The Beatles
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
What's the story with The Beatles and their mysterious music. Was it just too much LSD or do you guys think there was something evil. I have no clue, I really was never into The Beatles that much, but obviously I know who they are as they are very popular.
Here is the video that got me curious. IDK why they even bothered making this; played forward it isn't even really music. Just abnormal sounds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkuafIRhZA
>>17913186
The story? They were a mediocre pop rock act that teenage girls loved the fuck out of. Then one day they decided to imitate Frank Zappa, who was a much more talented musician than all of the Beatles combined. This proved highly successful for them, and they are to this day credited for being geniuses, while Frank Zappa remained mostly unknown to the mainstream.
>be British spooks
>create meme-weapon eregore to use against the Soviets
>like every other eregore ever, eventually lose control of it
>>17913218
Frank Zappa's did stuff on his own terms. Seems to be one of the only great rock musicians without any ties to the occult. Am I right or have I just missed something?
>>17913226
Is that why John became a Communist?
>>17913218
Holy fuck kill yourself you faggot
Zappa was nothing more than an edgy teen in a grown mans body
Where as lennon and mcarteny were 2 of the greatest song writers ever
>the Beatles made mysterious music
This is what normies actually believe.
>TFW It's this thread again
http://www.thebeatlesneverbrokeup.com/
This seems /x/ related.
>>17913186
>The Beatles and their mysterious music
kill yourself
>>17913186
The Beatles suck... The Monkees were so much better.
>>17913344
this imo
we're only in it for the money, hot rats, weasels ripped my flesh, and joes garage are all great albums but they don't even compare to the likes of sgt pepper, revolver, rubber soul, or abbey road
>>17913581
the beatles are the most musically significant group of all time. the monkees were mindless pop music that had no real artistic uniqueness or soul as the entire point of the band was to make money
>>17913186
lol this thread has been flooded by tryhard /mu/tants.
Chill the fuck down, this thread is not a commentary on the quality or experimentation of the Beatles' music (or lack thereof), but the group was often involved in occult stuff, just like the Stones, Bowie, etc
>>17913587
I don't know which is funnier.
>The fact that you took my post seriously.
>The fact that you like the Beatles as much as you do.
Either way... kek
>>17913595
i dont even like the beatles all that much, i mean like sgt pepper is a 10/10 album and i think denying its influence is stupid, but none of the beatles albums are even near/in my top 10
>>17913599
Yes... we can blame the Beatles for creating the template for all shit music which has devolved since from Classical to Punk/Rap.
>Thank you Beatles for Slayer.
>Thank you Beatles for The Sex Pistols.
>Thank you Beatles for making music for dummies.
shit's real
>>17913587
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.
>>17913681
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.
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.
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.
>>17913286
He gazed into the abyss.
All anyone needs to know is that Paul is the best of the four and his work after the Beatles is far better.
>>17913689
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.
>>17913681
get outta here scaruffi
>>17913608
if you think all music today is shit, maybe you aren't looking in the right places for it, bud
>>17913186
Turn me on dead man
>>17913344
>Zappa was nothing more than an edgy teen in a grown mans body
no
> Where as lennon and mcarteny were 2 of the greatest song writers ever
lol no
>>17913725
Hope you like gore.
>>17913218
Zappa was talentless hack tho.
>>17913725
wow you really proved you point here buddy
>>17913218
>le zappa xd
Can this meme die yet
>>17913736
i don't think that's a very good argument m8
>>17913587
bruh
>>17913186
Back to a more /x/ related topic.
You I now how the Manson family was all about Helter Skelter? Well Charles's drug dealer and good friend was the drummer for the beach boys. He's the one that got him in contact with music people who hated his music and didn't want to make him famous
No technical innovation: r u ducking serious ?
What's mysterious about them? Strum the same 4 chords and sing about peace and love. They were one of the originators of boy bands.
>>17913218
This
>>17913264
Frank zappa, like the majority of musicians at the time came from military families, there is a conspiracy that suggests the military used these ties to create the flower power and or hippie movement at the time (look up laurel canyon conspiracy). Which zappa was a part of but later publicly admitted how disappointed he was with it and how he regretted being a part of it. While the Beatles milked it for as long as they could like greedy fat pigs. This is where the controversy for frank zappas album "were only in it for the money" came from. He was mocking the Beatles Sgt. Pepper's album, which the Beatles with legal threats towards frank, delayed from being released. When frank zappa tried to contact them about the issue they replied with "we have lawyers who deal with that kind of thing". Not very peace and loving of them, which was their main gimmick.
>>17913344
>>17913583
>>17913767
I have to ask, what's it like being retarded? It has to be tough day to day.
I kinda hate the Beatles lol Everyone says they are so revolutionary but I don't see it.. Lotsa other bands from back then were way more amazing.. To me the Beatles where just a goofy ass pop band buncha trendy douchebags who just latched onto the whole hippie thing once that blew up. My parents who lived back then tell me the same thing.. The Beatles were fucking pop teeny bopper girl music basically.
>>17913218
Nice shitpost faggot.
>>17913186
They were COINTELPRO created by the Tavistock Institute to spread hippie "values" and act as the figureheads for the transformation of the youth culture. The Rockefeller Foundation was behind it if you want to be specific.
>>17914412
>Frank zappa, like the majority of musicians at the time came from military families, there is a conspiracy that suggests the military used these ties to create the flower power and or hippie movement at the time (look up laurel canyon conspiracy).
Or.... World War II happened, and a lot of peoples' dads joined/were drafted?
>>17914475
This is what /pol/ looks like when it's not being a shit. Good job anon.
>>17914489
Indeed. I was going hard on the theories there last night, so I'm still kind of in the mood.
>>17914412
>I have to ask, what's it like being retarded? It has to be tough day to day.
nothing frank zappa ever did will compare to sgt peppers. it is undisputedly the single most influential album ever released and if you disagree with this, you're uneducated
>b-but freak out influenced sgt pepper!!!!
freak out still never had the absolutely MASSIVE cultural impact that came with sgt pepper to the extent where radio stations would flood themselves with the album side to side
i am not denying that frank zappa is a great musician; hot rats is one of the greatest albums of all time, i think
but, frank zappa, in terms of musical influence and cultural significance has never surpassed the beatles, and absolutely never will
>>17914510
>>17914510
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "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 worth of being saved.
In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention 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 one 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 free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.
>>17914530
>>17914530
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.
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.
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.
>>17914549
>>17914549
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band
>>17913587
>most musically significant group of all time
dead
>>17913689
>Tim Buckley
B^U
meme band created by intel agencies for the purpose of culture creation and perception management.
Just like every other "major" musical group.
the band was picked up by american and british intelligence services to bridge the gap between world war II and the future events which precipitated the rise of adolf hitler on a bridge supported by the O.T.O. and radical elements within the United States.
Daily reminder that white people are dying out, the future belongs to blacks and Hispanics. Enjoy a 20% white USA and Europe by the year 2100.
>>17914549
WE WUZ ROCKERS N SHIET
>>17913421
it's a neat story but all the tracks are mashed up versions of solo works by the members. The first track has bits of George's When We Was Fab and Wings' Band on the Run
They were okay as a pop band before Paul died. They were in a cusp of higher experience lifestyles, or buncha bored fuckoff kids, however you wanna look at it.
>>17915431
>implying black demographics aren't stagnant and projected to remain virtually the same, i.e. less than 20%
>implying percentage of population matters in terms of power when the disproportionate Jewish elite make up ~2% of the general population
>implying the West will be relevant in 100 years
>implying it will even exist in its current form at all
Eastern Europe will be the dominant force in the West. The Chinese will be the defacto world super power because of their strong nationalism and cultural homogeneity as Jews continue to slip from their dominance.
>>17915799
>Eastern Europe will be the dominant force
>>as Jews continue to slip from their dominance.
>>>Implying that 'Jews' is not a term of eastern european etymology
The vast majority of people who call themselves Jews have infinitesimal or zero heritage from the middle east.
>>17915833
I know. They're Khazars.
I'm talking about Slavs though, like Poland. You know, the less "diverse," more nationalistic countries of Europe.
>>17913218
>>17913736
>>17914412
>>17914530
XD
Sick retort brah
>>17914412
>What's mysterious about them? Strum the same 4 chords
Stopped reading there fucking kill yourself you nu male hipster you don't know what you're talking about
>>17913695
Is this copypasta?
The Beatles are kinda strange and that video is creepy
>>17914412
>there is a conspiracy that suggests
done
but nah i'll keep going
1. Lots of more angry artists of all media regretted the hippie movement, because while it was special, it had to end. Additionally, it fucked with a lot of peoples' brains (I mean, in the way that chemical substances will do). Look to Hunter S. Thompson, whose "Fear and Loathing," is all about the DISILLUSION he experienced in the wake of the hippie movement.
2. The Beatles not only were a part of the hippie movement in the year it is often credited to have started, they QUICKLY ran away from it. Don't forget that the band members themselves grew more and more angry at each other, and the difference between Sgt. Pepper's and the White Album, which was only ONE YEAR APART, is tremendous.
3. Frank mocked the album cover, as he was wont to do: he mocked fucking everything, especially himself. To assert that the Beatles personally delayed Frank's album, and then hid behind their lawyers when he responded, is unfounded and probably based in the same weird bitterness as the rest of your post.
4. Peach and love as their gimmick? Go watch a fucking video of any of the members during any of the six years. Their "gimmick" was being sarcastic, wit-filled goofs who knew they were the best band of musicians in the world, and fucking wore it like a diamond-studded cock ring.
>>17918639
>this is what The Beatles fans unironically beleive
>>17913583
>we're only in it for the money, hot rats, weasels ripped my flesh, and joes garage are all great albums but they don't even compare to the likes of sgt pepper, revolver, rubber soul, or abbey road
Please noose yourself
Hot Rats alone is better than their whole discog. Peaches has more going on and more greatness than an entire Beatles album and it's one of the shortest/worst song on the album
