TFW you realize the Beatles sucked

In 1966, at the height of their popularity, the Beatles were outsold 2 to 1 by this old man. He had 5 albums in the top 20 *at the same time*, and 4 of them were in the top 10.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_9
beatlesbible.com/songs/revolution-9/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

*I* have always thought the Beatles sucked. Which is why I used the pronoun "you". It is a word which references people other than yourself.
You (meaning not me) should have learned that in school.

the beatles are literally the most overrated band in history

It's that guy who sang the hit song "Crochet Bikinis".

I never signified who I was directing my post at (which means I didn't explicitly state it was towards you). It may have implied it, just like your OP may have implied you used to think the beatles didn't suck. But it didn't state it overtly.
You should have learned that in school

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.

yfw i say who cares about the beatles

please tell me that person is medicated
heavily

...

He is also the only musical artist to have a #1 hit as a vocalist AND a #1 hit as an instrumentalist.

that person is medicated heavily
you can thank me later

TFW you realize that the guy in OP's pic is a Jew.

styxenhammer666 on youtube but that user put tommy's face on it or whoever that nigtard is
he gets like 2500 a month for parroting Holla Forums talking points on his youtube page

not sure if that is better or worse

worse

kek

I've known that my entire life.

the entire 12 years? wow

Holla Forums pls go thanks

...

The #1 hit as an instrumentalist was made popular when it was used as the soundtrack for a TV rape scene.

??
i'm not even Holla Forums
it's just hard for me to respect somebody who makes a living doing literally nothing but regurgitating information from one area of the internet to another

Herb Alpert, co-founder of A&M Records.

I'll give you a 5/10 for that at the most.

I guess the Backstreet Boys and Hanson were good according to you then?
The Beatles did suck but not because they were outsold

not knowing how relative comparisons work

i can live with that

...

Oh, and he also has sold 72+ million albums, is a highly sought after sculptor, and has given away over $100 million as a philanthropist.

fuck off and go listen to your sgt. pepper faggotry then

Suck it, Yoko!

The Monkees were the mostest!

The fuck you on about faggot? I said the Beatles are shit, I just don't buy into your "what is popular is automatically good" bullshit. By that logic US made trucks are good, let's just ignore the fact that the US has banned the import of light trucks.

fuck if you can show me where anyone in this entire thread said that. some fucker assumed that it was what OP meant, but it clearly is not.

...

all from freemason families

...

...

This should be obvious to everyone, but it sadly isn't.

Protip: you can't.

...

just look at wiki's list of best selling singles/albums of all time and tell me that sales define quality. moron.

so who is it? tineye and google don't know him either, apparently

Do keep in mind that;;;;;; in the Beatles era, music was still very much tightly controlled by the recording companies. VERY FEW recording artists got famous because they were talented; mainly they got talented because the record company that signed them allowed it. In the US at least, recording companies paid artists shit pay for decades, while collecting huge profits for themselves. You might make a legal case against file trading, but there's not much moral case against it.

——-

Also, here is a fun Beatles story:
in an interview once, one of them (Paul I think) said that during the fab-4 era they went out to play their first US show.
for the whole time they were on stage, ALL of the girls would all scream non-stop as loud as they could
the stage speakers were just behind the band, and yet the band could just barely hear what they were playing
so the whole show went like that, and Paul said he was certain that nobody past maybe the 5th row could have possibly heard what was being played
after the first show, they panicked and asked their producer "what are we gonna do?" and he just said "they loved it, just keep on playing"
and so it went on like that for months, and then a few more tours
for a LONG time, they had huge sell-out crowds at their shows, and yet almost nobody could hear what they were playing
and the whole time, the band was absolutely stunned that people kept buying tickets, and saying how great the shows were

...

He does not merely parrot Holla Forums talking points. His views are often in opposition to the majority of theirs. He says he does not care about degeneracy. He is a civic nationalist. He does not put ads on any of his videos, he only gets money through Patreon.
He also edits old books and he says that's the largest chunk of his income.

styx is honestly one of the best contemporary political philosopher's there is
just because he isn't an academic doesn't mean he isn't a top-tier public intellectual like molyneux

He's a little faggot, I've only seen one of his videos and it left me wanting to bully/physically dominate him. In short hes a fag.

...

Well ok but you didn't write anything that supports this.
I've never heard anyone say that.
You contradicted yourself.

The Rolling Stones were better.

Piero was way too fucking old to be that lacking of self awareness. That's something I'd hear a 17 y/o say in the youtube comments section. No wonder /mu/ loves him.

Read more, faggot.

Being a brit, the government brought us the beatles and replays their stuff over everything else to death so you hear them all the time.

so yeah they get boring and we all know they are overrated here.

Penny lane is especially played to death.

Penny lane is especially gay.

They were dung beetles.

The Shitty Beatles?

The Beatles didn't outright suck, but they were definitely overrated

Still, one has to admire the mythos that they had created over their relatively short time together as a band. What set them apart really though was that they were among the first "superbands" to embrace studio-only musical production over touring music or even radio-oriented beats. I attribute their popularity more to the fact that their rise co-responded to the lowering costs of turntables and car radios. But thats just commercial success. The Beatles somehow used their commercial success to actually become "Bigger than Jesus" in a sense, to the point where individual members now stand in history with some of the most powerful humanitarians and political leaders, and to think they're just some fucking Pop Boy band group.

Are they the "Best band ever"? Fuck no not even close, they're the most overrated in fact. Are they the most influential? Absolutely!

The Beach Boys were better.

I'm from Southern California man I agree, but even Carl Wilson was taking pointers from George Harrison niggah

Yeah. And the Beatles were influenced by Bob Dylan. He's also better than The Beatles.

Naw, Bob Dylan is equally as overrated

I don't think he was overrated at all But I also don't listen to anything h made after 1970.

They only ever had one good song anyways

Few good stuff that is so fucking good it blows my fucking mind for it's time and age? Quality. Absolute quality. Some fucking wonderful songs, and they had spectacular talent.

But fame and petty jealousy tore them apart and they descended into their dark corners of wealth, vanity, and drug use. If they were all killed at once they would have become a a century old martyr for a stagnant representation of peace found on psychotropics in the desert and woods. I give it a century at best and if by the time Rolling Stone is forgotten and outed thanks to the pop music industry finance ball-sucking, they and Bob Dylan will be lost in time to a lost generation of people who only ever complained and did nothing about the war and corruption but fought their own personal wars and became corrupt themselves through drugs and social dominance over the unpopular and the confused politics majors vying for an other's attention.

Smaller bands with similar messages couldn't hold a candle to the blinding light the Beatles were helped to shine by cocaine-bloated music executives taking advantage of a troubled and anxious youth that were fixing to release progressive rock and punk in the coming decade.

Still don't know why so many people hate on Revolution 9. Its obvious what Lennon was trying to do, I don't really think its too pretentious or anything either.

Still, it didn't belong on any albums and nobody wanted it on the White Album except John himself. If that internet had existed back then Revolution 9 would most likely have gone off as a free artpeice on YouTube or something

What do you think he was trying to do. It was just early experimental music.

Not him but he was trying to portray a revolution

Very nice.

How is that exactly?

It was a "sound collage" Lennon was trying to portray an Eastern-European style revolution, you can hear it in the song, repeating numbers from someone speaking through a microphone, sirens, people going mad, police radios.etc

I see what you mean now. I just thought they were random sounds. Did he literally say that was the point?

He said it was a Sound Collage
The Wikipedia article states he said he was trying to paint a picture of revolution using sound, but this statement is unsourced
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_9

Turn me on dead man

I finally found a page with Lennons exact statement
beatlesbible.com/songs/revolution-9/

So there you fucking go
It was also meant to be an extension of Revolution 1, but it dragged on so long it became its own recording entirely

And sage for the double-post but the exact source was an interview he did with Rolling Stone Magazine

I hope this changes your perspective on the piece in some way

It's one of their best songs to me. I just wanted to know if he literally said that or if it was just speculation,

Most critics don't know diddly squat about music theory, what sets one piece of music apart from others of the same 'genre' or what makes a piece a certain genre. And it doesn't help having a new sub-genre of music being made and regurgitated every year, and then people recognize it by it's proper genre, not it's general overall genre.

Most modern critics are paid editors and journalists who cover bands who are willing to spend the money on going public and making new bucks on new and anticipated projects. And a lot of critics get a bad name for being compared to vlogging reviewers and Rotten Tomato bloggers branding their company over a good piece of music or film to generate traffic through angered readers.

A good critic can hear music and tell others about that music and what's good or bad about it and why people should listen to it and what they should listen for.