What is it about The Beatles that keeps them held in such high regard even today?
People like shit music
Combination of being good and being accessible. Pretty straight forward.
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
Baby boomers.
1960s: music is created by the Beatles
>>60931853
it's very good pop music, but at this point it's their influence on so many artists. pretty much every pop artist lists the beatles as an influence in some way
It's really accessible and they have such a wide range of styles. They had legitimate talent and for their time they were pretty innovative.
>>60931885
So do you think the popularity will fade as time goes on?
>>60931853
The only reason is the fucktards at the rolling stone
>>60931853
they were pretty good, and its more of a cross-generational thing too. the ruling baby boomer class have kept them relevant, but lewronggeneration and the like still hold them in high regard. They don't as much for say, Elvis or Michael Jackson
>>60931853
It's catchy as fuck and every accessible. They cover a lot of genres too so it appeals even further.
>>60931853
The only people who don't like The Beatles are fucking weirdos, plain and simple. It's like not liking bread. They have so many great songs, unlikely the vast majority of artists to this very day, and they're the reason so many people try and make music today.
>>60932017
I don't give a fuck about Elvis but MJ was one sly dancing, funky motherfucker.
He has some cracking tunes.
>>60931884
Nice pasta
They made good music, what is with this Beatles backlash?
>60932039
well said
I'm reposting this from the archive because it's pretty much on the money.
>before the beatles, bands were people that corporations threw together and wrote songs for and they usually had a clear bandleader and they usually didn't play the instruments on the album. after the beatles, bands were friends that played together and wrote songs and then got signed. the beatles basically pioneered what we think of as a band at all. the beatles probably didn't invent it, but they did it right. and this was when every experimental musician hadn't anything yet, the rolling stones had no contract, the who had no contract, the beach boys had outside songwriters/musicians and were run by murray, and dylan played folk alone. the model wasn't even provided by jazz bands, those are too fluid. it's the beatles, and they continued to shape what a band was by showing how a band should theoretically progress, how a band should get their music out there (albums vs singles), and how and why a band should and will come to its end. and that's a thousand times more important than who recorded an 8 minute long song first, or used the sitar first, or used tape loops first. that's the lifeblood of pop music.
>>60932221
Thank you
Though the last three statements are also true and are all massively important
The Beatles did more for music than anyone since Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven
>>60931853
She loves you yeah yeah yeah yeah
>>60932599
>tfw she loves you but not yeah yeah yeah yeah
>>60932053
Literally this. MJ made some pretty good music.
>>60931853
they're being lobbyfied by people who are in power today who were angry kids back in the 60's
hipsters?
>>60931884
Yeah, meme, etc. But what about this is even wrong?
From what I understand he's not even saying they're bad, he's only saying they're incredibly overrated, and does anyone even deny that?
>>60931883
this
>>60932221
haha always consult the archive for the best answer
>>60932039
This. The Beatles are so diverse in their later career that there's bound to be at least one song in their discography that someone can like.
