Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

27Pianos t1_ixt679g wrote

Mozart chortles at your meager and rudimentary preferences.

6

Adamant-Verve t1_ixu71tc wrote

J.S. Bach pats Mozart's head: "Come on Wolfgang Amadeus, just because we're dead, it doesn't mean we have to be condescending. Let the children play."

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixt7tz2 wrote

Come on , they're the closest thing we have to Mozart , Bach , Tchaikovsky , or even Beethoven . Thats why they're underrated . They are all underrated in today's generation really .

−2

Laethettan t1_ixttz1s wrote

Lol... ignorance

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixtylwy wrote

Im not gonna get on you about that inaccurate comment but what Im gonna do is say listen to Revolver song by song , then listen to Sgt Pepper , then realize when those both were released . Then listen to Magical Mystery Tour and realize it came out right after Sgt Pepper not even a year away and realize they didn't even take the pieces in the albm seriously in Magical Mystery Tour . They literally shat out a work of art there . After that then realize that they played the instruments or directed how the instruments were to be played . After that then go back and listen to Rubber Soul and see their art evolve at a constant high and thaank me lateer hateer alright

0

Laethettan t1_ixtyru5 wrote

And then realize that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are in a different league. The Beatles have some good shit, but they are not at all comparable.

1

BearOfBelAir t1_ixu1f1d wrote

Those composers make exquisite art with what could be seen as basic instruments. The Beatles made, well, exquisite art with what could be seen as basic words. Just like in Hello Goodbye or I Am the Walrus for example. It really takes something different to make those lyrrics come out as the monuments that they have become. Some might even say a comparable difference

2

WeakDiamond2313 t1_ixuheqa wrote

Then realize that sgt pepper was inspired by frank Zappa and now you realize the Beatles weren't the most innovative frank Zappa influenced them more than any other mainstream band at the time they were making music

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixvog0o wrote

Whos gonna realize something thats not true at all

1

WeakDiamond2313 t1_iy1io4d wrote

You can look it up lol the mother's even made album making fun of the Beatles for stealing their style calling the album we are in it for the money lol

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_iy1m84u wrote

According to the internet , they only did that to make fun of the Beatles for supposedly only being part of the " psychedelic " culture wanting money and l don't know from what l read it seems like the Beatles inspired them or motivated rather . Who cares really , Im just saying they made the best ever . However they did it . Plenty of people were inspired by others but the didn't do constant outstanding pieces of art like the Beatles had done .

1

OfCourseIKnowHim t1_ixt6z0c wrote

The Who?

3

PricelessLogs t1_ixt641q wrote

No way. Their haircuts were too round to be good musicians. How could they even hear themselves?

2

blowbyblowtrumpet t1_ixu6k1h wrote

The Beatles wrote so many iconic songs that stand the test of of time but as a musician what impresses me most is how sophisticated their music is. Every time I get into any harmonic analysis of Beatles tunes it is always interesting and slightly disorientating. They used a lot of really interesting harmonic devices. Thank you for the music I say.

2

palkopupa38 t1_ixtzn6a wrote

I like them, but i would not say the best. The one fact you can say is they have the most bops. There is no single person that can't name any song by The Beatles. The influence is indubitable.

1

elithemoonwalker t1_ixu0es4 wrote

I think they were (extremely innovative) but I think it’s mainly because they had the monetary backing. I think if the monkees got enough funding we’d be saying the same thing about them but that didn’t happen so I guess we’ll never really know

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixu0ytl wrote

The Monkees didn't even write their stuff mostly. They were just a manufactured band , a manufactured band originally for television . What about the Stones . They had the funding so much funding they kept going but they somehow just don't really compare even though they tried to copy and copy The Beatles

0

elithemoonwalker t1_ixu5nb8 wrote

The Monkees was just be throwing an example out there, maybe someone like The Who are a better example (Being one of the most innovative bands of all time basically creating genres like Metal and Power Pop amongst many other things, with the Beatles taking TONS of inspiration from those guys).

The Rolling Stones spent 90% of their money on addictions and still are extremely influential. I think it’s important to separate having money and having funding. The Beatles - relatively addictionless for a rock band - had a lot of funding to pump into their music. The Stones - Quite heavy on the addiction front - had little funding to pump into their music yet still churned out some IMPECCABLE stuff.

You seem to have a dismissive and relatively aggressive tone so in case this puts your mind to ease: I’m not Anti-Beatles. Help! Is one of my favourite albums of all time (and my favourite Beatles record) but I think because they’re music was SO polished, due to a huge amount of funding, the common consensus is they’re the best songs known to man when realistically there’s much better songs out there

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixu70v0 wrote

The Kinks and The Who really were an influence. What about the addiction thing ? I only thought that was some kind of a rumor . So they had more pumping into their veins than pumping into their musiic ? Did the Stones really spend that much on it ? I know Brian really had issues with it and Brian sure was taking them places in the sixties . The sixties was obviously their best of their best in their makings. Did all that happen after or what

1

elithemoonwalker t1_ixuf73p wrote

Every member of the stones was either on Heroin, Cocaine, hard liquor or all of the above. It’s only now they’ve been clean for the past decade. Whilst each of them spent quite a lot of their personal funds on drugs the main issue is that no one would give them large sums of money to make a movie or anything because they thought they’d be branded as “the one that work with those druggies”. In the Beatles case there was less talk about johns heroin habit and the rest of them weren’t addicted to anything but cigarettes so it was more acceptable to give them money. I’m not say the stones were always penniless but they weren’t pop superstars like the Beatles

1

_HerrTurTur t1_ixu5cej wrote

Never mind the Beatles here's the Punkles

1

AlParsonsFinalWords t1_ixtgfzx wrote

They were great, but innovative? Hell, no. Their first three albums were covering black girl groups and rockabilly. Unoriginal hacks.

0

RanyaAnusih t1_ixtssof wrote

Songs like please please me, she loves you and hard's day night were more original than anytjing around. A true combination of the explosiveness of rock n roll with melancholic british folk melodies and out of field structures and effects

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixtxsp8 wrote

By far. Also the covers they done were just " baby steps " , they were simplr just trying out their harmonic ranges through melodic synchronization with the famee that they were getting. Its known that they were very much into trying new things and evolving themselves. That's where we get into innovation. They literally had innovation. Especially after Beatles For Sale . The last albm with covered pieces . They were originators after that .

1

AlParsonsFinalWords t1_ixud5xn wrote

They were still copying Chuck Berry on the White Album. They had to be sued over Come Together because it was a slowed down version of You Can't Catch Me.

1

AlParsonsFinalWords t1_ixudxr2 wrote

Those songs weren't so original. You just don't know about the originals because they're mostly forgotten. In most cases, the originals were superior musicians who didn't have the advantage of superior recording equipment or producer George Martin. They copied the Shirelles and the Crystals most directly.

1

Adamant-Verve t1_ixu6tn0 wrote

Best music ever? In 100 years from now, the Beatles will probably be mentioned in the paragraph "pop music", chapter 20th century, in between the paragraphs "jazz" and "EDM". That pop paragraph will probably be dominated by Frank Zappa, but it's too early to predict what will be regarded of importance by that time. It will certainly not be "sales" or "popularity", but focused on the music itself. There will surely be a paragraph about New Orleans, cross-influences and World Music (Fela Kuti, Indian music, Astor Piazolla)

They will be in the list of "most popular pop bands 1950-2000", but for the list "best pop bands", I am afraid their drummer was too sub par.

Most innovative? A bunch of 20th century classical composers with decades of influential work like Ives, Stravinsky, Messiaen, and Stockhausen will be mentioned. Miles Davis and Coltrane probably. Zappa. Aphex Twin. Robert Fripp and certainly John Zorn. The Beatles, no matter how much we like or dislike them, will be not in that list of most influential in the 20th century, leave alone music history.

−1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixu8bab wrote

Im referring to talent not popularity just talent with them. As for their drummer being suub par , HA ! ! Thats funny . Why not listen to the wiiide range of drumming techniques he was capable of . As for influential , they literally were so influential that the people who influenced them were influenced by them. They were pioneers to sounds that weren't even thought of. Anything else you said explains why people who know more about what they did than just Yellow Submarine , or Hey Jude , say that they're underrated and its true they are underrated now and in your hundred yers from now.

1

Adamant-Verve t1_ixucq2l wrote

I have heard every single Beatle song at least twenty times. They were inescapable in the seventies and eighties. I don't know why you call them underrated now, but they were certainly overrated back then. I don't hate them, but I don't need to hear them again, honestly. There's so much more to discover. About Ringo: his drumming style and sound worked well with the Beatles, but his technique?? That would be his weakest point, not surprisingly, because he never practiced.

Let's agree to disagree on your statements about the Beatles. We're not going to meet in the middle, no need to argue.

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixudge5 wrote

I really was like that too . I heard everything , until I really heard everything . Listen to all of Revolver . Who here is arguing . All we need is love and love is all we need . I didn't know they were like that in the eighties . I wasn't here , there , or anywhere back then . Thats like two decades before me. Also he never practiced ? ? That just made his drumming even more better if so .

1

bluetriumphantcloud t1_ixwhoua wrote

The Beatles will not be on the list of most influential musicians of the 20th century?

You've tried so hard to look smart that you have become insufferably stupid.

Take your John Zorn, and go see if you can find a team of medical professionals to surgically remove your head from your arse you blithering moron.

I'm deleting Reddit.

1