Thread 128129202

No matter how many times I listen, I just don’t like the music of the Beatles. It doesn’t seem that revolutionary to me. What am I missing?

>>128129202 (OP)
It's mostly zoomers who feel like they're left out and were "born in the wrong generation" who pretend they're good. This board was incredibly anti Beatles before 2016, that should tell you something.

>>128129202 (OP)
they were massively pushed at the time
the marketing was crazy

>>128129202 (OP)
You're missing a good taste in music.

>What am I missing?
the point, good taste, out
many things

>>128129220
>This board was incredibly anti Beatles before 2016
That’s just because greater society is realizing they were hacks. Streams are down and most genuine discussion on other websites inevitably devolve into discussing their shitty personal lives. It’s trendy to hate the Beatles as a safe way to seem edgy and subversive. Same way people used to hate Elvis to seem cool.
Because of that, this is no longer of the few places online where you were allowed to be anti Beatle. Being pro Beatle is what’s actually subversive, so people now flock here to express their appreciation.

>>128129202 (OP)
>the beatles music doesn’t seem that revolutionary in the year 2025
WOW

Paul in Minneapolis last night.
last chance seats were $25.

“Help!” Beatles, 1965
“Coming Up,” 1980
“Got to Get You Into My Life,” Beatles, 1966
“Letting Go,” Wings, 1975
“Drive My Car,” Beatles, 1965
“Come On to Me,” 2018
“Let Me Roll It”/“Foxy Lady,” Wings/Jimi Hendrix, 1973
“Getting Better,” Beatles, 1967
“Let ‘Em In,” Wings, 1976
“My Valentine,” 2012
“Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five,” Wings, 1973
“Maybe I’m Amazed,” 1970
“I’ve Just Seen a Face,” Beatles, 1965
“In Spite of All the Danger,” Quarrymen, 1958
“Love Me Do,” Beatles, 1963
“Dance Tonight,” 2007
“Blackbird,” Beatles, 1968
“Here Today,” 1982
“Now and Then,” Beatles, 1967-70 (2023 release)
“Lady Madonna,” Beatles, 1970
“Jet,” Wings, 1973
“Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!” Beatles, 1967
“Something,” Beatles, 1969
“Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da,” Beatles, 1968
“Band on the Run,” Wings, 1973
“Get Back,” Beatles, 1970
“Let It Be,” Beatles, 1970
“Live and Let Die,” 1973
“Hey Jude,” Beatles, 1968
“I’ve Got a Feeling,” Beatles, 1970
“Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Clubs Band (Reprise),” Beatles, 1967
“Helter Skelter,” Beatles, 1968
“Golden Slumbers,” Beatles, 1969
“Carry That Weight,” Beatles, 1969

>>128129368
Don't believe that ritual-posting loser. He's trying to pretend he's not new as fuck by making shit up. Really fucking sad actually.

>>128129621
No Maxwell. Not worth my time or money.

(Only joking, I bet it was fantastic.)

>>128129202 (OP)
>It doesn’t seem that revolutionary to me
>in 2025
damn I really wonder why that is, it could may be that it's music from 60 years ago and hw they changed music was from long time ago to the point that we no longer feel it and just take it as normal????
naaahh that can't be

>>128129202 (OP)
>What am I missing?
It's like replaying Super Mario 64 of watching Seinfeld in 2025. A lot of what it does seems really unoriginal or even underwhelming, but at the time it was groundbreaking and introduced a lot of new concepts to the music world.

Yes, The Beatles didn't invent sampling or varied genre albums, but they helped popularize it and send it off as a cultural export to the masses.

Even Type O Negative is inspired by The Beatles.

>>128129202 (OP)
>>128129220
You never see something from the white album or abbey road in these opening shitposts. Always some crustoid early rock from 1858. Strange.

>>128129937
>abbey road
I'm going to be so honest, I think Abbey Road is a weak album. MMT will always be my favorite.

>>128129945
It's legal to not like it. But all these 'ho ho the beatles are fucking girl band shit' threads seem to claim Love Me Do (1862) is what they are famous for. The ops know what they're doing of course.

>>128129925
>Super Mario 64 of watching Seinfeld

>>128130187
?

>>128129202 (OP)
> filtered by I Wanna Hold Your Hand
I don't think you're going to make it, champ.

>>128129904
>smee
in 2001 i saw ringo in ft worth for $10

>>128129202 (OP)
I have no idea why /mu/ has so many normgroid beatles enjoyers now

Listening to Rubber Soul now. It’s a lot better than I thought. The lyrics are very misogynistic though.

I only liked their later work desu. enjoy mi picks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPsiNGQHjaI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdvnOH060Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDcDCZGcZj8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zeyej5bfZE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAmn4eMusZk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpndGZ71yww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcQjM7gV6mI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLQox8e9688
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpkhEXXhj4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT-gDIEcrP0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6x7bY2pSg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODEhwaU2Uw

Bowie was better

the Beatles undoubtedly have a lot of good music but also some bad stuff. That nuance is buried in the discourse because for so long they were 'le heckin best band ever!!!!' so the pushback was that they were shit. the truth is they are good but not nearly close to the best of all time, and their catalogue is FAR from flawless like some superfans used to claim

>>128129202 (OP)
>It doesn't seem that revolutionary to me
That's because you're comparing directly to modern music. The Beatles were so influential that it's not even obvious at first what they did. If you compare it to other music from the time period it becomes fairly obvious.

>>128132123
except they ripped their whole thing, including their band name, from Buddy Holly. and by the time they became le heckin pscyhedelic peace ad love band there were a billion of those too.

>>128132149
You're thinking of beach boys.

>>128132172
both apply.

Imagine growing up in the 50s with like frank sinatra and shit like that and then this drops

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O58ouPdjgo0&list=RDO58ouPdjgo0&start_radio=1

its all about context man

you're missing a lot of boring tech details about how they changed what music sounds like

>>128129913
All of that may be correct but it is also a testament to the music not being very good. When you're listening to music you like you're doing it because it's good, not because it's 'revolutionary' or 'important' or any of that meaningless bullshit. At least half of the music I listen to is older than the beatles and it is irrelevant to me if any of those songs were considered influential or not in the grand scheme of music because they're influential to ME and that's what matters

>>128132209
>>128132214
>>128132123
>>128129925

why does every single Beatles cocksucker act like they were some nuclear bomb that changed music and that it was only doo wop and ballads before them?

Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Elvis, and more were all doing rock before them.

Elvis dropped Jailhouse rock in fucking 1957, which is more hard rock than anything the Beatles dropped until like 1965.

Then they were late to the psychedelic wave too. I swear acting like the Beatles invented fucking anything should honestly get your music discussion privileges revoked.

>>128132254
pre beatles music was def influential, people just dont notice that jim morrision and ian curtis are doing a frank sintara impression over psych and post punk instead of pop

>>128132279
what do you want to hear then? that they were pushed by their label in the same way bieber and swift were to create a mass hysteria over their very existence? that they just got really lucky?

>>128132279
Because they don't know shit about music
The Beatles were manufactured corporateslop

>>128132293
i mean yeah, wheres the lie? Thats better than acting like they invented rock music when Elvis and Chuck Berry made songs heavier than they would for another decade afterwards.

>>128132188
Not even remotely comparable. An album like Sgt Pepper is experimental compared even to other psychedelic music of the time.

Revolutionary or not (it is) they wrote good songs with good melody and attention to detail

>>128132307
berry and elvis didn't have the modern sound though. beatles are arguably the first modern rock act.

>>128130206
Both are cool even to this day.

>>128129202 (OP)
>What am i missing?
A soul

>>128132791
>beatles are arguably the first modern rock act
nigga they weren't even rock they were pop. just cuz a band has two guitars, a bass & drums doesn't automatically make them a rock group

>>128132979
>this isn't rock:
https://youtu.be/BGLGzRXY5Bw?si=H3MsU0P-3F3n1jZB

>>128133030
yeah that isn't rock. thanks for the (you) anyway faggot

>>128129202 (OP)
The Beatles were agents of Satan. They sold their souls to Satan to become famous. If you like the Beatles, then you like Satan. If you dislike the Beatles, you dislike the evil Satan and are on the path of knowing God. When John said the Beatles are more famous and popular than Jesus, he was cryptically saying "Satan is more famous and popular than Jesus". This remark was stunningly accurate, at that time Satan worship was becoming popular and so was hating Christ and the Good. Obviously the Beatles (a beetle being a Satanic creeping thing by the way) knew of this fact intrinsically. There is no way you can listen to their music about fornication, lust, drug use, rebellion (against God) and not think it is spine tinglingly Satanic.

REMINDER THAT PATTI PAGE HAD A TOP 10 HIT WITH "HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE" IN 1965 DURING THE HEIGHT OF BUTTLEMANIA

>>128129202 (OP)
I am the walrus

>>128129202 (OP)
>What am I missing?
They broke up 55 years ago. The things that they did that were "revolutionary" have been copied by others and repeated over and over and updated. A pocket calculator was revolutionary in 1970, but it is extremely simplistic compared to a smart phone.

>>128132791
>berry and elvis didn't have the modern sound though
Wdym exactly by modern sound?

>>128132979
What defines rock to you then?

>>128129202 (OP)
I like getting baked and listening to the White album

Overrated but still good, just not the best. Impressive song output accross several genres, and I'll always have a softspot for them because of my now deceased dad liking them.

>>128131914
This is such a retarded way to judge music, why would you focus on the number of bad songs rather than the number of good songs? They definitely had some shitty songs spread throughout the discography, and fans DO acknowledge it all the time. But the most impressive thing about the Beatles, and the thing no band has ever been able to match, is the sheer volume and variety of excellent songs they released. The best band is not the one with the fewest bad songs, it's the one with the most great songs, and that is easily the Beatles. You can prove that using sales and streaming data (of any artist they have the most consistent, even spread of sales/streams among their discography- meaning anyone who likes the Beatles likes a massive proportion of their music as opposed to a few big hits or one great album). Their 'greatest hits' album is like 70+ songs, many of which are album cuts, I don't know any other band with that many commercially popular and beloved songs.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO
I ONLY WANNA BE WITH YOU GIRL
YOU GIRL
ITS TRUE

>>128132282
>pre beatles music was def influential, people just dont notice that jim morrision and ian curtis are doing a frank sintara impression over psych and post punk instead of pop
Very true.

It's also because the critics who have twisted the history of music were a bunch of dorks who came of age in the 60s so they thought everything their parents listened to was uncool man.

All through the 60s and 70s the older crooners were still very popular, as was Elvis for example, but they've been erased from history.

>>128132209
>2022 Mix
Hard to imagine, as it would drop when you're in your 80s, or more likely - dead.
Dumb fuck.

>>128132305
>LOTI

>>128132279
the difference is that the Beatles actually strayed from the 12-bar blues format and simple I - IV - V harmony (which Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry & Elvis were almost completely stuck to) and actually moved past strict blues harmony and song formats.

nobody was doing chord changes like on She Loves You in rock before them

>>128132279
>Then they were late to the psychedelic wave too
okay, who was doing psychedelic rock before them?

>>128129202 (OP)
>It doesn’t seem that revolutionary to me.
You say you want a revolution

>>128129317
>>128129328
>Beatlestards talking about "taste"
Fucking lmao, if you had taste, you wouldn't listening to rock in the first place

>>128138605
>All through the 60s and 70s the older crooners were still very popular
Some of them like Sinatra although their place had mostly been taken by young "new wave" crooners like Andy Williams and Tom Jones.

>>128140760
The Beatles were raised on skiffle which was the big music fad in the UK in the 50s but which Americans knew little of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGCCRpfYQVU

been getting into their beginning years stuff after binging on white album and abbey road forever nd they really had some gems

>>128132806
There's quite literally a phenomenon called "The Seinfeld Effect" where something considered groundbreaking for its time is quickly seen as outdated once all of the things it ushered in becomes commonplace.

-

>>128129202 (OP)
Well repeated listens isn't going to change your mind, they made simple versatile well written melodies, you either gel with them or you don't, there's no hidden meaning

I started listening to them after seeing the yellow submarine film while stoned. Started chronologically and only ended up really liking revolver and SPLHCB. The entire beatles phase lasted for 1.5 years then I moved on.

>>128129202 (OP)
>What am I missing?
Perspective.