listeners, also artists, and music media sources such as the rolling stones? the recording process of sgt peppers took over 700 hours and incorporates the same elements as revolver, with more complexity and variety of musical styles. revolver is basically a prelude to rubbersoul, they are basically the same exact album. It isnt that original, not to say i dont personally like it. I like it MORE than sgt peppers, just for the record.
>>60883337
Why don't you reply to my other post instead?
>>60883380
That's pure bullshit
>>60883334
You don't need to listen to every Beatles album, but listening to all the albums from Rubber Soul on at least once is absolutely essential to a true understanding of rock music.
>>60883228
>It's true.
That's a load of shit. Every fucking Beatles thread you say the same fucking thing, have the same fucking argument, and then eventually mention how you've only listened to this album and that album and not that album or this album, then act like you're actually going to do it eventually. Fuck off.
>>60883399
>Why don't you reply to my other post instead?
Why don't you tell us, in the past, an instance of when you admitted your ideas were wrong.
>>60883394
>you realize most people site sgt pepper as the most influential record of all time?
Yes, but that's not what I'm debating here.
You missed the whole point of my argument which was
>Revolver is one of the most original albums from it's year (therefore musically relevant), while Sgt, Pepper, while relevant too, wasn't as relevant when compared to their contemporaries.
I'm not even disagreeing with most of the stuff you mention on that post.
>>60883409
Maybe it is, but it wasn't relevant to the point I was discussing here.
>>60883425
The only late career Beatles album I haven't heard is Rubber Soul.
And I do like to be proven wrong, but what has Rubber Soul to do with it?
>>60883444
I admitted I was wrong when I said that the Beatles weren't the first rock group to use tape loops on their music.
Care to reply to my other post now?
>>60883522
i mean im not disagreeing and saying it wasnt a relevant album, because, let's be real, its revolver. but like its not that different from the album rubber soul. i suppose since it came first you can consider it original but with the release of rubber soul you basically have two clone albums. also, sgt pepper is just as original if not more than revolver.
>>60883522
>And I do like to be proven wrong, but what has Rubber Soul to do with it?
It has more to do with the fact that people have been telling you to listen to that album or at the very least recommending that you listen to it for fucking months and you still haven't done it. You don't actually make an effort to educate yourself when the opportunity arises.
>>60883581
I wouldn't know, but from what I remember, Love You To is far more radical than Norwegian Wood. Also, Revolver was very Psychedelic compared to Rubber Soul, so it's weird that you claim that both are the same album.
>sgt pepper is just as original if not more than revolver.
That's not what I'm trying to debate, it's this.
>Revolver is one of the most original albums from it's year (therefore musically relevant), while Sgt, Pepper, while relevant too, wasn't as relevant when compared to their contemporaries.
It has to do with the context of each album.
Also, since you seem to be an "impersonal observer" of this discussion I'm having with this anon. What's your impression of it? Do you think I'm biased, or is that anon biased?
>>60883627
I have a large backlog of a lot of things I want to listen to from almost every genre I can gather, so of course I'm going to take a while to listen to it. But you are right, I should listen to it as soon as possible, because of how much I like to discuss about this subject.
Now, there's another thing. What has Rubber Soul to do with anything about my initial discussion?
>>60879966
shut up
>>60883664
>What has Rubber Soul to do with anything about my initial discussion?
Because you literally made a (very bold) statement that Revolver is "objectively" (there's that word!) the best and only relevant album in their oeuvre without having fucking listened to all of their albums. I swear you are retarded.
>>60881900
good day sunshine
>>60883522
>Care to reply to my other post now?
Which one specifically?
>>60881900
The drums are awkwardly panned to one side.
>>60883692
fuck off
>>60883703
Okay, I have to admit I was exaggerating a lot when I said it was their only relevant album, and yes, it wasn't very smart to make that claim without having listened to Rubber Soul. However, nobody seemed to care about it until now. Maybe because it actually isn't a relevant album? No idea.
>I swear you are retarded.
It's their only late career album I haven't listened to, not a big deal.
>>60883723
See >>60882882
>>60883664
It would take 35 minutes to sit down and listen to the album, you twat.
>>60883744
>It's their only late career album I haven't listened to, not a big deal.
Way to demonstrate your ignorance. Stop coming in these threads with your shitty trip and "objectively hurr" bullshit.
>>60883761
Also this, I guarantee this album is shorter and more palatable than 90% of your backlog, and is and has been considered an essential pop rock album for actual decades. Yes, you are missing a piece of the puzzle for not having closely and thoughtfully listened to it.
>>60883761
I'm going to listen to it right now.
>>60883721
That song is literarily McCartney perfecting his upbeat air sound. That song marks 80% of the rest of his sound for the rest of his career.
>>60883791
>Way to demonstrate your ignorance.
It wasn't relevant to the discussion we where having earlier anyways.
>Stop coming in these threads with your shitty trip and "objectively hurr" bullshit.
Make me
>>60883664
you seem biased towards revolver. why do you think it's more relevant? also unless im misunderstanding, you seem to be contradicting yourself. you're arguing that that sgt pepper isnt as relevant to its contemporaries, but >sgt pepper is just as original if not more than revolver. isnt what you are debating?
>>60883744
>See >>60882882
I wasn't that guy you were talking to. He said he left, I assume he's gone because your autism scared him away. Maybe in the future if you want a real discussion, stop being such an autist.
someone be a doll and gimme a rundown of the autism i've stumbled upon entering this thread.
>Rubber Soul
The pot album
>Revolver
The acid album
>>60883808
whatever, it's bad. you asked what's bad and that song is bad.
>>60883850
>sgt pepper
the carnival album
>>60883522
>>60883581
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>60883840
just yr regular ol amg thread
im p sure i could have recreated this word for word after her initial post, as a parody of amg threads
>>60883840
>Autist-Math God of Mu claims Revolver is only relevant Beatles album
>says it's only relevant because it's the most orignal
>debates over if originality can be measured
>Autist-Math admits he hasn't even heard all Beatles albums
>>60883867
>Wasn't defending the song in any way
>Blame McCartney for the same thing John started to resent him for
>>60883817
I was asking for bias towards the discussing I was having earlier than that.
Even then, I don't think I'm really biased towards Revolver. I mean, check this
https://rbt.asia/mu/thread/S60407359#p60414478
That was one month ago, where I used to think Sgt Pepper was better and now I think it's Revolver. I already said why.
>you're arguing that that sgt pepper isnt as relevant to its contemporaries, but >sgt pepper is just as original if not more than revolver. isnt what you are debating?
You are missing the point, which is how original those two recording where when compared to other recordings from their release dates.
Sgt Pepper might indeed be more original, but a lot of albums where very original during 1967 too, while it isn't the same case with rock from 1966, where Revolver was clearly one of the most original recordings around at that time.
>>60883825
Do you disagree with what I said there (even if you are somebody else)?
>>60883898
k
>>60883914
I was exaggerating when I said "only"
>>60883929
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>60883906
i'll be your laugh-man if you pick up a trip and act like a parody of her lol
>>60883914
damn, that's SOME SHIT
>people stupid enough to think that every album from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road wasn't gamechanging level relevant with how massive and popular the Beatles were
jesus christ how embarrassing
>>60883979
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>60883923
>wasn't defending it
>just objecting to someone calling it bad
make up your mind you dog
>>60883929
>Do you disagree with what I said there (even if you are somebody else)?
Yes.
>>60883929
all right. well..so what? who cares if revolver was the only album that was relevant THAT year? the beatles released a groundbreaking album pretty much every year they were together
>>60884009
that poster did say it was McCartney perfecting that style. Didn't say that everything that came after was good or that the track itself was actually bad. It was fine when no one knew that shit was basically all Paul would write after 1968
>>60884023
I'm a different poster then the one who called you out brah
>>60884035
>>60883929
sometimes multiple in one year
>>60884056
What?
>>60883984
Nobody is denying that.
>>60884023
Why?
>>60884035
I care. The thing is that every past Revolver wasn't remarkably special (musically speaking) if you compare it to albums from the same years. Now, that doesn't mean those albums weren't relevant (they certainly were), just not as much as Revolver was at the time.
>>60884056
u.u
>>60884067
>yfw John was wrting the shit on Pepper's and Revolver at 26
>>60884098
>Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. See Occam's razor. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[6] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[7]
>>60884098
>>60884098
>White album
>not special for '68
ok den
>>60884098
>so what?
>>60884132
It definitely was, but not as much when compared to various albums from the 1968.
>>60884145
So what I said before.
>>60884119
>A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:
>It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It's possible to refute claims on originality.
>It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It's possible to have many independent sources of evidence when it comes to measuring originality.
>It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
It's consistent with pre-existing results.
>It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
This fits too.
>>60878011
what is Paul doing in Paul's hair?
>>60884098
>The thing is that every past Revolver wasn't remarkably special (musically speaking) if you compare it to albums from the same years
Oh is this cherry picking here?
>>60884277
but when looking at what album could be seen as having the largest immediate effect and still a big effect, the biggest band in the world having a fucking 8 minute sound collage on their #1 hit album is pretty important
>>60884354
How is that cherry picking?
>>60884277
>>A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:
>>It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
>It's possible to refute claims on originality.
>>It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
>It's possible to have many independent sources of evidence when it comes to measuring originality.
>>It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
>It's consistent with pre-existing results.
>>It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
>This fits too.
Non sequitur
>>60884370
>it's not as interesting as the specific hand-picked albums I choose
I have a feeling you won't be comparing Beatles albums to the Spinners or Ohio Express.
>>60884368
Yes, but there where other bands doing far more original things at the time. In the case of sound collages, you have Zappa and United States of America, for example.
Again, I'm not denying their importance (which was huge), I'm just saying they weren't the most important ones.
>>60884379
No, that's not non sequitur.
>>60884400
>it's not as interesting as the specific hand-picked albums I choose
That's the whole idea of it. How the originality of Beatles' albums compare to the originality of other's artists albums.
>>60884400
hey now i'm sure they're incredibly well versed in the funk and r&b scenes that caught fire with the Civil Rights movement
>>60884419
but if you're the person to take an idea and make it visible to the masses, you're pretty important and you're totally discounting this
>>60884466
what gets popular and what doesnt is pretty arbitrary thanks to marketing, its basically plutocracy. discounting that aspect is fairer
>>60884466
Of course you are important because of that! I'm not denying it!
What I'm saying is that, from an artistic and musical perspective, they were not "the bests" from their time except for Revolver (maybe their earlier albums too). Now, that doesn't mean Sgt. Pepper or White Album weren't original, they certainly were, and a lot, but it's just that at this point Beatles were not at the top unlike they were during Revolver and earlier.
>>60884506
music industry/culture back then = same as now
F- see me after class
>>60884419
>No, that's not non sequitur.
It does not follow my reply, explaining why I disagree with your belief that it's OK to wildly misinterpret data. That's venturing into pseudoscience territory.
>That's the whole idea of it. How the originality of Beatles' albums compare to the originality of other's artists albums.
Which is why The Beatles albums were relevant and more original than many other albums of their time. Are there ones that might be more? Yes. But The Beatles are still a part of the upper tier, which is why they are remembered to this day.
/mu/ - Music
>>60884535
>Which is why The Beatles albums were relevant and more original than many other albums of their time.
Original compared to many? Sure!
>Are there ones that might be more? Yes.
That's what I was saying.
>But The Beatles are still a part of the upper tier, which is why they are remembered to this day.
Of course they are! But my point was that Revolver was their most important release. Why? Let's use this example
From the amount of relevant albums from 1966, Revolver was around the Top 5
From the amount of relevant albums from 1967, Sgt Pepper was around the Top 30
From 1968, White Album around 50
From 1969, Abbey Road around 200.
Of course, these are some quick estimates, but I think we can agree that the Beatles relevancy was decaying with Revolver (not because their actual quality was decreasing, but because the quality of their contemporaries was rising).
Can we agree on this or is there something I'm missing?
>it's OK to wildly misinterpret data
When did I imply that?
>>60884580
Is there anything wrong?
>>60884506
You realize The Beatles were literally packing the Cavern Club before they were even discovered right?
Avant-Math God can I ask you a serious question?
>>60884636
>Can we agree on this
No.
>but because the quality of their contemporaries was rising).
Like what?
>>60884655
Yes
>>60878728
woah
>>60884679
Do you have autism?
>>60884679
can you show me some of your baby dick?
>>60884636
>When did I imply that?
>>60882882
>>60884674
>No.
You only say that because of this?
>but because the quality of their contemporaries was rising).
>Like what?
In terms of originality. Shouldn't have said quality, but originality instead.
>>60884684
No
>>60884685
No
>>60884690
It's not misinterpreting data, but the conclusions we draw from correct data can differ, therefore it's interpretative (which doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid).
>>60884690
>>>/sci/7706666
There you have it. Science is interpretative.
Quads don't lie!
>>60884679
why is your tity so good it's ridiculous
>>60884695
>In terms of originality. Shouldn't have said quality, but originality instead.
Like what?
>You only say that because of this?
No, because of almost everything you say.
>>60884722
>the conclusions we draw from correct data can differ
If you are a crappy scientist.
>>60884812
sigh
>>60884933
>Like what?
For 1967, there's Pink Floyd, Red Crayola, Frank Zappa, Velvet Underground, for example.
>No, because of almost everything you say.
Like what?
>If you are a crappy scientist.
See this >>>/sci/7706666
>>60884983
>For 1967, there's Pink Floyd, Red Crayola, Frank Zappa, Velvet Underground, for example.
How is that more original?
>See this >>>/sci/7706666
Give me a source that isn't 4chan
>>60885048
>How is that more original?
Because of the amount of original elements their recordings had compared to Sgt Pepper.
>Give me a source that isn't 4chan
It's not supposed to be a source, but an argument. Read it and then tell me science isn't interpretative.
>>60885281
>Because of the amount of original elements their recordings had compared to Sgt Pepper.
Like what? Name them all.
>>60885281
>Read it and then tell me science isn't interpretative.
Give me a real source.
ITT: that one trip no one likes making a fool of himself
>>60885516
>Like what? Name them all.
I won't, that takes a lot of time.
Do you sincerely disagree with any of those choices?
>Give me a real source.
Tell me where you disagree with the post that the guy from /sci/ did.
You don't need a source saying that science is interpretative.
>>60885557
>no one likes
The favorite tripfriends strawpolls prove you wrong. You seem to be the only anon here who dislikes me that much.
>>60885640
>The favorite tripfriends strawpolls prove you wrong.
dude are you really resorting to that, like holy shit
just fucking admit you're autismal over the Beatles, move on and stop ruining other Beatles threads for other people
>>60885692
>dude are you really resorting to that, like holy shit
He said
>no one likes
And the strawpoll literally is about selectring all the tripfriends you like.
So, literally 40 people or more like me.
>>60885692
>just fucking admit you're autismal over the Beatles
Is that a bad thing?
>move on and stop ruining other Beatles threads for other people
I'm not ruining the thread, and I'm actually enjoying this discussion.
Move on and stop ruining my discussion.
>>60878728
Woah man vocal tremolo (is that the right word) sounds really weird when it's sped up
>>60885640
I don't like you. Please leave.
>>60885640
the only thing gayer than tripfags are those tripfag generals and tripfag strawpolls
>>60885840
Fuck off. You go instead.
Now cry some more about the things you don't like.
Fucking kids these days...
>>60885858
I'm not denying it, I just wanted to prove that guy wrong.
XTC > The Beatles
Sorry, but it's true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3romsFIcbAg
>>60878728
ARE WE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS?
>>60886231
bcuz epistememelogy
>>60886376
>I missed you Avant God
Why do you say that?
>post about how much you love Hair Pie Bake 1
I don't really love that track, but I wish I did.
>>60885898
I was kindly asking you to leave and corrected the blatant lie that you aren't loathed here. You can call me a child if it makes you feel better, that is only a sign of your pain. I'm not crying; I'm drinking the delicious tears that will inevitably fall on your pillow tonight.
>>60886474
>corrected the blatant lie
Which one?
And I'm sorry for telling you this, but only kids get upset about people doing things they don't like.
I was asking for this discussion when I posted my first post on this thread, so no, there won't be any tears or anything like that.
>>60885640
>I won't, that takes a lot of time.
I thought you wanted to discuss music. I guess you were trolling all along.
>Do you sincerely disagree with any of those choices?
I disagree with your assessment of what is more or less creative, since that is subjective.
>You don't need a source saying that science is interpretative.
You make a claim, you need to prove it.
>>60888000
>I disagree with your assessment of what is more or less creative, since that is subjective.
In that case me saying why I think an album is more original than the other makes no sense to you. That's why I said this
>I won't, that takes a lot of time.
I do want to discuss music, and I'm not trolling.
>You make a claim, you need to prove it.
Yes, and my argument is there on that link I posted. You refusing to read doesn't invalidate my point.
>>60878728
I'm floored by this
>>60880843
not trolling agree 100%
>>60888051
>In that case me saying why I think an album is more original than the other makes no sense to you
Are you trying to get out of defending your position?
>I do want to discuss music, and I'm not trolling
Then list the reasons
>You refusing to read doesn't invalidate my point
You just dropped trip and posted it. Give me a valid source or retract.
>>60888690
>You just dropped trip and posted it. Give me a valid source or retract.
If you refuse to read an argument then I don't see the point in following this discussion.
Independent if you need a source of it or not, that post is a logical argument on the interpretative nature of science.
>>60888831
Where's your list?
Still waiting.
>>60888863
I won't continue until you read the argument I link and then refute it. Otherwise there is no point in making that list.
>>60888942
>>60888942
>Otherwise there is no point in making that list.
These are two separate issues.
This is your last chance to post the list, since you made the initial claim the there were more creativity on those albums, you need to prove it.
If you don't post the list in your very next post, it will be shown that you really have no clue yourself and you are, once again, talking about thing you don't know (as you alreday admitted about Rubber Soul and tape loops and hi hats).
Last chance. Defend your argument or shut the fuck up.
>>60888996
No, you refute the argument on the link I posted first, otherwise you will just shrug it and say "hurr you can't measure originality" because you didn't read the post about science being interpretative, just like the measuring of originality.
>>60889042
Confirmed for know-nothing troll
Nothing more to see here folks. he doesn't even know what he's talking about. Once again.
>>60889105
You don't know anything, just like me, because you can't even defend the position of science not being interpretative.
How lame of you.
