“superior?” b**** that’s just called an opinion

Add jazz and I agree wit this for the most part. Not superior but i like those genres more as well

But the beatles were barely rock and roll imo. They were more just pop

and their fans call hip hop sampling fraud

it’s more advanced music, the beatles sounds primitive

What a joke of a post what the f***

weird semantics

mfs try to make subjective artforms a science crine

Quincy on some bs and smoking some shrem

someone that has never taken music theory courses or played an instrument at a high level wrote this post

literally no metrics for defining what "advanced" is

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.

y’all really getting this s*** outta hand. now we’re saying which genres are better? man y’all close minded af

the groundbreaking musicians departed from theory anyways

he's just angry the world left him behind and gave michael jackson all the credit for the music

Beatles hate threads are so boring.

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

No, they didn’t

shremhead anthem right here

Guy listened to mr kite and said its primitive lmfao

If tame impala did that same song on his next album every one would be s***ting their pants.

that has nothing to do with my post, knowing music theory or not knowing music theory doesn't broaden or limit someone's creative abilities. But for someone to claim what music is more "advanced" that person MUST know how music is made to be able to objectively say which music uses more complex harmonies, odd rhythms, different time signatures than 4/4 but i know you know nothing about music theory or music in general so that post was just a load of s*** like the rest of your posts in this thread

yes, they do

theory doesn’t matter unless you make something that’s pleasurable to the ear