yes, they do
theory doesn’t matter unless you make something that’s pleasurable to the ear
You quite literally have no idea what you’re talking about sorry
Quincy BS's half the time but people make sure to take the Beatles quotes seriously
Like there's no way vouch for all of his takes. His f***ing family staged and intervention after he said that s*** and forced him to apologize. Man says anything
Like Paul isnt a horrible bass player cus Quincy said it
not knowing how to read sheet music doesn't equate to not knowing music theory, you'd be rattled to realise how many artists that can't read sheet music actually know a lot about scales, harmony and chord voicings when crafting a song
mccartney was definitely a great bassist though
Besides all that, calling the Beatles music “primitive” is literally laughable considering how advanced most of their recording techniques were
Like how do you listen to a single song off Sgt peppers or abbey road and say that s*** sounds primitive? Just reeks of not knowing what you’re talking about
“Primitive” is actually a great way to describe the Beatles. The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton, Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but more original). The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul McCartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence). Overall, the technique of the "Fab Four" was the same as that of many other easy-listening groups: sub-standard.
Theirs were records of traditional songs crafted as they had been crafted for centuries, yet they served an immense audience, far greater than the audience of those who wanted to change the world, the hippies, freaks and protesters. Their fans ignored or abhorred the many rockers of the time who were experimenting with the suite format, who were composing long free-form tracks, who were using dissonance, who were radically changing the concept of the musical piece. The Beatles' fans thought, and some still think, that using trumpets in a rock song was a revolutionary event, that using background noises (although barely noticeable) was an even more revolutionary event, and that only great musical geniuses could vary so many styles in one album, precisely what many rock musicians were doing all over the world, employing much more sophisticated stylistic excursions.
While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avantgarde music, thus elevating rock music to art, the Beatles continued to yield three-minute songs built around a chorus. Beatlemania and its myth notwithstanding, Beatles fans went crazy for twenty seconds of trumpet, while the Velvet Underground were composing suites of chaos twenty minutes long. Actually, between noise and a trumpet, between twenty seconds and twenty minutes, there was an artistic difference of several degrees of magnitude. They were, musically, sociologically, politically, artistically, and ideologically, on different planets.
Of course they were influential and had a big impact on music. But was that influence a positive thing? The Beatles most certainly belong to the history of the 60s, but their musical merits are at best dubious.
In addition to the criticism of their music I outline in my post above, The Beatles came at the height of the reaction against rock and roll, when the innocuous "teen idols", rigorously white, were replacing the wild black rockers who had shocked the radio stations and the conscience of half of America. Their arrival represented a lifesaver for a white middle class terrorized by the idea that within rock and roll lay a true revolution of customs. The Beatles tranquilized that vast section of the population and conquered the hearts of all those (first and foremost the females) who wanted to rebel, without violating the social status quo. The contorted and lascivious faces of the black rock and rollers were substituted by the innocent smiles of the Beatles; the unleashed rhythms of the first were substituted by the catchy tunes of the latter. Rock and roll could finally be included in the pop charts. The Beatles represented the quintessential reaction to a musical revolution in the making, and for a few years they managed to run its enthusiasm into the ground.
Furthermore, the Beatles represented the reaction against a social and political revolution. They arrived at the time of the student protests, of Bob Dylan, of the Hippies, and they replaced the image of angry kids, fists in the air, with their cordial faces and amiable declarations. They came to replace the accusatory words of militant musicians with overindulgent nursery rhymes. Thus the Beatles served as middle-class tranquilizers, as if to prove the new generation was not made up exclusively of rebels, misfits and s***maniacs.
I agree with everything you said here. to me I never saw the Bealtes as Rock n Roll but more pop Rock. However given that their influence has permeated through so many genres from grunge rock, hiphop, pop of course.
Again I've listened to artist ranging from Chuck Berry, Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, The Shadows, and Led Zeppelin (one of my favorites), and Creedence Clearwater revival. so I get how we see there are more cutting edge bands and musicians out there.
not knowing how to read sheet music doesn't equate to not knowing music theory, you'd be rattled to realise how many artists that can't read sheet music actually know a lot about scales, harmony and chord voicings when crafting a song
and other genres are inferior works compared to the masturbatory discharge of bon iver or the avant garde masterpieces of merzbow
I agree with everything you said here. to me I never saw the Bealtes as Rock n Roll but more pop Rock. However given that their influence has permeated through so many genres from grunge rock, hiphop, pop of course.
Again I've listened to artist ranging from Chuck Berry, Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, The Shadows, and Led Zeppelin (one of my favorites), and Creedence Clearwater revival. so I get how we see there are more cutting edge bands and musicians out there.
hes copy pasta if you didnt realize btw lol
He just put together words that fit together and hit the red button
isn’t that what we all do, zine writer, while you sneer and croon at inferior forms of music
isn’t that what we all do, zine writer, while you sneer and croon at inferior forms of music
No such thing as inferior forms of music
No such thing as inferior forms of music
lots of rock/indie fans act like a hierarchy exists though
the groundbreaking musicians departed from theory anyways
Great music uses theory in an a great way, whether the songwriters were conscious of it or not - and most of the time they are, y’all are just sold on the myth that they aren’t so they can seem larger than life
all ima say is the beatles are def overrated
even the beatles themselves thought they were overrated. Tbh Them being overrated caused them to split up.
Still made god tier music tho
isn’t that what we all do, zine writer, while you sneer and croon at inferior forms of music
You sure talk out of your ass a lot