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.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.
my favorite part of the whole essay is
>Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
>>61407941
oh, and when he goes on a rant about how the Beatles were mediocre musicians and says that Ringo was the most technically competent member of the band
>The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton, Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but more original). The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul McCartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence).
op is a huge nosed kike who is probs into cuckoldru
LUSTY
>>61408005
NEGOR
NEGRO
>>61407917
>Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane
I know this is the Scaruffi pasta but this isn't true. Everyone knows Coltrane is garbage. The real best of jazz are Duke Ellington and Miles Davis
Cloud Nine is the best post-Beatles album
>>61408026
Davis was better at making fusion than jazz t b q f
ATTITUUUUUUDES
WE WUZ KANGS
>>61407962
jesus, does he have to be a contrarian about everything?
>>61408026
>Everyone knows Coltrane is garbage.
I'm so triggered right now
>>61409340
>le doot doot sax man
His music is so boring, devoid of any present melody which is instead replaced by strings of masturbatory chromatic lines that do nothing but impress other musicians.
It's honestly some of the most detestable, intolerable music I've ever heard in my entire life.
>>61409463
Great bait you caught me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocGlRuW1bw
>>61408026
>everyone knows coltrane is garbage
Who decided to make your opinions objective?
>>61409551
>anything that challenges my opinion is automatically bait
Epic, simply epic. Also you should've tried to convince me with My Favorite Things, one of the only decent Coltrane albums.
>>61409571
>Who decided to make your opinions objective?
I did.
>>61409585
Your post have all the apparences of bait anon
If you can't see anything but
>strings of masturbatory chromatic lines that do nothing but impress other musicians.
in moment's notice i would say jazz is just not for you except that a thing bugs me : Ellington and Davis are in fact really good and probably the most important composers of their time so my claim would be wrong you probably have some knowledge about jazz.
Hence i would say that you don't get coltrane but the fact that you dismiss a song for blue train, reminiscent of his works in davis is strange, this albums should be in your favorites of him if you don't like his later works ( he'll actually get "masturbatory" in his old age )
So either you're baiting because you don't like people claimig to like "coltrane le list could goes on.." or you just have a personal hate towards him. What do you think of his recordings with davis or gillepsie?
>>61407917
and this is his take on Rolling Stones. He actually like them:
The Rolling Stones were probably the most impressive set of talents to come together in Britain before the Soft Machine: decadent vocalist Mick Jagger (who distorted soul crooning and turned it into an animal instinct), rhythm guitarist Keith Richards (who took Chuck Berry's riffs into a new dimension of fractured harmony), multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones (who penned their baroque and psychedelic arrangements), and the phenomenal, funky rhythm section of bassist Bill Wyman and drummer Charlie Watts. Steeped in the blues, the Rolling Stones redefined the rock performer, the rock concert and the rock song. They turned on the degree of vulgarity and provocation to levels that made Chuck Berry look silly. Arguably the greatest rock and roll band of all times, the Rolling Stones revolutionized each of the classical instruments of rock music: the drums incorporated the lascivious tom-tom of tribal folk, the martial pace of military bands and the sophisticated swing of jazz; the guitar amplified the raw and ringing style of Chuck Berry; the bass invented a depraved sound, the singing turned the sensual crooning of soul music in an animal howl, half sleazy lust and half call to arms; and the arragements of keyboards, flutes and exotic instruments completely misinterpreted the intentions of the cultures from which they were borrowed. The revolution carried out by the Rolling Stones was thorough and radical.
>>61408026
>not Parker and Armstrong
>>61409738
>or you just have a personal hate towards him
That's probably it. I really, REALLY dislike his playing and writing. I'd much rather listen to some Horace Silver, Jobim, Davis or Mingus.
>What do you think of his recordings with davis or gillepsie?
I have honestly never bothered to listen to them.
>>61409895
Parker and Armstrong are both great senpai, I was just sticking to the same 2 artist formula Scaruffi did. He seems to have some weird disliking of Armstrong though.
I would say Duke and Davis impacted more than Parker and Armstrong though.
>>61409963
I always liked that Miles quote. It really shows how he admired them.
"You can tell the history of jazz in four words: Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker."[
>>61411338
Well that's quite right
>>61407917
