What's the closet an album has come to matching this in terms of influence and scale
More innovative to.
TMR
>>64083393
Abbey Road
>The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest.
>>64083596
>Knowing literally nothing about music and production.
>Judging the undoubtedly and least disputed influence on modern music.
>/mu/
You guys are always a great laugh.
Besides interconnected tracks Sgt Peppers didn't innovate much.
>>64083393
Any of Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen's good albums.
You didn't even post the best Beatles album anyway; MMT, Abbey Road, and Revolver are all way better.
Dylan's electric trilogy, Pet Sounds, Revolver, Freak Out! and anything The Byrds put out in 66-67. Which isn't to say Sgt Peppers is a bad album, just that there are quite a few albums from the same time period that planted more seeds.
>>64084095
>what is ADT
>what is eastern music as a compositional tool in western music
>>64084199
Those albums were not has far-reaching as Pepper though.
>>64084338
this >>64084131 was though
>>64083393
>scale
sgt peppers scale isnt exactly that broad
>>64084235
>saying this when there are old-time cowboy songs with eastern throat singing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zTSBOpwWmGQ
>>64084356
For a very short period of time, sure. But unfortunately it's one-dimensionalness was exposed after Pepper was released and it became antiquated electric bar rock.
>>64084404
The entire scope of pop music is pretty broad.
>>64084427
>as a compositional tool
>>64084432
>For a very short period of time, sure. But unfortunately it's one-dimensionalness was exposed after Pepper was released and it became antiquated electric bar rock.
Which is why a character from that album was still being mentioned in a Beatles song on the white album, right?
>>64083420
Naaaa. You're over inflating the value of punk/post-punk.
The SMiLE recordings are multigenre, and would have incorporated cowboy songs, country, comic songs, doo-wop, barbershop, chanting, noise, cartoons, and field recordings with a unified homage to Americana.[43][44][45][46][47] According to English musician and ethnomusicologist David Toop, Smile contains traces of Sacred Harp, Shaker hymns, Mele, and Native American singing.
>>64084463
Revolver still already had that with Tomorrow Never Knows
For the record, Sgt Peppers is Ringo's least favorite Beatles album and both Lennon and Harrison commented that it was nowhere near as influential as the press made it out to be. Even among The Beatles, only McCartney holds Sgt Pepper in especially high esteem.
>>64084432
Kill yourself, Highway 61 Revisited is more important and an all-around much better album than Sgt. Pepper's. You should feel ashamed for calling it a one-dimensional album when it clearly has more depth musically than Sgt. Pepper's does.
>>64084478
>Which is why a character from that album was still being mentioned in a Beatles song on the white album, right?
What do you mean?
>>64084515
What album is that? Maybe you meant to post Smiley Smile? But that was a commercial failure.
>>64084551
>Revolver still already had that with Tomorrow Never Knows
How so?
>Ringo's least favorite Beatles album
Because he was just bored during the making of it.
>Lennon and Harrison commented that it was nowhere near as influential as the press made it out to be
[citation needed]
>only McCartney holds Sgt Pepper in especially high esteem.
Oh, so, the only Beatle that counts?
>>64084559
I suppose, if you are John Fogerty.
>>64084559
Nah. Not the anon you're arguing with (in fact I've made many posts arguing against him itt) but Dylan isn't especially skilled as a musician. In terms of what it did for the music scene itself and the quality of lyrical writing in music, H61R was incredibly important. In terms of actual music, not so much.
>>64083393
The Sonics had more fucking influence than that.
>What's the closet an album has come to matching this in terms of influence and scale
>What's the closet an album has come to matching this in terms of influence and scale for pop rock
ftfy
>>64084605
>Oh, so, the only Beatle that counts?
See, that's how we know you're a troll. Goodnight everybody.
>>64084647
But classical and jazz are not pop music.
>>64084605
Patti Smith, Public Enemy, Garth Brooks and Syd Barrett all credited Dylan as an influence.
But it's only blues rock bands that care about Dylan, right?
>>64084714
Now compare that to the list of people influenced by The Beatles.
>influence
It really depends. It's a lot easier to copy, say, The Ramones than The Beatles, so I would say they were much more influential in terms of quantity of artists who specifically employed the musical elements they popularized.
I have no idea what you mean by "scale", but if you mean the musical ambition of the album, holy shit kid have you heard of the 1970s?
>>64083710
>the undoubtedly influence on modern music
>>64084235
obviously you can easily find earlier, though less popular, examples where this happened
there was a lot of weird shit as early as the 50's, like yma sumac.
>>64084815
>obviously you can easily find earlier, though less popular, examples where this happened
But it would be pointless because
>scale
>yma sumac.
Oh is that a pop rock artist (whihc is what we are discussing, btw)?
>>64084432
Yikes, this is a pretty ignorant statement about Dylan. I'll give you a chance to retract it and admit that it's bait.
>>64084605
>commercial failure
Keep in mind that shit often gets discovered later, and then becomes a huge influence, or at least a much bigger one than you could have foresaw based on the initial lack of success.
>>64084876
Or rather, I'll give you a chance to admit that basic blues chord structures, antiquated musicians performing obvious arrangements live with no creative atmospherics was somehow more interesting then pocket orchestras, harmonic acrobatics and unpredictable arrangements.
PRO-TIP: everyone else figured it as well. Why are you behind the curve?
>>64084917
The people who were seriously influenced by Smiley Smile were also influenced by Sgt Pepper. Ask Bill Doss if you disagree.
>>64084633
>>64084605
pic related is you retarded faggots
>>64085018
I'm American. Nice try,
>>64084633
>actual music
You can't separate the content, influence, and impact of Dylan's recordings from "actual music", unless you're one of these people that thinks more harmonically or rhythmically simplistic genres like punk rock, hip hop, drone, etc aren't valid.
All of which owe a ton to Dylan's recklessness in the studio, his disregard for musicianship, and the immediacy and sense of danger it lent his recordings, and the way it entwined the focus with the narrative art and performance art aspects.
I think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that The Beatles were so fucking influential because they played compositionally sophisticated music when SO MUCH of the legacy of rock and other modern genres has to do with avoiding compositional sophistication and achieving something worthwhile through other means.
>>64084838
>scale
I asked you to define it and you haven't. I guarantee you influential musicians have heard of both Yma Sumac and The Beatles. She is a household name, she gets referenced in Family Guy and The Sopranos and stuff.
>pop rock
What the fuck are you talking about? You asked about shit that was as or more influential than Sgt Peppers. You never said it had to be in a specific genre, or that it had to influence a specific genre.
>>64084752
The Beatles are one of the groups Dylan influenced...literally every member has admitted this. Lennon and Harrison both referenced in song.
And if you don't see how punk to modern country to hip hop to psychedelia isn't a wide breath of influence, I don't know what to tell ya.
>>64084976
>Or rather, I'll give you a chance to admit that basic blues chord structures, antiquated musicians performing obvious arrangements live with no creative atmospherics was somehow more interesting then pocket orchestras, harmonic acrobatics and unpredictable arrangements.
Well, I don't have to convince you that it's more "interesting", although as someone who prefers minimal music I do personally believe that this is the case.
But this isn't a discussion about what you or I find "interesting", it's about which was more influential. And if you don't fucking admit that WAY MORE artists in MORE genres play 3-4 chord, simplistic songs with simplistic arrangements than the ones who followed in The Beatles footsteps, you're crazy!
>everyone else
Who the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying Drake and Taylor Swift are Beatlesque?
>>64085045
so you wanna be an honorary british faggot? die
>>64083420
yep
>>64085085
>All of which owe a ton to Dylan's recklessness in the studio, his disregard for musicianship, and the immediacy and sense of danger it lent his recordings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtdq6D6aiu8
>>64085138
>I asked you to define it and you haven't
Where was that?
>You asked about shit that was as or more influential than Sgt Peppers
Where did I ask that?
>>64085200
>Lennon referenced in song.
[citation needed]
>And if you don't see how punk to modern country to hip hop to psychedelia isn't a wide breath of influence
I agree, The Beatles influenced all of that.
>>64085211
>to be influenced by something you need to follow in their footsteps
lol Even Velvet underground and Can were influenced by The Beatles.
>>64085255
>>64083420
By the way, Lou Reed and Velvet Underground? Super influenced by Dylan. So all the people influenced by Velvet Underground and the fast and multifarious subgenres that they spawned (basically every form of underground music) all were influenced by Dylan through VU.
>>64085281
and The Beatles were directly influenced by Dylan. Lou Reed was literally a wannabe Dylan when he started out btw TVU&N is electric Dylan + LaMonte Young
>>64085296
>the Velvets really weren't as contrary characters as legend sometimes has it, or immune to musical influences from fellow bands. In various interviews and writings from 1967 to 1970, various members express admiration for the Beatles
Richie Unterberger, White Light/White Heat: The Velevet Underground Day By Day, 2009
>>64085281
>lol Even Velvet underground and Can were influenced by The Beatles.
They were obviously both influenced by Dylan as well, you just can't comprehend the value of Dylan's musical elements.
For example the use of repetitiveness in Can and VU obviously owes more to Dylan than The Beatles.
>>64085341
Dude nobody is fucking saying that The Beatles weren't influential. You are dismissing Dylan's influence, and we're trying to establish it. The Beatles were influential, that's a matter of public record. OP asked who else was on a tier. We are saying Dylan. Why are you such a fucking crybaby?
>>64085341
That sure disputes the fact that they were also influenced by Dylan, right?
>>64085332
>and The Beatles were directly influenced by Dylan
You mean one of them, briefly, for a short period of time.
>>64085368
90% it's the undead clt trolling.
>>64083393
closet
>>64085368
Just give up dude, this guy doesn't understand that every insult he throws at Dylan would apply to the Beatles as well.
>>64085369
That sure disputes the fact that they were also influenced by The Beatles, right?
>>64085368
They were obviously both influenced by The Beatles as well, you just can't comprehend the value of The Beatles' musical elements.
>>64085413
Oh which shitty country album did The Beatles make?
>>64085377
McCartney, Lennon, Harrison and Ringo are one person? Cause they've all talked about Dylan in interviews and the Anthology, yknow, the official story they all agreed to release.
Hell it's part of both their "legends" that Dylan was the one who turned the fab four on to pot.
>>64085434
>They were obviously both influenced by The Beatles as well, you just can't comprehend the value of The Beatles' musical elements.
In the very post you are quoting, I say:
>Dude nobody is fucking saying that The Beatles weren't influential.
Dude get your shit together man. Do you need us to help you or something?
>>64085441
[citation needed]
>Hell it's part of both their "legends" that Dylan was the one who turned the fab four on to pot.
And they turned him on to amphetamines, which in turn how your beloved Blonde On Blonde came about.
>>64085434
Funny how I never said or implied they weren't influenced by The Beatles, unlike you and Dylan.
>I think the boys have delivered what can be honestly compared to as the Sgt Pepper of Rap
https://youtu.be/g-tGGp4ZH2s?t=6m30s
>>64083393
closet
>>64083420
to
the grammar on here.
>>64085472
>>64085485
Then admit it, state it directly.
>>64085479
Dylan had already played around with amphetamines in high school.
I already gave the Anthology as my citation, do keep up CLT.
>>64085528
Can you even read the very next sentence in the same fucking post?
>The Beatles were influential, that's a matter of public record.
>>64085434
The Beatles made tons of shitty cover albums of generic pop rock until Help! and Rubber Soul.
The Beatles also were even further from technical proficiency as a band than Bob Dylan, not sure why you pretended that this point didn't apply to the Beatles as well.
Bob Dylan is also more influential than the Beatles, not saying that Sgt. Pepper's wasn't a landmark album for pop music but Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde are probably the two most important rock albums of the 60s.
>>64083420
id say this too
if youve heard sgt peppers, youve heard the Vu and nico
dark side of the moon might be the only other one
>>64085495
>Sgt Pepper of Rap
thatd be this brahbrah
>>64085495
I think thats a fair comparison
even Chuck D loved it
>>64083458
Did TMR actually influence anything? Or was it just really avant garde? Actual question.
>>64085615
It definitely at least influenced other avant garde music.
Pet Sounds influenced a lot of shit, including that album. I never understood why people always say Sgt Peppers trumps it in terms of influence. Imo the Beach Boys peaked higher than the Beatles even though they may have not been nearly as consistent.
>>64085528
I see that you have been smote by my quads >>64085555
I bid you a good day, asshole. Learn to rhetoric.
>>64085615
Well, it definitely influenced Tom Waits.
I'd argue bands like the Residents and Sun City Girls were influenced by TMR.
Experimental rock only really tends to influence other experimental rock.
>>64085555
No I mean, they were the most influential. State it directly.
>I already gave the Anthology as my citation
Page number pls.
>>64085565
>>64085565
>The Beatles made tons of shitty cover albums
Not familiar with them... Which ones? Is it like Dylan's First Album? Or World Gone Wrong?
>The Beatles also were even further from technical proficiency as a band than Bob Dylan
How so? He couldn't even play with a band sufficiently (not to mention didn't want one until he met The beatles).
>but Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde are probably the two most important rock albums of the 60s
For about a year, until Pepper came out, yes I agree.
Abbey Road
>>64085613
>I think thats a fair comparison
why? because it has samples from sgt pepper in one of its songs?? >>64085603 is a much better comparison for hip hop/rap
>>64085615
Well it was one of Johnny Rotten's favorites
>>64085666
>No I mean, they were the most influential. State it directly
I don't know that they're the most influential. Probably the Eagles, BeeGees, and Elvis were all more influential. Unfortunately.
I'm not sure why you have invented this idiotic endgame where you want us to admit that The Beatles were the most influential, when OP's question was "who is almost as influential as The Beatles?"
>>64085680
Not even close, Kanye's album has way more in common with The Wall or Downward Spiral or something. In terms of a sophisticated collage of layered sounds, Paul's Boutique runs fucking rings around it.
>>64085680
no I said that because paul's boutique is good
>>64085653
Except you got smoted by my Devil Trips here >>64085666
Nice try
>>64085716
Sorry I didn't see what I'm asking for. Do it or have a nice day.
>>64085680
Let me pretend that I actually like Kanye for a second. I would compare it more to David Bowie, where it's about the embodiment of a tremendous ego, with indulgent production to match. Kanye is the arty glam rock of rap.
>>64085741
>Noted by critics for its maximalist aesthetic, opulent production quality, and dichotomous themes, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy incorporates aspects of West's previous works, including soul, baroque, electro, and symphonic styles. The album deals with themes of excess and celebrity, and explores such issues as consumer culture, race, and the idealism of the American Dream.
much more like sgt pepper
>>64085666
>How so? He couldn't even play with a band sufficiently (not to mention didn't want one until he met The beatles).
Until he heard The Byrds, actually.
>>64085761
>admit that I'm right or I won't keep arguing with you
>>64085768
haha you are so full of shit.. "maximalist aesthetic"? "opulant production quality"? "dichotomous themes"? If you don't think this describes The Wall or Dark Side of the Moon more than Sgt Peppers you're an idiot.
>>64085777
>Until he heard The Byrds, actually.
[citation needed]
>>64083393
>>64085805
>>admit that I'm right or I won't keep arguing with you
Why not? it's not like you'd be able to posit a feasible counterargument anyways.
>>64085809
Literally every Dylan biography other than Chronicles (which is a joke of a memoir, every page has plagiarism) .
>>64085826
>Why not? it's not like you'd be able to posit a feasible counterargument anyways.
You're the one who whines whenever we mention your absolute statements don't match up with reality, CLT.
>>64084515
If this shit was released in the 60's it would've topped Sgt Pepper's.
>>64085835
Not seeing a page number. Try again.
>>64085867
>it doesn't match up with reality!
>a citation? huh?
>>64085873
IF Brian Wilson hadn't heard Pepper and given up you mean?
>>64085826
You haven't addressed any of my arguments as to why Dylan was influential. Nor have you countered my refutations of your own retarded arguments about how the Beatles being more compositionally complex means they were more influential.
And you can scroll up as easily as I so don't expect me to do the grunt work of referring you back to posts that you already ignored.
>>64085495
this
>>64085904
Man you're literally trying to bait. I love Sgt. Pepper's but IT IS A BEATLES album; SMiLE is a Brian Wilson + Orchestra + Studio Musicians. The result is pretty neat and I can compare with with Sgt and even glorifying SMiLE more than the beatles' record.
Also. You don't even the know the reason why SMiLE was dropped. A little wikipedia can help you man.
No more comments dude. As Bob Dylan said: "Don't criticize what you can't understand"
>>64085958
>You haven't addressed any of my arguments as to why Dylan was influential
I admitted he was to bread-and-butter rockers like John Fogerty or maybe Bruce Springsteen.
>how the Beatles being more compositionally complex means they were more influential
When did I say that?
>>64086008
>SMiLE is a Brian Wilson + Orchestra + Studio Musicians.
Ooops you mean Smiley Smile. I'm not familiar with a released album entitled Smile.
Smiley Smile was very lo-fi and not that influential.
>A little wikipedia can help you man
Even the errors on it?
I like how you haven't even once denied that you're CLT.
>>64085495
Muh overrated jew wrappers
>>64086020
>When did I say that?
For example:
>Or rather, I'll give you a chance to admit that basic blues chord structures, antiquated musicians performing obvious arrangements live with no creative atmospherics was somehow more interesting then pocket orchestras, harmonic acrobatics and unpredictable arrangements.
Are you not arguing that the "harmonic acrobatics" and "unpredictable arrangements" made The Beatles more interesting, and therefore influential, than Dylan? And is it not fair to say that these are elements of "compositional sophistication"?
>>64086127
I'm looking in that quote, and I'm not seeing the word "influential".
care to explain?
>>64086121
>muh
>jew
>wrappers
Holy shit, what the fuck? Never come back, bye!
>>64086020
>I admitted he was to bread-and-butter rockers like John Fogerty or maybe Bruce Springsteen.
What about literally all of hip hop and punk rock? You don't think "Subterranean Homesick Blues" might have had some impact there?
>>64086020
Yet we've given examples of punk, hip-hop, contemporary country (if we go down 70s country the influence is even more profound, Dylan's considered one of the biggest influences on outlaw country as a whole), psychedelic rock and a little pop-rock group that dabbled in psychedelia called The Beatles that were influenced by Dylan.
>>64085495
maybe
>>64085603
definitely not this lol
>>64086154
So you're not arguing that The Beatles were influential?
>>64086170
>What about literally all of hip hop
You mean sample-based music?
Literally created by The beatles.
>>64086170
>and punk rock?
You mean what The Beatles were doing in hamburg, 1960?
>>64086185
>>64086185
>if we go down 70s country the influence is even more profound, Dylan's considered one of the biggest influences on outlaw country as a whole
How so? I'd LOVE to hear this one!
>>64086185
>psychedelic rock and a little pop-rock group that dabbled in psychedelia called The Beatles that were influenced by Dylan.
Don't forget a little folk artist who decided to dabble in rock music!
>>64086193
You said
>Nor have you countered my refutations of your own retarded arguments about how the Beatles being more compositionally complex means they were more influential.
I asked where I said that, and you quote me a passage where I did not say it.
Care to try again?
>>64086229
>Literally created by The beatles.
You are wrong that The Beatles created sampling. Dead fucking But even so, as we keep saying, we are trying to demonstrate that Dylan was influential, which you are refuting. You keep saying "The Beatles were also influential" to refute it, but we aren't denying that The Beatles were influential. You really have to learn to argue man.
>>and punk rock?
>You mean what The Beatles were doing in hamburg, 1960?
Sigh. See previous comment.
>>64086229
>You mean what The Beatles were doing in hamburg, 1960?
Which was on the pop airwaves for everybody to hear, right? Fun fact: Subterranean Homesick Blues was a track Frank Zappa often cited as what made him realize rock could be serious music.
And we all know his thoughts on The Beatles.
You have to appreciate how timely Pepper was - released in '67, the "Summer of Love", when the popularity of psychedelia was beginning. Not to mention the production techniques, many of which were revolutionary.
>>64086252
But dude, your position is that the Beatles were more influential, and when I asked you to justify it, that was what you said to justify it. You submitted that as evidence that they were more influential. You are either pretending to be stupider than you are to annoy me, or you are truly stupid.
Either way, if you DO have an argument for why The Beatles were more influential, I'd love to see it. That was the best I could find from your comments.
>>64086167
I came back. :p
>>64085613
Miles Davis did too I believe
Sgt. Pepper's is indescribably, incomparably, revolutionarily important. If you treat music as a component of industrial/leisure Western society, you can really enrich your relationship with it by researching the world it came from and commented on. With Pepper you're talking about the most famous people on the planet reaching a breaking point, having been stalled an pacified and "tolerated" by their record company on the previous two records. It's the beginning of the end and the end of the beginning of pop music.
>>64086311
>You are wrong that The Beatles created sampling
I did not say that.
The Beatles created sample-based pop music which directly led to what we now know as EDM and hip-hop.
Very few of these artists use live instrumentation, which is what Dylan did almost exclusively his entire career. Just as well, modern pop music is more indebted to The Beatles than Dylan harmonically.
>Which was on the pop airwaves for everybody to hear, right? Fun fact: Subterranean Homesick Blues was a track Frank Zappa often cited as what made him realize rock could be serious music.
Incorrect. It was "Like a Rolling Stone". Please get your facts straight.
>And we all know his thoughts on The Beatles.
Like the time he covered them? Or jammed with John and Yoko? Yeah he must have really hated them! Not to mention he like The Monkees and The Turtles... what do you make of that?
>>64086323
See >>64086432
>>64086365
Are you going to show me where I said that, or continue the strawman?
>>64086432
>The Beatles created sample-based pop music which directly led to what we now know as EDM and hip-hop.
You are now adjusting what you said with the "pop" modifier. You said they invented sample-based music.
>Very few of these artists use live instrumentation, which is what Dylan did almost exclusively his entire career
It's a superficial difference. I can cover both The Beatles and Dylan without using live instruments.
The whole idea of the instrumentation looping over and over again in the background while someone half sings, half talks over it, is definitely something that hip hop got MORE from Dylan than from The Beatles.
>>64086508
Okay, so you DON'T think The Beatles were more influential than Dylan. Got it. I didn't mean to accuse you of holding a position that you apparently don't, but everybody else can see why I thought so.
>>64086556
>It's a superficial difference
Oh have you never listened to any hip-hop in your life?
>I can cover both The Beatles and Dylan without using live instruments.
Not relevant. We are discussing aesthetics.
>he whole idea of the instrumentation looping over and over again in the background while someone half sings, half talks over it, is definitely something that hip hop got MORE from Dylan than from The Beatles.
>>64086578
I already clearly stated my position. Read the thread again if you are confused.
She me when Dylan did that.
>>64086556
>The whole idea of the instrumentation looping over and over again in the background while someone half sings, half talks over it, is definitely something that hip hop got MORE from Dylan than from The Beatles.
Show me where Dylan did this EVER
>>64086628
>We are discussing aesthetics
No, we're not. We're discussing influence in general.
>I already clearly stated my position
Yes, which was that The Beatles were more influential because of their "harmonic acrobatics and unpredictable arrangements".
Since you made me do the fucking work, please choke on your vomit:
>>64084356
In this post, anon argues that Highway 61 was as influential as The Beatles.
You respond to it here >>64084432
>For a very short period of time, sure. But unfortunately it's one-dimensionalness was exposed after Pepper was released and it became antiquated electric bar rock.
>one-dimenasionalness
I suspect here you are talking about one dimensionalness in terms of its musical aspects, such as harmonic sophistication and arrangements and shit like that. But you haven't explicitly said it yet, I give you that.
So I respond and say:
>>64084876
>Yikes, this is a pretty ignorant statement about Dylan. I'll give you a chance to retract it and admit that it's bait.
And then you respond and say:
>>64084976
>Or rather, I'll give you a chance to admit that basic blues chord structures, antiquated musicians performing obvious arrangements live with no creative atmospherics was somehow more interesting then pocket orchestras, harmonic acrobatics and unpredictable arrangements.
I'll be around if you want to apologize.
>>64086656
1. Every Dylan song ever is basically and endlessly repeated chord progression with his signature half-sung vocals over it
2. If you really are unfamiliar with Dylan here's a good example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYajHZ4QUVM
Sigh. I would have least liked an apology.
>>64086790
>We're discussing influence in general.
Then surely sample-based sound design is more important to hip-hop then live-band sound design. Wouldn't you agree?
>which was that The Beatles were more influential because of their "harmonic acrobatics and unpredictable arrangements".
Quote me where I said that.
>I'll be around if you want to apologize.
I'm sorry you are so good at backpedaling
>>64086825
Not hearing ant samples/tape loops.
Try again.
>>64087517
I'm sorry you weren't able to tell me where I saifd that.
>>64087647
>Quote me where I said that.
I just did. You can play dumb all you want.
>>64087647
You didn't ask for tape loops, you asked for
>instrumentation looping over and over again in the background while someone half sings, half talks over it
See >>64086656
Instrumentation != tape loops
>>64087799
In case you forgot, this was the post in question
>>64085958 where you insisted that I claimed that the Beatles being more compositionally complex means they were more influential.
I would like an apology for you misquoting me and attempting a strawman.
>>64087872
>You didn't ask for tape loops,
In the discussion specifically about tape loops?
Please read the thread before posting
>>64087872
Though I will give you this over the anon I'm arguing alongside: This technique has been around at least as long as folk music (actual folk music, not white guys with guitars and feels) has been recorded.
>>64087951
>in pop music
>>64087981
Jimmie Rodgers was considered pop in his day.
>>64087881
It wasn't a strawman, you explicitly argued it and I have quoted you doing so. If you have a different position, by all means reveal it, or just keep trying to go in circles.
>>64088029
How is that relevant to the discussion?
>>64088074
>It wasn't a strawman, you explicitly argued it
Show me where please. You have yet to.
The three of you obviously aren't going to convince each other at this point, why go on?
>>64088122
I like that the other two waiting patiently for an hour for my reply.
>>64088117
Jimmie Rodgers also used the technique. A significant amount of country musicians did, so too did blues musicians.
>>64088166
>Jimmie Rodgers also used the technique
Which technique? Tape loops to construct a hypnotic yet groove-based backing track rather than live instrumentation?
>>64088117
If you have an argument for why I didn't already show you, you can give it.
>>64084636
Not even true
