Managed to make albums that were both experimental and artistic yet accessible to the point of mass popularity

I think The Beatles were pretty good!

>The fact that so many books

coke

>managed to make albums that were both experimental and artistic yet accessible to the point of mass popularity

How did they do it?

If this were true, would other bands/acts he produced be legendary as well?

>How did they do it?

It wasn't intentional, so that more or less explains it.

right place, right time, right mixture of exceptional talent

Why is his watch facing that way?

...

Yeah, I've always wondered why people do that too. I think if they do certain kinds of work with their arms it's easier to see when it's on that side of the wrist.

I think people like snipers have it that way so they wont have to swish their arm around or something

wow how edgy of you

that's not how you wear a watch, Leo

can't imagine producer being that kind of work though

Yeah, no, me neither.
Maybe that he was a conductor, too, though?
Though I don't think he'd check the time whilst doing that...dunno

>experimental
No.

>what is Revolution 9

what? I'm with this guy, give me an experimetnal beatles track

Ha, compare them to anyone else making popular music at the time besides the Beach Boys. Those two groups (starting with the Beatles) changed everything, they literally created the LP 'album' instead of just single after single and releasing that as a compilation. And further 'experimentation' all stemmed from that paradigm shift.

hard work and virtually unlimited production budget. And having Sir George Martin in the room.

...

They compromised

Do you listen to music?

let me convince you that A Day in the Life is experimental

>managed to make albums that were both experimental and artistic yet accessible to the point of mass popularity

a copy of Stockhausen, Schaeffer and Cage experiments.

>>managed to make albums that were both experimental and artistic yet accessible to the point of mass popularity and was gay

How did he do it?

>Ha, compare them to anyone else making popular music

That doesnt make them experimental, they literally just stole their ideas from others. And what you said about the creation of "albums" is simply wrong.

Yeah , The Beatles Invented the tone clusters with A Day In The Life, right?

...

Which elements of Revolution 9 were plagiarized from those artists? Be extremely specific, as I can tell you're very knowledgeable

Not relevant.

Revolution 9 is just a sequence of diverse tape loops, whats so experimental about that.

youtube.com/watch?v=_qi4hgT_d0o

So you can't answer?

wrong link sorry:

youtube.com/watch?v=L1pRPGoUy80

are you kidding?

It's all too much is an underrated song

You can make the same claim for any mainstream pioneer that was at the genesis of a genre.
>Nirvana.
>Kayne West.
>Pink Floyd.
>etc.

Right place right time is how you make experimental, mainstream albums.

Ooh, sorry, this is not specific. It's actually quite vague. This is not the caliber of response I would have expected from a person as informed as you. You posted a piece of music that does not sound extremely similar to Revolution 9 and demonstrate which elements were plagiarized; instead, you posted a piece of music that sounds totally different outside its use of an extremely common music technique and provided a Wikipedia summary as analysis.

D-

You are just fucking retarded, revolution 9 is composed ENTIRELY with fucking tape loops. And a lot of artist were experimenting with that decades before the beatles even existed, don't act like a complete idiot.

The Beatles are great, but why the obsession with saying that they were experimental? They fucking weren't.

autism

>The Beatles are great, but why the obsession with saying that they were experimental? They fucking weren't.
But they were. They introduced the deliberate use of feedback to rock music, were the first to associate the sitar with psychedelia, and invented ADT and close milking. They were far more experimental and interesting than pseud favorites like TVU, but their image is too conservative and pseuds have grandparents who listen to their music so they don't get the credit.

>deliberate use of feedback to rock music,
if we are using arguments like this to label a band as experimental, we pretty much can do that with every band ever.

>were the first to associate the sitar with psychedelia

No.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZCSzxkbMri8

And i know it's a guitar, but Dave Davies deliberately wanted to make it sound like a sitar.

>and invented ADT
That's more a technical achievement than anything else.

>if we are using arguments like this to label a band as experimental, we pretty much can do that with every band ever.
If every band ever introduced an original musical technique that went on to influence thousands of other people and genres, then sure, that's experimental

>And i know it's a guitar, but Dave Davies deliberately wanted to make it sound like a sitar.
*And I know it's not a sitar meaning that the example is totally meaningless and does not prove my point, but I wanted to share it anyways

>That's more a technical achievement than anything else.
And? Art reflects the technology used to create it; the Beatles were the first to create this form music in this particular way, making them experimental. What aren't you getting? Why do you have to be such pseud and base your opinions of music on image? Think critically for a couple of seconds, you're being very immature and teenager-ish

This

The best management and marketing of all time

NORMIES

lol your first time on Cred Forums?

Hello Brit/pol/

But the masses didn't necessarily digest/enjoy this nearly as much as channel orange

Despite it being better

>And I know it's not a sitar meaning that the >example is totally meaningless and does not prove my point, but I wanted to share it anyways
way to be completely obtuse, and purposefully so

They should've stuck to getting good with their instruments instead of "experimenting".

They are some of the shittiest musicians I've ever heard. Boring and basic

>If every band ever introduced an original musical technique that went on to influence thousands of other people and genres, then sure, that's experimental

Yeah the grade of experimentation is measured by the number of people that band influenced.

Are you fucking sure what "musical experimentation" mean

>*And I know it's not a sitar meaning that the example is totally meaningless and does not prove my point, but I wanted to share it anyways

What the fuck, fucking George Harrison decided to use a sitar in Norwergian Wood after listening to that kinks song. Dave didn't use a sitar for that song because he didn't have one.

>That's more a technical achievement than anything else.
And? Art reflects the technology used to create it

You can't be serious with this statement. For real, i dont know why the fuck are so vehemently defending the experimentation of the beatles when you clearly have no clue about what that concept means.

>Why do you have to be such pseud and base your opinions of music on image? Think critically for a couple of seconds, you're being very immature and teenager-ish

I like the fucking Beatles, they were a great rock band, one of the best rock bands ever, but not experimental.

How so? The guitar in that song is not a sitar. It sounds vaguely like a sitar, but it does not make sitar noises and it is not played like a sitar. George Harrison actually performed a sitar, and he did so extremely competently. He didn't imitate the way the sitar was played, he played a sitar as a sitar player would, not as a guitar player would play a guitar.

"Experimenting" is the means to an end. The Davies wanted to integrate the timbre of a sitar into his music, but for whatever reason couldn't find one or couldn't play or whatever. But he had the idea before the Beatles.

>tfw I listened to Sgt Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour recently and I enjoyed them a lot despite previously trashing the Beatles as overrated boomer crap

>managed to make albums that were both experimental and artistic , yet accessible to the point of mass popularity

How did they do it?

>Yeah the grade of experimentation is measured by the number of people that band influenced.
But it absolutely is. Wiping your dick on some keyboards while farting into a microphone might be original, but it doesn't mean anything if nobody does anything with it. Sure it might impress the pseuds who are more interested in image than craft, but if you can't actually contribute to music and develop a good idea that helps you and other people express themselves, it's narcissistic garbage

>What the fuck, fucking George Harrison decided to use a sitar in Norwergian Wood after listening to that kinks song. Dave didn't use a sitar for that song because he didn't have one.
So you agree that George Harrison was the first to introduce the sitar to psychedelia, not Dave Davies. Why are you so upset if you admit I'm right?

>You can't be serious with this statement.
You can't be serious with this statement. It's not a refutation, it's not even an argument, it's simply an expression of your feeble mind desperately groping to say something, anything.

>I like the fucking Beatles, they were a great rock band, one of the best rock bands ever, but not experimental.
But they were experimental. I've already explained multiple techniques that they were the first to pioneer in their artistic experiments; please reread the thread if you've forgotten or didn't understand the first time.

>So you agree that George Harrison was the first to introduce the sitar to psychedelia, not Dave Davies. Why are you so upset if you admit I'm right?
At least try to make an argument instead of saying "nu-uh"

Ok, Im not going get into a concept discussion with you about art and experimentation because you just demostrated that you are a complete idiot and i dont want to waste my time. Bye.

But there is no argument to make if you agree with me, which you did when you admitted that Dave Davies did not play the sitar while George Harrison did.

It's a point of fact that you cannot point a single song in the history of psychedelic music that used a sitar before Harrison in 1965. You're objectively incapable of doing it.

the beatles were "innovative" in things that don't really matter. I.e. trivialities, superficial and technical stuff. Not actual composition or music wise. Music wise, their style can be traced to a lot of other bands and artists.

But of course, they perfected it and were fucking great songwriters.

It sounds like you realized you were unable to make a sound critique of my argument, which was much more persuasive and intelligent than yours. Fleeing is really the only way for you to save face at this point, so adios.

George Martin production

john lennon songwritting
mcarteney songwritting

and cultural appropriation

still goats though

Dave Davies didn't use a sitar because he couldn't get one. He emulated it to the best of his ability. He had the idea before George Harrison, that's what matters.

What you're saying is like saying that the scientists who did the math and developed the laws of physics shouldn't get credit because they objectively didn't apply it to shooting a rocket into space, or saying Guido de Arezzo shouldn't get credit for developing music notation, because he's objectively not known for composing with it

>john lennon songwritting

mainly this

No, what I'm saying is that George Harrison was the first to introduce the sitar to psychedelia, which he was, and which you agree with. The analogy wouldn't be the realization of rocket flight to a physicist, it would be a physicist who has a really cool concept that he can't prove with his tool i.e. mathematically. Davies probably had lots of crazy wacky smart ideas that we will never hear because he was incapable of realizing them competently, but Harrison was, and he did, making him the superior musician.

It sucks that Davies temporarily lost his millions dollars and motivation and skill and was unable to purchase a sitar and train in India like Harrison, but let's face the facts: Norwegian Wood is twenty times the song that See My Friends is and the first to use a sitar in psychedelic music.

he was the guy

Well there's nothing I can say to change your mind so forget it

And neither of the songs we're discussing are anything special, musicality wise. Norwegian Wood just borrows surface level concepts from Hindustani folk/classical without using them to their full potential

George hadn't even gone to India yet. He did not "train" there.

it was really just a factor on what a great leap at the time for popular music giving up being able to replicate stuff in a live performance and take full advantage of new studio technology