Were the Beatles talented?
>>66394820
yes
>>66394820
Yes, especially as pop songwriters. They were pretty good singing and playing too, but their songs shinewriting ability is what I'd remember them for
>>66394820
yes they were, but personally find their stuff mediocre, with an exception here and there (THEY DISCOVERED THE COUNTRY OF INDIA BEFORE ANYONE ELSE AMIRITE) but on the whole if someone told me we were going to listen to beatles music in the car ride for the next two hours i would be really fucking upset about that
Only plebs would ask such a question. Patricians know that The Beatles were quite talented and could adapt to the times. The Beatles never put out a bad record. Prove me wrong. Pro tip: You literally CAN'T!
>>66395598
I agree with you for the most part, but they put this out.
>>66394820
THE
Of course, they were great musicians. Even Ringo, you dingus.
>>66395677
Not a bad record, had some meh songs but had great ones too (Across The Universe, Two Of Us, Get Back)
>>66395952
Let It Be has no good songs on it. The record has such a awkward vibe to it.
>>66395972
Maybe because they pretty much all hated each other while doing it, you can sort of feel the tension between them and yeah it's kind of awkward but that's why I like it. I understand why you wouldn't though. Also why don't you like Across The Universe? It's one of Lennon's best IMO.
>>66394820
They wouldn't be the biggest rock band that there will ever be if they weren't.
>>66395986
I just think it is a little bit over produced. I wish the track was just him and his guitar with some vocal effects. I really don't like the choir in the back and the other sitar effects in the song
>>66396043
You may like the Let It Be... Naked version then, that's exactly how it sounds on that version. I actually prefer the original version because it sounds more psychedelic like Lennon intended it to be. But yeah most of the album is overproduced by Phil Spector so you may like the Naked version better.
>>66396163
Kill yourself
>>66394820
They were just a rip-off of Genesis.
>>66394820
Define "talent".
>>66396604
>>66396163
>>66395865
>>66396005
>abbey road is bad
>>66394820
Were you talented?
I Beatles appartengono certamente alla storia del costume degli anni '60, ma i loro meriti musicali sono quantomeno dubbi.
I Beatles vennero alla luce all'apice della reazione nei confronti del rock and roll, quando innocui "teen idols" (rigorosamente bianchi) prendevano il posto dei selvaggi rocker neri che avevano scosso le radio e le coscienze di mezza America. L'arrivo dei Beatles rappresento` il salvagente per la middle-class bianca, terrorizzata all'idea che il rock and roll rappresentasse una vera rivoluzione di costume. I Beatles tranquillizzarono quella vasta fascia di pubblico e conquistarono i cuori di tutti coloro (soprattutto al femminile) che volevano essere ribelli ma senza violare i codici imperanti. Ai volti contorti e lascivi dei neri del rock and roll si sostituiro i sorrisi innocenti dei Beatles; ai ritmi scatenati dei primi si sostituirono le cadenze orecchiabili dei secondi. Il rock and roll poteva finalmente essere accettato nelle classifiche del "pop". I Beatles rappresentarono la quintessenza della reazione a una rivoluzione musicale che non era finita, e per qualche anno riuscirono ad arenarne l'impeto.
no, they werent. beatles are just like nowdays popbands. they are very close to 1direction.
look at the songs they made, sloppy, trivial lyrics thats make womans knees weak. just like 1d. yeah they use their own instruments and write them, that doesnt change the fact that its the same thing.
>>66394820
Depends on your definition of talent, OP.
If by talented you mean untalented, then yes, they were very talented.
>>66397594
Yeah because One Direction of course make psychedelic/acid rock, drone, heavy metal, blues, raga rock, doom metal and avant garde songs like The Beatles did
>>66394820
Yes. All four of them were uniquely talanted. McCartney was far and away the most talented though.
