/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

File: 129 KB, 723x722, 1429138813319.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 03:00:03 2015 No.55203910 [Reply] [Original]

The Beach Boys, while not overall better artists than The Beatles in terms of complete discography, were definitely better and more interesting at their peak.

What Beatles songs are as compelling as Surf's Up, God Only Knows, Cabinessence, Heroes and Villaisn, Good Vibrations, I Know There's An Answer, etc.? Not saying The Beatles are overrated or any scaruffi shit, but The Beach Boys were simply more genius at their peak compared to them.

Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 03:01:02 2015 No.55203922 youll grow out of it

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 03:05:06 2015 No.55203982 the beatles should have stayed a four-piece there was no fucking way that they could have even come close to brian wilson in terms of individual songwriting and big arrangements

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 06:11:32 2015 No.55206001 >>55203910 Well, McCartney's biggest idol is often said to be Wilson, so that kinda' strenghtens your claim. Pet Sounds is pretty damn good, on par with Sgt. Pepper I think. But Abbey Road is unbeatable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 06:14:17 2015 No.55206027 I agree also >inb4 boom-ding magically appears iTT

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 06:15:41 2015 No.55206040 >>55203910 Beatles: More consistant in producing amazing albums, where every song was of a high standard The harmonies belong to the Boys, The Beach Boys had two great ones in the band in Brian and Dennis, and one great lyricist in Mike Love.

boom-ding !iDpe2COB0I Fri Apr 17 08:47:21 2015 No.55207206
File: 28 KB, 500x345, brian and his bros.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]

>>55206027
>implying i'm awake at 6am est

Fuck it, I'm here now though, even though Beatles vs Beach Boys threads are pretty silly.

>>55206040
Carl was a "great one" as well imo. Perhaps not as strong of a songwriter as Dennis (certainly not as strong as Brian, but few are), but he was easily the best musician of the group and basically became the leader once Brian went bonkers. He also took the place of the chubby but really cute bearded guy singing beautiful falsettos once Brian couldn't do it anymore, gotta give him props for that.

I think if his solo albums were stronger people would give him the credit he deserves but they're admittedly weak compared to Dennis's and Brian's.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 08:49:45 2015 No.55207228 >>55207206 are you just a resident Beach Boys thread trip?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 08:51:06 2015 No.55207238 >>55203922 this

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 08:53:30 2015 No.55207267 Beach boys get overlooked purely becuase >"what? you mean those surfer song guys? how can you even enjoy them" Tell any person you like the beach boys and thats what they automatically think, and thus Pet Sounds and post-PS albums are forgotten

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 08:54:04 2015 No.55207275 >>55203922 /thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 08:56:34 2015 No.55207291 >>55203910 You are wrong.

boom-ding !iDpe2COB0I Fri Apr 17 08:58:12 2015 No.55207301

>>55207228
Pretty much, yeah. I figured this board needed a gimmick trip who just goes around posting about a meme band.

Seriously though I sometimes post in other threads and generally try to keep an eye out for other threads where I can hang out in so that I seem less persistently annoying.

>>55207267
I actually have two friends who think God Only Knows was written for Bioshock Infinite because of that barbershop quartet easter egg it has. I told them it was the Beach Boys and they didn't believe me because Surfin' USA and Barbara Ann.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 08:58:29 2015 No.55207304

Dear Prudence, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Blackbird, Helter Skelter, the entirety of Abbey Road, I am the Walrus, Strawberry Fields, Love you to, Tomorrow Never Knows, the entirety of Sgt. pepper
I could go on.
Pet Sounds > Any beatles album
Any post-Rubber Soul Beatles album > Any beach boys album (excluding Pet Sounds)
The Beatles > Beach Boys

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:03:14 2015 No.55207336 >>55207304 A Hard Day's Night > Pet Sounds A Hard Day's Night, I Should Have Known Better, If I Fell, And I Love Her, Things We Said Today, Tell Me Why, I could go on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:04:37 2015 No.55207350 >>55207304 >>55207304 >Any post-Rubber Soul Beatles album > Any beach boys album (excluding Pet Sounds) >smiley smile >sunflower >surf's up but of course you wouldn't know any of these bc you haven't even listened to them >>55207336 kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:05:18 2015 No.55207356 >>55207228 and LO is the resident DIIV/Dream Pop trip?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:14:49 2015 No.55207470 >>55207350 I've listened to all of them several times, I just prefer the beatles albums I've listed is all.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:26:30 2015 No.55207571

>>55207470
it's one thing if you prefer them but it's ridiculous to say that post rubber soul beatles albums are just straight up better. what about the yellow submarine album? how is that better than surf's up or sunflower? surf's up is actually sort of similar to abbey road in that side a is plagued by a goofy and stupid song (Student Demonstration Time and Octopus's Garden) but side b of both albums is absolutely perfect. sunflower is comparable to the white album, not in length or experimentation necessarily, but in variety, with songs coming from so many different songwriters and varying in genres. and if you wanna seek the experimentation you find in the white album, look no further than smiley smile.

the beach boys' post pet sounds career is extremely comparable to the beatles post sgt pepper material. if you prefer the beatles stuff then ok, but straight up saying that one is better than the other like it's capable of being universally agreed upon is just foolish

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:30:45 2015 No.55207609 >>55207304 but rubber soul is the best beatles album anyway. your post doesn't makes any sense

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:31:28 2015 No.55207619 Beach boys had one style and thats it. Lennon sings in my life and then sing something like revolution. could mike love do this or anyone on the boys? NO. could any of the boys go solo and make have a career? NO

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:31:31 2015 No.55207620

The Velvet Underground are probably the most influential band of the entire history of rock music.
The Velvet Underground scavenged the narrow alleys of the bad parts of town, and scavenged the subconscious of the urban kid, for emotional scraps that were a barbaric by-product of the original spirit of rock'n'roll. Their goal was only marginally the sonic reproduction of the psychedelic experience. Their true goal was to provide a documentary of the decadent, disaffected, cynical mood that was spreading among the intelligentsia. These were not hippies, these were elitist musicians who were aware of the avantgarde movements: they began playing (in 1965) as part of Andy Warhol's multimedia show "The Exploding Plastic Inevitable". They originated the "pessimistic" strand of psychedelic music (as opposed to San Francisco's optimistic strand). The Velvet Underground probably remain the most influential band in the entire history of rock music.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:31:44 2015 No.55207623 >>55203910 >What Beatles songs are as compelling as Surf's Up, God Only Knows, Cabinessence, Heroes and Villaisn, Good Vibrations, I Know There's An Answer, etc.? Define "compelling" And I'll easily give you a list of songs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:32:39 2015 No.55207632 >>55207619 >Beach boys had one style and thats it. kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:32:50 2015 No.55207635 >>55207619 So much ignorance in one post. kek.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:35:21 2015 No.55207656

>>55207571
>it's one thing if you prefer them but it's ridiculous to say that post rubber soul beatles albums are just straight up better
Usually when someone says "x is better than y" they are stating their opinion and not attempting to state objective, measurable facts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:36:30 2015 No.55207665 >>55207228 rip FRIENDO

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:37:40 2015 No.55207674 >>55207656 maybe, but not around here. i find that people on /mu/ very commonly just represent their own opinion as fact, bluntly stating "x > y" and leaving it at that so sorry for thinking you're one of those guys

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:38:29 2015 No.55207685
File: 204 KB, 303x338, (not true, by the way, your honor).png [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]

The fact that so many Americans still believe it should be illegal to marry a 12-year-old only tells you how far America still is from becoming a serious culture. The Europeans have long recognized that the greatest relationships of all times are between male adults and female adolescents, who are the most biologically fit to produce offspring, as well as the most physically attractive. Followers of the Muslim faith rank the highly controversial Aisha over all of their prophet Mohammed’s other wives, who were far past the prime age for reproduction. Americans are still blinded by puritan values. Adult females are more mentally developed than adolescents (not true, by the way), therefore they must be the greatest partners. Europeans engaged in relationships with adolescent European girls in the middle ages, radical Islamists engage in relationships with adolescent Muslim girls in the present. Americans are often totally ignorant of the virtues of relationships with adolescent girls, they barely know the biological benefits. No wonder they will think that sexual relations with 12-year-old girls should be criminalized.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:38:57 2015 No.55207692

I agree the Beach Boys peak was better but Beatles were far more consistent which IMO makes them a better band overall

also all you harmonising faggots need to chill out, The Beatles were good at harmonising as well they just didn't do it every song, see Because and a few Rubber Soul tracks.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:40:52 2015 No.55207706 >>55207674 I wasn't that guy, just letting you know you sound ridiculous pointing out the obvious, especially when the other guy specifically stated it was just his opinion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:40:52 2015 No.55207707 >>55207692 >The Beatles were good at harmonising that goes without saying, but the beach boys were far far far better.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:41:52 2015 No.55207716 >>55207707 But they had an unfair advantage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:41:52 2015 No.55207717 >>55207706 >especially when the other guy specifically stated it was just his opinion. he didn't though?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:42:52 2015 No.55207727 >>55207717 >>55207470

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:42:52 2015 No.55207728 >>55207716 who, brian? well the beatles had geoff emerick and george martin as producers but you don't see me bitching about how they're the reason the production on beatles songs was so interesting and new.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:45:04 2015 No.55207754

>>55207727
except i said "it's one thing to prefer them" and "if you prefer the beatles stuff then ok", the rest of my post was just me generally addressing people who think the beach boys' post pet sounds career sucks, not him directly

anyway i'm so sorry that posting on /mu/ has caused me to assume that most people who say "x > y" are just being dumbasses who are forcing their opinions down peoples' throats which is what most of this board does. are you done pestering me about it?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:45:42 2015 No.55207761

>>55207728
>well the beatles had geoff emerick and george martin as producers
Brian had the Wrecking crew and dozens of session musicians but that's not my point.

The Beach Boys were all a) related and b) trained as youths by their father, so obviously they are going to be "better." But The Beatles had a more rough, untrained yet successful aesthetic. Don't know about you but I'd much prefer an underdog than someone who had a silver spoon in their mouth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:47:01 2015 No.55207776 >>55207754 >the rest of my post was just me generally addressing people who think the beach boys' post pet sounds career sucks Most of it does suck though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:49:56 2015 No.55207812 >>55203910 beach boys suck.only americans like that shitty redneck granpa band., beatles is way better.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:50:52 2015 No.55207820

>>55207761
dude, fuck off if you think the beach boys had silver spoon in their mouths. the wilson brothers were beat by their fathers and recorded their first song with instruments that they rented with money that they were supposed to use for food while their parents were on vacation. they've experienced more inner turmoil than the beatles ever did, and brian and dennis suffered extremely sad lives.

brian earned the wrecking crew by making hits with his band. he wrote the songs, they played the songs, he earned the money, he payed the wrecking crew. the beatles didn't need to pay their god tier producers, they were just there. brian payed out of his pocket for the wrecking crew to play songs for him.

the beatles were signed by a PR genius who gave them a perfect image that made them fresh and interesting. the beach boys' first manager was their abusive, controlling father.

actually fuck off, seriously.

>>55207776
>>55207776
sorry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:51:45 2015 No.55207829 >>55207571 it just is,beach boys is shitty redneck grandpa fake plastic boyband from gaylifornia. >>55207620 velvet shitground is gay and sucks dick. their vocals are awful.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:53:01 2015 No.55207837 >>55207761 >the beach boys were all a) retarded b)married to slaves

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:53:35 2015 No.55207846 >>55207761 also they weren't all related, the only three members were the wilson brothers. mike is a cousin, al is a friend, bruce johnston is a friend. you're completely misinformed dude. stop while you're behind.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:54:05 2015 No.55207856 >>55203910 Who cares about these bands? See >>55203922

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:55:18 2015 No.55207869

>>55207820
>the wilson brothers were beat by their fathers
Lennon was abandoned by his father and watched his mother die in front of his eyes.
>brian earned the wrecking crew by making hits with his band
Lennon and McCartney earned their production team by making hits with their band
>the beatles were signed by a PR genius who gave them a perfect image that made them fresh and interesting
You are also describing Murray Wilson.

It's sad you are this same guy >>55207754 who is going on and on about how neither are better and you still can't realize that both The Beatles and The beach Boys were about equal.
>>55207846
>also they weren't all related, the only three members were the wilson brothers. mike is a cousin,
So four of them were related.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:58:34 2015 No.55207900

>>55207869
>Lennon was abandoned by his father and watched his mother die in front of his eyes.

cool, so neither the beach boys nor the beatles were pampered or had great childhoods.

>Lennon and McCartney earned their production team by making hits with their band

sure, but they didn't need to pay them. brian wrote hits, got money, used it to pay the wrecking crew. the beatles wrote hits, and just had their loyal production team with them from then on without ever needing to fork over cash to keep them around.

>You are also describing Murray Wilson.

murray's image for the beach boys was not fresh and interesting at all. it was literally the most clean cut, average image. the beatles came to america in suits with hairstyles no one was used to around that time. it was totally foreign and new and exciting and played into their enormous success.

>It's sad you are this same guy >>55207754 (You) who is going on and on about how neither are better and you still can't realize that both The Beatles and The beach Boys were about equal.

that is literally what i'm saying though. you're trying to turn this into a pissing contest over who had the rougher start. hint, it was neither of them. they both had equally rough starts but both came out on top.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 09:58:40 2015 No.55207903 >>55206001 I think this poetry much nails it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:00:01 2015 No.55207921 >>55207869 Also remember Paul's mum died when he was a teen too (16 I think) which is why he and John were so close initially.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:00:59 2015 No.55207930

>>55207900
>that is literally what i'm saying though. you're trying to turn this into a pissing contest over who had the rougher start. hint, it was neither of them. they both had equally rough starts but both came out on top.
I'm going to stop talking to you, you are coming off as one of those Beachboysfags who just won't fucking stop posting ever. If byou weren't such an oobnoxious shithead, I'd want to have a discussion with you.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:01:43 2015 No.55207941

i have to go to class now. i don't even know why i'm arguing with you. it seems like we're suddenly both on the same page regarding the fact that both bands had rough starts and worked really hard for their success, so i don't know why your original post was about the beach boys having it good/easy. i'm well aware that lennon had an extremely troubled childhood and life man, but so did the wilson brothers, especially brian.

>>55207930
what the fuck are you talking about? i am literally agreeing with you. you're the one who's being an obnoxious shithead. i'm glad you're pissing off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:02:55 2015 No.55207957 >>55207941 Are you the same guy who, when shown that most of their post-Pet Sounds material was trash, you laughed and said you were "going out with your friends"? This was last week.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:04:17 2015 No.55207979 >>55207941 Don't forget you were the one attacking a guy who preferred The Beatles. You started this.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:04:22 2015 No.55207981

The Beatles were a far more consistent band. Nobody's arguing this, but I want to point at this does not matter as much as you think it does. Some artists have their talent diluted over dozens of albums. Some have one or two great albums and a bunch of shit ones, while others have no great albums and a bunch of decent ones.

What matters are the bands peaks, that's what you should be arguing. The Beatles were good songwriters since day one, the Beach Boys had a few fantastic pre-Pet Sounds singles like California Girls and Little Girl I once Knew but their only good album as a whole pre-PS was Today! Yes, early Beatles outclasses early Beach Boys, but let's take a look at this.

Good Beach Boys albums:
SMiLE Sessions
Pet Sounds
Smiley Smile
Today!
Sunflower
Surf's Up
Love You

Now many Beach Boys will argue that Friends, Summer Days, Wild Honey, etc. are also great, but I'm trying to pick their absolute best material. The "just Pet Sounds" arguement is fucking ridiculous. You can argue that the Beatles were better quite convincingly, but do it well at least.

After SMiLE failed, the public and critics lost interest in the Beach Boys. So now, they don't have as many "classic" albums, but why does this matter? It's the music that matters. Nobody cares about Sunflower because it flopped and because the Beach Boys aren't cool, but who are you to say it's not just as good as Rubber Soul?

In my opinion, Lennon-McCartney were better than Brian Wilson, but Brian Wilson was better than either of them. As albums I think his best work was better than their best work. SMiLE is the Beach Boy's Abbey Road, Pet Sounds is their Sgt. Pepper. The thing is, Brian had everything going against him creatively. He didn't have a George Martin or supportive bandmates, besides Carl and Dennis. Still, his talent shone through.

>>55207869
>>55207900
Why does this matter to you guys?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:04:34 2015 No.55207987

>>55207957
> most of their post-Pet Sounds material was trash

you're just antagonizing me now

and yes i am, and i bailed because you said some stupid shit about how music is like math or something dumb like that.

i actually have to leave for class now, sorry for having actual obligations and priorities that i need to attend to beyond arguing with some angry idiot on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:05:50 2015 No.55207996 >>55207754 The Beach Boys suk, fagboi. Beatles are great.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:06:23 2015 No.55208003

>>55207957
>when shown
Tell me, how is a thing like this "shown"? It doesn't matter if they had hundreds of shit albums, it's the good material that matters. Stop valuing consistency over masterpieces.

Is Sunflower Trash? Is SMiLE trash? Is Is Surf's Up trash? Is Smiley Smile trash?

I don't care if they had dozens of albums filled with nothing but Kokomo, it's the good music that matters.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:08:20 2015 No.55208033 >>55207981 Lennon > Wilson McCartney > Wilson Harrison > Wilson Literally any objective listener can hear this. I don't even like The Beatles very much, either.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:08:50 2015 No.55208040

>>55207987
>and yes i am,
lol I knew it. Just stop posting here. Go to the Smiley Smile boards or something. You got REKD and you ran away then; you act like a shit and get called out on it and then run away again.

Are you actually autistic or something?
>and i bailed because you said some stupid shit about how music is like math or something dumb like that.
If you knew any music theory you'd know it is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:09:38 2015 No.55208049 >>55208033 If it's objective, then prove it objectively beyond stating a preferance.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:10:45 2015 No.55208061

>>55208003
>Is Sunflower Trash?
It is not very good. People *want* it to be good.
>Is SMiLE trash?
Well it was never finished, it was trashed.
>Is Is Surf's Up trash?
About about half the album is trash, yes.
>Is Smiley Smile trash?
I would say it's trashy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:13:30 2015 No.55208106 >>55208061 >Well it was never finished, it was trashed. Why does this matter? Other than that I don't see why I should take your opinion seriously.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:15:53 2015 No.55208139 Are all the songs on the white album good? I think it's about 75% filler. Discuss.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:16:16 2015 No.55208145

>>55208049
i said objective listener as in, anyone who's opinions aren't influenced by personal biases like oh I like John Lennon he's cute, I like The Beatles because their chords are more interesting than Wilson's. The Beatles just sound better to anyone who doesn't give a shit about anything other than the sound. The Beatles at their cheesiest is like Maxwell's Silver Hammer and Yellow Submarine and those are still charming songs.

But now The Beach Brothers… oh man.. Have you ever heard Kokomo? It sounds like a commercial for the Caribbean for old white retirees.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:16:46 2015 No.55208151 >>55208139 They probably could've trimmed it down to one solid album, but none of it is so offensively bad that I can't listen to it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:16:50 2015 No.55208153 >>55208106 >Why does this matter? You are trying to discuss and rank something of quality that doesn't exist. By your logic I can say that The Beatles Childhood Album is better than SMiLE.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:17:18 2015 No.55208160 >>55208139 There's no such thing as filler on a concept album. Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:17:50 2015 No.55208167 >>55208139 >I think it's about 75% filler You don't know what filler is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:18:50 2015 No.55208183 >>55208160 The White Album isn't a concept album.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:18:54 2015 No.55208185

>>55208145
>their chords are more interesting than Wilson's
Fair enough, now substantiate this if you aren't talking out of your ass

>Beatles just sound better to anyone who doesn't give a shit about anything other than the sound
[citation needed]

>Kokomo
Who gives a fuck? It's not even Brian Wilson

>>55208139
I don't know about 75%, but it could've been up there with Pepper and Abbey Road if they handled it better.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:20:50 2015 No.55208217 >>55208153 Sessions exists, as well as plenty of bootlegs that are far better. >>55208167 What is filler?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:22:51 2015 No.55208238 >>55208183 Yeah it is. The concept is "here's what happens to a rock band in 1968 when you tell them they're gods"

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:24:25 2015 No.55208260 >>55208217 >Sessions exists, as well as plenty of bootlegs that are far better. Oh so we are comparing bootlegs! Then the Purplechick Complete Pepper Sessions is far better! >What is filler? You don't know? Or are you trying to be a dipshit again?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:24:38 2015 No.55208264 >>55208238 They release a pretty good album of psychedelic folk pop and hard rock?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:29:22 2015 No.55208328

>>55208139
The Manson family carried out murders due to the White album. So the concept according to Charles Manson is black people will rise up and kill the whites, but first something needs to kick off proceedings. So Charles Manson and family delivered the message, creating the most extreme death metal concept album of all time.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:30:03 2015 No.55208341

>>55208260
I'm asking you to tell me what it is since you said the other anon didn't know what it meant. If you're going to say that then you should be able to explain yourself, right?

>Then the Purplechick Complete Pepper Sessions is far better!
That's not equivalent. The Sessions material is not a bootleg and was sequenced according to Brian Wilson's track list on BWPS. It was officialy released. I mention the bootlegs because some handle the material better and use the same music as on Sessions, but if you don't want to count them for some arbitrary reason then don't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:30:16 2015 No.55208344 >>55208328 >according to Charles Manson Not how it works.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:33:55 2015 No.55208397

>>55208341
>The Sessions material is not a bootleg and was sequenced according to Brian Wilson's track list on BWPS
Incorrect, BWPS wasn't 6 discs long.
>It was officialy released
As an archival anthology release. By your logic let's compare it to The Beatles 2009 box set of all of their albums compiled.
>If you're going to say that then you should be able to explain yourself, right?
Filler is what happens when the artist says "Ooops we don't have enough material to FILL this album. Quick let's make something up". Hence the world "filler"
That happened on Rubber Soul and Help!, but not on The White Album.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:35:42 2015 No.55208419 >>55208397 You're right, I shouldn't have said filler. A lot of the album isn't up to par though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:37:07 2015 No.55208445 >>55208419 >A lot of the album isn't up to par though. How so? All the songs are great, with fun jams connecting it all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:43:09 2015 No.55208523 >>55208445 What do you mean? Many songs on the album just aren't as good as While my guitar gently weeps, Dear prudence, Julia and the other good songs in the discog of the Beatles

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:44:55 2015 No.55208554 >>55208523 How are they "not as good"?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:47:46 2015 No.55208608

>>55208397
>Incorrect, BWPS wasn't 6 discs long.
Those are bonus tracks and tracks from the deluxe edition. The first three movements, just as on BWPS, is the official track list.

>By your logic let's compare it to The Beatles 2009 box set of all of their albums compiled
Still a false equivalency. Sessions features material from a single album that was being created in 1967. Session does not feature all of the Beach Boys album compiled. I know you know this and you're being a dummy to try and get a rise out of me.

>Filler is what happens when the artist says "Ooops we don't have enough material to FILL this album. Quick let's make something up".
This is your definition. The thing is, for almost every album ever made you can't know this. Why would an artist say "yeah we just made it in a rush because we didn't have enough material"? Sure, some would, but by this logic if an artist didn't consider their own material filler, then it's wouldn't be filler.

>>55208445
It has some of their best material, but also some of their worst. It's inconsistent and bloated. For example, Ob-la-di,Ob-la-da is one of their worst songs and Happiness is a Warm Gun is one of their best.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:51:18 2015 No.55208665 >>55208554 A lot of those songs are "silly" songs. Not just lyrically. Upbeat songs with no distinct qualities that make them interesting or even catchy. They never stuck with me and I never particularly enjoy listening to them. That's why

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:51:38 2015 No.55208667

>>55208608
>hose are bonus tracks and tracks from the deluxe edition.
Oh wait you are cherry picking? OK
>The first three movements, just as on BWPS, is the official track list.
Oh you mean the tracklist not even created by Brian Wilson?
>Sessions features material from a single album that was being created in 1967
So you are saying there was no material from 1971 on the album? There was.
>This is your definition.
No you mean THE definition.
>for almost every album ever made you can't know this
Then it would be advantageous not to label something "filler" if you didn't know.
>Ob-la-di,Ob-la-da is one of their worst songs
What's wrong with it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:52:39 2015 No.55208688 >>55208665 >A lot of those songs are "silly" songs >They never stuck with me and I never particularly enjoy listening to them. That's why Maybe the problem is you are too serious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:53:57 2015 No.55208709 >>55208688 Maybe

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 10:58:22 2015 No.55208770 >>55208709 I mean it's one of their most popular songs, and people love it. It's more likely you are too uptight rather than the song is too silly.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:02:24 2015 No.55208823

>>55208667
>Oh wait you are cherry picking? OK
That's not cherry picking. They are bonus tracks and tracks from the deluxe edition. If you want to consider them, fine, but I see no reason to.

>Oh you mean the tracklist not even created by Brian Wilson?
Which is why I prefer several other bootlegs, but I don't see your point. You said it shouldn't be counted because it's a bootleg, and it's not. It has an official track listing and an official release.

>So you are saying there was no material from 1971 on the album? There was.
Not on the version I listen to, either way it does not feature all of the Beach Boys albums so it's a false equivalency.

>No you mean THE definition.
[citation needed]
Again, by this logic you could only ever consider filler what you know for certain the artist considers filler. This is a useless definition.

>What's wrong with it?
It does absolutely nothing notable when compared to their other songs. It's sappy shit. What's good about it? Happiness is a Warm Gun wastes not a single second of music. It goes in unpredictable directions. There's so many ideas packed into one 3 minute song. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da has no ideas.

>>55208770
>argumentum ad populum
Leave it to the Beatles fans

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:02:53 2015 No.55208830 >>55208770 Which song?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:07:34 2015 No.55208889

>>55208823
>That's not cherry picking
Of course it is. You are only focusing on 2/3rds of disc 1 and ignoring the remaining tracks and then another 6 discs
>Which is why I prefer several other bootlegs
Oh which ones were sequence by Brian Wilson?
>Not on the version I listen to
Which version is that?
>Again, by this logic you could only ever consider filler what you know for certain the artist considers filler
Correct. What's the problem, other than you can't use a meaningless criticism anymore?
>It does absolutely nothing notable when compared to their other songs
The narrative is amazing, the instrumentation is enthrallment and the performance is energetic and zesty. Nice try.
>argumentum ad populum
>Leave it to the Beatles fans
That wasn't my argument. You should learn what argumentum ad populum is before you misuse it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:10:15 2015 No.55208929 >>55208061 >half of Surf's Up is trash objectively wrong

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:11:01 2015 No.55208938

>>55208040
>lol I knew it. Just stop posting here. Go to the Smiley Smile boards or something. You got REKD and you ran away then; you act like a shit and get called out on it and then run away again.

sorry for actually having shit to do with my life you idiot. i'm back from class so if your bitch ass is still here i'm happy to shit on you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:11:36 2015 No.55208954 >>55208929 Half of it is filler actually.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:12:45 2015 No.55208969 >>55208938 If you leave /mu/ to go to class, only to immediately come back to /mu/ to argue with someone then you should probably get some help.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:14:37 2015 No.55208990

>>55208185
>Beatles just sound better to anyone who doesn't give a shit about anything other than the sound
>[citation needed]

They're very well the most popular band of all time or, at least most often referenced as the best or critically acclaimed bands of all time by the general population. It's not necessarily because they're objectively good, it's because they haven't tried anything else.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:19:20 2015 No.55209078

>>55203910
Not going to get involved in this discussion, just wanted to chime in. I overheard somebody talking in one of the local record stores. An employee, I actually heard them say this. They say

>I don't know, I wish I could like The Beatles more.
>It's just, in terms of just innovation, I think I'll always prefer The Beach Boys.

I kept looking through records just kind of smiling to myself. Fun times. Nah, but she's really cool. Just found that opinion kind of funny.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:24:01 2015 No.55209158
File: 88 KB, 1000x1339, smile-tracklist-brian-1000.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]

>>55208889
>Of course it is. You are only focusing on 2/3rds of disc 1 and ignoring the remaining tracks and then another 6 discs
I'm ignoring them because they are bonus tracks. It would be cherry picking if there were no reason for me to ignore them.

>Oh which ones were sequence by Brian Wilson?
This is actually really interesting. None directly, we have to piece it together from what information is available.

What is your point, though? Why do you keep moving goal posts? First you said it didn't coutn because it was a bootleg, now you're saying it doesn't count because it wasn't sequenced by Brian Wilson.

The album is there, whether you want to consider it official or not, and whether you want to count it or not, is irrelevant to me. How it sounds is what matters. It holds together as a unit, it has brilliant motivic development on par with Abbey Road's second side. It's as legitimate as any of their other albums.

>Correct. What's the problem, other than you can't use a meaningless criticism anymore?
I didn't use it in the first place. It's a subjective term and it isn't up to the artist. It's just shorthand for an album having a bunch of tracks you percieve as mediocre. My point is that's not really up to the artist.

>The narrative is amazing
If you say so, I've never seen their lyrics as especially remarkable, and Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is no exception. In fact, I think it's godawful in that department.

>instrumentation is enthrallment
I guess you mean the bongos and clapping? That's the only thing that separates it from your average Beatles song in terms of instrumentation. If you think that's "enthralling" I really don't know what to say to you.

>energetic and zesty
And this is notable how?

>Nice try
Oh please, we are both stating preferences, you aren't more right than me because you enjoy it.

>That wasn't my argument
>It is popular and acclaimed, therefore the problem is most likely not with the music

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:26:39 2015 No.55209195 >>55203910 Beach Boys are 100% better than the Beatles in every way shape and form. No denying.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:27:40 2015 No.55209210 >>55208969 is that the sound of someone who knows he's just being an antagonistic shitposting retard and can't actually attempt to argue? i think so. go pester someone else you friendless faggot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:29:14 2015 No.55209235 >>55203910 the beach boys are to /mu/ what the beatles are to reddit and 9gag. they are babblys first "see, I like pop music too. but I still have good taste" not saying either of them are bad tho

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:32:00 2015 No.55209269

>>55209078
You already are involved in this discussion, don't try to trick anyone.

Why is the opinion funny?

I would probably say the Beatles are more innovative overall because of how their early material expanded the harmonic vocabulary of pop music. Their contemporaries' songwriting wasn't nearly as sophisticated. However, from Today! through SMiLE's recording you could make a pretty convincing arguement for the Beach Boys in terms of studio work and abum crafting and production. A few innovations of Sgt. Pepper were actually the innovations of Pet Sounds.

The Beatles had specific innovations like backwards music and tape loops, but Smiley Smile pioneered, in some sense, lo-fi rock music and had a pretty wild sense of experimentation. Also, the composition of Good Vibrations achieved through heavy editing, pioneering psych pop with Pet Sounds and California Girls, etc.

You could make a case for either.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:32:24 2015 No.55209275

>>55209158
>>It is popular and acclaimed, therefore the problem is most likely not with the music
I didn't say it was better or correct because it was more popular. Try again.
>And this is notable how?
You don't like energetic and zesty music?
>It's a subjective term
No I'm discussing it objectively.
>you percieve
Not relevant.
>First you said it didn't coutn because it was a bootleg
Incorrect. read the thread.
>is irrelevant to me
If that was true, you wouldn't be posting right now. I challange you to stop replyign to me if it was truely irrelevant to you.

Pretty sure you'll continue trying to claim SMiLE is a legitimate release, comparable to a finalized album.
>we have to piece it together from what information is available
Oh! By this logic I can piece together my own Beatles album superior to SMiLE in every way!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:33:25 2015 No.55209289 >>55209210 No I'm honestly asking what's wrong with you. Not to mention you are essentially saying "it's all opinion but my opinion is right and yours is wrong".

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:35:27 2015 No.55209322

>>55209289
what's wrong with you, you idiot? you're calling me out for having a life and priorities and acting like i'm running away from you when, in actuality, i'm right here ready to argue about whatever dumb argument you claim that i lost (i got, and i quote, "REKD" apparently) and you're backpedaling.

nothing's wrong with me you dipshit, i'm calling you out on being an antagonistic asshole.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:36:35 2015 No.55209335 >>55209322 >i'm calling you out on being an antagonistic asshole. See >>55207571

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:38:18 2015 No.55209369 >>55209335 yes that is a post i made. where did i get "REKD"? when we left off we were talking about the beach boys allegedly being lucky and having a silver spoon in their mouth, is that where i got "rekd"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:39:57 2015 No.55209395 >>55209369 >yes that is a post i made So you admit you were being an antagonistic asshole?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:40:46 2015 No.55209406

>>55209275
>I didn't say it was better or correct because it was more popular
Fair enough, but saying "The problem is likely with you since it's popular" is ridiculous nonetheless.

>You don't like energetic and zesty music?
I didn't say that, I asked how this was notable.

>No I'm discussing it objectively.
How so? Tell me how your definition of "filler" is the universal, objective definition of "filler"

>Incorrect. read the thread.
>Oh so we are comparing bootlegs!

>If that was true, you wouldn't be posting right now.
Obviously not. Your opinion is irrelevant to whether I consider it a "legitimate" album. That doesn't mean I can't be arguing with you.

>comparable to a finalized album.
I didn't say that, although the version I use is in my opinion as close as we can get.

>Pretty sure you'll continue trying to claim SMiLE is a legitimate release
Yes, for the reasons I've stated here: >>55209158. You've responded with "nuh uh".

>Oh! By this logic I can piece together my own Beatles album superior to SMiLE in every way!
Again with the false equivalency. SMiLE was a specific projected album on which we have a plethora of information and material on.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:41:11 2015 No.55209414

>>55209395
do you even know what antagonistic means? i literally said "it's fine to prefer the beatles stuff" and then elaborated on why it's unfair that people say the beach boys' post pet sounds career sucks completely which wasn't even directed at you

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:41:17 2015 No.55209418 Beatles are shit lmao, Beachy Boys own them out of the park

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:44:13 2015 No.55209459

>>55209406
>Fair enough, but saying "The problem is likely with you since it's popular" is ridiculous nonetheless.
Not really. If he doesn't see any value in it yet millions of people do, it's likely that he for some reason missed that value.
>I didn't say that, I asked how this was notable
Do you think good qualities are not notable?
>Incorrect. read the thread.
>Oh so we are comparing bootlegs!
You mean my reaction when you shifted goalposts?
>I didn't say that, although the version I use is in my opinion as close as we can get.
Which is what version? You curiously didn't answer that.
>You've responded with "nuh uh".
Show me where Is aid that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:45:26 2015 No.55209472 >>55209414 It doesn't suck completely, just the majority of it.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:47:10 2015 No.55209497

>>55209472
see? you're antagonizing me. you're literally not even saying anything other than shit you know will piss me off, for no reason other than to piss me off. this isn't a constructive debate, it's not going anywhere, it doesn't have a goal. you're literally just being an asshole. get a fucking hobby.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:47:21 2015 No.55209499 The best Beach Boys LP is Sunflower,John Stamos did a nice rendition of Forever during his wedding on the show Full House.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:48:03 2015 No.55209511 >>55209497 >you're antagonizing me Why are you getting upset over my opinion?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:49:54 2015 No.55209535

>>55209511
because you're literally just repeating it over and over at me just to make me upset, then telling me that i got rekd for it.

>>55208040

don't even try to pretend like you aren't acting like a prick to get a rise out of me. it's incredibly obvious by this post. backpedaling is pointless by this point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:50:04 2015 No.55209539 >>55203910 You're absolutely right. Beatles overall made better albums but there are individual songs by The Beach Boys that The Beatles never came close to.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:56:00 2015 No.55209618

>>55209459
>If he doesn't see any value in it yet millions of people do, it's likely that he for some reason missed that value.
We just really disagree on this. Popular opinion should really have no place in this discussion.

>Do you think good qualities are not notable?
My point is "energetic" is not an inherently good quality, it's just a standard quality.

>shifted goal posts
Not really. You said it didn't exist. I said Sessions exists and you provided another false equivalency with "I can say that The Beatles Childhood Album is better than SMiLE." Sessions is not a bootleg. I mentioned bootlegs, sure, but I also mentioned Sessions.

>Which is what version? You curiously didn't answer that.
You didn't ask. The 1967 upgraded mono sonicloveznoise version. I change the tracklist because his is partly guided by having the two sides be equal in time. However, Smiley Smile's sides are two minutes a part, so I figure this is not as important as making sure the music fits together well. I think Wonderful fits into the first side better because of the motivic devolopment which I mentioned. I switched Vegetables to the second side and I'm in Great Shape to the first because they are the only stand alone tracks and that's what makes the sides even out closest.

You can read his blog post if your curious as to why it's the closest we've come.

>Show me where Is aid that.
I'm exaggerating. My point is I told you why I consider it legitimate musically but you reasons seem to me entirely arbitrary.

>>55209539
My opinion is almost the opposite. I think the Beach Boys were better at album crafting. I know the Beatles have "muh concepts" but I think that's kind of overblown.

As far as individual songs go I can't really decide. Both were so amazing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:57:16 2015 No.55209641 >>55209269 >You could make a case for either. no you couldn't. and you just didnt. you literally just said the beatles win supreme. and i agree.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:58:18 2015 No.55209659 >>55209641 How insightful. I told you a few of the ways both were innovative, which you have ignored.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 11:58:52 2015 No.55209668 >>55209406 >I didn't say that, I asked how this was notable. It doesn't need to be notable to be better than the Beach Brothers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:00:15 2015 No.55209688 >>55209668 GAYS AND LOSERS?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:01:35 2015 No.55209708 >>55209535 Well if you weren't such a big baby it wouldn't be fun to antagonize you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:03:15 2015 No.55209736 >>55209708 epic, dude.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:06:36 2015 No.55209790

>>55209618
Oh, I also forgot to mention moving Vegetables to the second side is also nice because Vegetables into Wind Chimes into the Elements could be seen as earth, wind, fire and water.

This elements suite was never more than rumored to what it actually was but it's nice that it works out that way.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:08:14 2015 No.55209818

>>55209790
>Oh, I also forgot to mention moving Vegetables to the second side is also nice because Vegetables into Wind Chimes into the Elements could be seen as earth, wind, fire and water.
If you read his essay, you'd see that I'm in Great Shape was the earth element you schmuck.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:10:47 2015 No.55209865

>>55209659
I ignored it because it's uninformed shit, but I'll address it now.

>beatles expanded on harmonic early music blah blah blah
No they didn't.

Have you never listened to The Mills Brothers? The Everly Brothers? The Shirelles?

answer: no

>their contemporaries songwriting not good enough
This is true, but it's only because there was a big gap from late 50s to early 60s caused by:

the death of Buddy Holly, the imprisonment of Chuck Berry, the military service of Elvis, Ray Charles' slow output due to excessive heroin abuse, Little Richard doing what sounds like the same song every year, Everly Brothers extremely slow output

All The Beatles did was come at the right time (right before the majority of their peers), hard, and with enough songs to rise to the top even if there wasn't a gap. And they were white.

>studio work and a bum crafting production
It's shit. Who the fuck cares about the studio shit? I'm talking about songs, not the embellishing, flattering recordings. Strip both The Beach Boys and The Beatles songs to a guitar or piano or simple paper. That's what I'm talking about, not that extra shit.

>a few innovations from Pepper were from Pet Songs
what's your point? that makes them better song writers because they did noises and gimmick trickery behind the scenes? thats baby shit. all you need to have is an ounce of creativity to do that.

>The beatles were innovative too tho!!!!
backwards music was used in avant garde music before. same with tape loops. either way, behind the scenes trickery is baby shit. songwriting is where it's at.

>smiley smiley pioneered..
it didnt pioneer shit and is boring baby shit. Lo-fi music is a natural occurrence due to the democratizing of tape recorders. Anyone can see that. Second, if you want actual "wild sense of experimentation" you might as well be looking at the Warhol/VU song factory. even The Doors were more experimental than le smiley smile :)

>Good Vibrations
good song, but Beach Bros lose.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:12:39 2015 No.55209891

>>55209158

Fuck off with this Obladi- Oblada is awful meme

The track has probably the punchiest bass sound in their discography, the spontaneous backing vocals and piano lines by Lennon are a thrill, and there is nothing "godawful" about their lyrics, they're actually quite entertaining eg. "Desmond says to Molly "girl, I like your face!"" It's cheery and sunny, maybe it's a bit long but otherwise, great track.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:12:55 2015 No.55209896 >>55209865 >a song is only what I say it is!

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:13:25 2015 No.55209906

>>55209818
And it could just as easily be Vegetables.

>surely barnyards and the ‘the great agriculture’ is more earthy than sleeping a lot and brushing your teeth?
Vegetables are just as earthy, and the "great agriculture" part is basically the same thing. The "great agriculture" part is also like 5 seconds of the whole song.

Could be either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:14:46 2015 No.55209926 >>55209891 It's not a meme, a shit song is a shit song. >punchiest bass sound >Not Rain or Getting Better >"Desmond says to Molly "girl, I like your face!" Yeah, it's definitely cheerful, but it's also definitely shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:15:22 2015 No.55209937 >>55209896 no. a song is rhythm, melody, and lyrics. not bleep bloops and muh coca cola cans. you lose, beta cuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:16:13 2015 No.55209957 >>55209937 >bleep bloops That create a melody >and muh coca cola cans Which create a rhythm

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:16:52 2015 No.55209966 >>55209896 he didnt even say what a song is in that post. he just said studio experimentation is flattery and should not be used in discussing the quality of a song.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:18:22 2015 No.55209994 >>55209957 obviously, but you're completely missing the point of my post. guess you're of inferior intelligent. sucks to be in the bad side of the gene pool doesn't it, beta cuck? oh well. enjoy your "le sad" beach brothers records !

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:19:54 2015 No.55210011 >>55209659 >The Beach Brothers >innovative kek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:20:21 2015 No.55210018 >>55209966 Experimental music trends to challenge this concept of "what is a song". >>55209994 Are you still this guy >>55209497 You are not smart.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:21:36 2015 No.55210034 >>55210018 no, he is not me. (me being >>55209497)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:23:11 2015 No.55210053 >>55210034 Well you've seemed to have found a kindred spirit!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:24:04 2015 No.55210066 >>55210053 what? i haven't even been following the debate you've been having with him but he's using the cuck meme so no he isn't a "kindred spirit"

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:25:29 2015 No.55210094 >>55210066 You don't use memes?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:25:36 2015 No.55210098

>>55210018
>Experimental music trends to challenge this concept of "what is a song".

I'm not going to say I agree or disagree, but that is infinitely dumb and myopic. You must be pretty new to music and the nature of the creative process. Original melodies occur naturally in our heads, while bleep bloops do not. That's just the timbre we add on to capture a certain artistic vision born out of the initial flash of creativity. Anything added on past that is extra and not very "experimental" and doesn't challenge anything at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:26:25 2015 No.55210113 >>55210094 my taste in memes is actually good, much like my taste in music :+)

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:27:27 2015 No.55210132

>>55209865
>The Mills Brothers? The Everly Brothers? The Shirelles?
Yes. I'm only familiar with a couple Shirelles songs though.

Provide chord charts to support your assertion, please. I'll do the same if you are willing and aren't just talking out of your ass.

>All The Beatles did was come at te right time (right before the majority of their peers), hard, and with enough songs to rise to the top even if there wasn't a gap. And they were white.
Yes this is why they were popular. It was marketing. I'm not arguing this, I'm talking about their songwriting.

>I'm talking about songs, not the embellishing, flattering recordings
Certain artists should be judged by different criteria. Their music would be impossible without the stuido, yes, but why is this inherently a bad thing? Good Vibrations wouldn't work if it couldn't be edited and pieced together, but so what?

>that makes them better song writers
I didn't say that. I'm talking more about diverse instrumentation and production and psychedelic stylings, but since you don't care about that there's no way to argue this.

>backwards music was used in avant garde music before. same with tape loops
I agree. The same is true for harmony in art music, but I'm talking about introducing these things in a pop context. This is obvioulsy not important to you so again there's no way to argue this.

>Lo-fi music is a natural occurrence due to the democratizing of tape recorders
What's your point? It pioneered lo-fi music nonetheless.

>Warhol/Vu
>Doors
They were experimental in entirely different ways.

The reason this is a pointless discussions is because your criteria is completely arbitrary and unijustified. You say "only this matters when it comes to pop music because I say so", you don't explain why. Fine, everyone has different priorities in music. I agree that songwriting is the most important aspect, but how does that mean everything else must not be important? You're basically shitposting with your "baby shit".

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:30:41 2015 No.55210172

>>55210098
>You must be pretty new to music
Well I play in several bands. How about you?
>Original melodies occur naturally in our heads, while bleep bloops do not.
Do they? You are not the artists, perhaps they are searching for a certain sound--both timbre and a melody. And you are simply deaf to think that the "bleep bloops" do not occupy the melodic function.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:31:04 2015 No.55210182 >>55210098 >Anything added on past that is extra and not very "experimental" and doesn't challenge anything at all. According to whom? >>55210011 >shitposting >innovative kek. >>55209994 There is no point to your post.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:31:44 2015 No.55210190 >>55210132 >What's your point? It pioneered lo-fi music nonetheless. But this isn't a Bob Dylan thread.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:33:16 2015 No.55210224

the Beach Boys were good; but the Beatles were better. That's just how it is. Harmonically they were more complex, they pulled from more diverse influences and sounds (Classical, medieval, avant garde, traditional eastern, etc) and were far more consistent.

the problem was Brian Wilson did a bulk of the writing himself, and used someone else to write a majority of the lyircs. McCartney and Lennon divided the work, worked on music together, and collaborated even though sometimes they hated each other's music. Brian Wilson never had that creative support like Lennon/McCartney did.

The Beach Boys never wrote anything as great as the Beatles' best: Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepper's, and The White Album.

The Beach boys as i said were good; but this /mu/ hipster meme really needs to stop when the Beatles are objectively superior by every measure

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:35:38 2015 No.55210264 >>55210224 >Harmonically they were more complex How so?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:36:51 2015 No.55210284

>>55210224
>they pulled from more diverse influences and sounds (Classical, medieval, avant garde, traditional eastern, etc)
As did Brian Wilson

>Brian Wilson never had that creative support like Lennon/McCartney did.
Yeah. That's why I think it's fair to say Lennon-McCartney was better than Brian Wilson. The Beatles reached their potential I think, but Brian Wilson's creativty was stifled by his band.

>The Beach Boys never wrote anything as great as the Beatles' best
Besides Pet Sounds and Sessions.

>objectively
>every measure
Could've been a well reasoned post

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:37:40 2015 No.55210301 >>55210224 >more consistent Literally the only area The Beatles are actually superior.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:37:51 2015 No.55210306 >>55210264 Yeah this too. Provide examples comparing both?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:38:02 2015 No.55210311

>>55210224
Beach Boys used more clever instrumentation. Beatles were mostly the usual guitar/bass/drums. Beach Boys used a wider variety of instruments. And their singing is better, with better harmonies, better sounding voices. Brian Wilson did it mainly on his own, and that just makes his achievements more impressive.

Beatles were more consistent, Beach Boys reached higher highs.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:38:45 2015 No.55210320

>>55210132
>Provide muh chord charts!!!!
Holy shit you are uninformed. John + Paul have said that they literally just took the vocal arrangement from the Everlys and slapped it on everything. It's been quoted. You can google it yourself.

>Certain artists should be judged by different criteria
Sure, if they make truly different music (a la Xenakis, Meredith Monk, concept music), but not if they are just making pop songs in the vein of The Beatles. Good Vibrations is still a good song without the studio, the embellishments make it huge, but the potential is there whether or not its been realized yet. This is why the studio doesn't matter, because it only works if the song works.

>diverse instrumentation production and psychedelic stylings
again, this is baby shit. this only makes an already great song huge. Also,
>psychedelic
Genre? Seriously? That's the most subjective shit you could bring up. I bet you think all reggae and all folk punk is bad because of the way they're recorded.

>obviously not important to you so again
I didn't say that. You asserted it was innovative without acknowledging it in its pop context. And I agree that's cool, but it's still just a gimmick. The gimmicks aren't possible if the songs weren't full of potential in the first place.

>it pioneered lo-fi music nonetheless
No it didn't. The fact that it didnt need The Beach Brothers means that it's an empty shell and a facade. The idea of "innovation" doesn't apply here, not because it was inevitable, but because it was hardly influential, anyway. It's a logical stretch to call it "lo-fi", in any case.

>this only matters cause i said so
I never said that. You're the one with the assumption that these things matter because you read it on Wikipedia, but you have no idea of the creative process because you can't write music or lyrics. you've just formed opinions based off other people's ideas.
>>55210098

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:39:10 2015 No.55210327 >>55210284 >Besides Pet Sounds and Sessions. I am unfamiliar with the Beach Boys album Sessions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:41:18 2015 No.55210347 >>55210264 >>55210306 https://2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:42:09 2015 No.55210354

>>55210172
>Do they?
Musicians throughout recorded human history have stated that some of their greatest melodies have come to them out of no where.

You're uninformed, and pretty new to music I guess. I don't care about your shitty local band. I write music for artists, and have been successful in it for the past two years. Even then, that's arbitrary and irrelevant finger-pointing. You're not an artist and that's clear.

>perhaps they are searching
That's true, but that's not the physiological process behind what we call "original" creation. Maybe you should read a book, then ?

Again, about the "bleep bloops". I never said that, and I never meant that. You missed the point of post because you're dense and got bad luck in the gene pool.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:42:23 2015 No.55210360 >>55210347 http://www.surfermoon.com/tabs/smile.html Two can play at that game.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:42:25 2015 No.55210361 >>55210311 >Beach Boys reached higher highs. no, that would be the Beatles.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:42:38 2015 No.55210364 When you can name a Beatles song as good as Heroes and Villains just let me know.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:44:07 2015 No.55210383

>>55210354
>I write music for artists, and have been successful in it for the past two years.
lel No you haven't
>Maybe you should read a book, then ?
Show me ten sources that indicate this specifically.
Again, about the "bleep bloops". I never said that
Nice backpedaling

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:44:49 2015 No.55210394 >>55210360 there is literally nothing profound in any of those songs. it's actually all straight forward from a harmonic sense, and slightly more juvenile than the Beatles' achievements

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:45:07 2015 No.55210399 >>55210364 Define "good" and I'll name ten.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:46:18 2015 No.55210419 >>55210394 [citation needed]

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:46:49 2015 No.55210428

>>55210383
>lel No you don't!! You're not better than ME!!!
Amazing.

>Show me ten sources
No. If you want to learn, you'll learn.

>nice backpedaling
didn't backpedal. you addressed it in the post i replied to. I'm just clarifying it for you that you missed the point and probably still don't understand. Bye, anon ;)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:47:35 2015 No.55210435 >>55210399 The Beatles don't even have one song in their catalog that can compare to the genius of Heroes and Villains.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:47:39 2015 No.55210438 >>55210419 i just read through the chords. it's not my fault you have no knowledge of music theory

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:48:03 2015 No.55210448

>>55210320
>Holy shit you are uninformed.
I don't care what they said. Support your assertion or you're talking out of your ass.

>Good Vibrations is still a good song without the studio
No it's not. It isn't a song without the studio. Do you even know how it was made? I'm not even talking about some overdubs or reverb or polishing the sound, I'm talking about how the studio was used as a compositional tool. That's what I mean when I say their music should be judged by different criteria. From a songwriting perspective, they still stand strong anyway.

>this only makes an already great song huge
Well, yeah. Whether you consider that "baby shit" or not is meaningless.

>That's the most subjective shit you could bring up
So? That somehow means it doesn't matter?

>I bet you think all reggae and all folk punk is bad because of the way they're recorded.
It's fun to make things up.

>And I agree that's cool, but it's still just a gimmick
Gimmmick according to whom? You? This is what I meant when I said your criteria are completely arbitary.

>You're the one with the assumption that these things matter because you read it on Wikipedia
>but you have no idea of the creative process because you can't write music or lyrics
Basically the same as your "baby shit lel" shitposting.

>Anything added on past that is extra and not very "experimental" and doesn't challenge anything at all.
According to whom?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:48:29 2015 No.55210458

>>55210428
>>lel No you don't!! You're not better than ME!!!
>Amazing.
Kind of like
>You're uninformed, and pretty new to music I guess. I don't care about your shitty local band. I write music for artists, and have been successful in it for the past two years. Even then, that's arbitrary and irrelevant finger-pointing. You're not an artist and that's clear.
You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
>No.
If you can't prove it, it's probably not true. You might have fooled someone else though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:49:29 2015 No.55210474 >>55210438 OK then explain it in detail. Analyze Surf's Up and Cabin Essence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:49:57 2015 No.55210479 >>55210347 This says why the Beatles were good. That's not what I'm asking. Directly compare both.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:54:01 2015 No.55210538

>>55210435
>genius of Heroes and Villains

>Key: C#
>first line: I
second line: ii7 which anticipates the dominant:
third line: V7
fourth line: I

in the first sequence we have a I-ii-V-I progression. This is as typical as a I-IV-V progression with the only benefit: it's not played nearly as much

>Next section
>C#, C/D, G#7/D#

again, nothing spectacular here. It's a descent to the dominant with a D# in the bass (the V of G#)

>Section 2: same chords, nothing spectacular

>Section 3: F#/C#
again, uninteresting but at least they're using a different chord. the C# is the V in the F# triad, I wonder where they're going...

>next chord: C#

as typical as it gets. they prepare the dominant, go back to the tonic. there is LITERALLY nothing interesting about this so far.

>rest: alternating between C# and F# chords, never leaving key

ok, this is underwhelming
so remind me, how is this garbage any good?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:54:04 2015 No.55210540 >>55208145 >The Beatles just sound better to anyone who doesn't give a shit about anything other than the sound I like both bands, a lot. But God Only Knows is better than any Beatles song imo. Dem feels man.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:54:16 2015 No.55210543 The Rolling Stones are obviously the best

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:55:46 2015 No.55210563 >>55210538 More proof of how an academic understanding makes you inept and unworthy to enjoy or create it

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:55:46 2015 No.55210564 >>55210347 http://www.tompolk.com/writings/petsounds.html https://garyewer.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/classic-song-analysis-god-only-knows-wilsonasher/ http://earcandy_mag.tripod.com/rrcase-jazzwilson.htm

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:56:52 2015 No.55210586

>>55210563
i made a claim harmonically the Beatles music is far more complex.

people go "W-W-W-W-WWELL THE BEACH BOYS TOO"

i just demonstrated, on apparently one of their most famous songs that beach tards endlessly circle jerk over, that isn't the case

the harmonic function is amateur, and the writing is as well

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:58:08 2015 No.55210610 >>55210543 The Beatles made great folk and ok rock. The Stones made great rock, great blues, and ok folk. The Beach Boys were great at harmony and incorporating different sounds.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:58:46 2015 No.55210621 >>55210586 Now explain how the Beatles are any better?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 12:59:22 2015 No.55210633

>>55210448
>I don't care if you heard it straight from the horse's mouth. I want to hear somebody else say it.
Then that's hopeless. Again, feel free to just google it. I couldn't care less if you go on being a dumb ass.

>I'm talking about how the studio was used as a compositional tool
okay, that's fine, but it doesn't change the musical aesthetic they're appealing to, which is pop music.

>from a songwriting perspective
it's just a pop song. Just because they meshed different recordings to together to make a pop song, doesn't mean it's more than a pop song. It's like taking two unfinished songs and placing them together in the studio and thinking that's somehow profound. All that is is artificially constructing a good pop song from portions of authenticity. It's not saying much.

>Well, yeah. Whether you consider that "baby shit" or not is meaningless.
Yeah, it's baby shit because that's getting too subjective for me.

>So? That somehow means it doesn't matter?
it doesn't matter for the discussion of the objective quality of the songwriting. if you get caught up in shit like "oh the guitar was recorded a little too high" or "those guitar licks should've been played on a celeste", then you'll never be able to realize what I'm saying. It's petty.

>Gimmmick according to whom? You? This is what I meant when I said your criteria are completely arbitary.
Yeah, me. what about you? how original are your insights on music? everything you're saying is Rolling Stone-esque.

>According to whom?
Me. Anyone in the business. Ever wonder why higher class people have the term "bourgeois art"?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:01:01 2015 No.55210655

>>55210586
>i just demonstrated, on apparently one of their most famous songs that beach tards endlessly circle jerk over, that isn't the case
I think it's more likely you cherrypicked the song that is interesting based around a modular approach in the production rather than the actual composition, and you are well aware of this fact. Try Surf's Up or God Only knows.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:02:01 2015 No.55210672 >>55210610 >The Beach Boys were great at harmony and incorporating different sounds. The Beatles also did both it great effect

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:02:19 2015 No.55210679

>>55210538
>>rest: alternating between C# and F# chords, never leaving key
What the fuck? That's literally not even true.

I like the vocal layering and how well all the sections are put together, but I supoose harmonically it's not one of their strongest songs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:02:25 2015 No.55210681 I'm a shitty singer songwriter and I'm as good as thebest musiciansfrom history also composers

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:09:17 2015 No.55210790 >>55210347 Oh here's another one! http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/mob8.html

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:10:39 2015 No.55210818

>>55210633
>Again, feel free to just google it.
You're missing the point. Brian Wilson said he stole all of his vocals from the Four Freshman. Point me to a Four Freshman song comparable to God Only Knows, see what I mean?What actually matters is if you can analyse their music beyond some useless quote.

>which is pop music
>it's just a pop song
Yup. We're talking about pop music, you know. I never said it was more than a pop song.

>All that is is artificially constructing a good pop song from portions of authenticity
Your arbitrary notions of authenticity are meaningless. This reminds me of when Phil Spector was shitting on Good Vibrations for being an "edit song". Why does that matter? It's not inherently profound, no, but I never said it was.

>Yeah, it's baby shit because that's getting too subjective for me.
Well alright then.

>it doesn't matter for the discussion of the objective quality of the songwriting.
I never claimed I was being objective. I guess we're talking about two different things?

>if you get caught up in shit like "oh the guitar was recorded a little too high" or "those guitar licks should've been played on a celeste", then you'll never be able to realize what I'm saying
I don't. Again with making things up.

>how original are your insights on music?
How should I know? I don't worry if my insights are "original", I worry about whether I can articulate them and support them. That's all that should matter.

>Rolling Stone-esque
Like what specifically?

>Anyone in the business
Specific examples with a quote to back up your claim?

>Ever wonder why higher class people have the term "bourgeois art"?
'cos they're plebs ;)

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:15:59 2015 No.55210903

>>55210621
that link i posted earlier literally describes the entire point in the first few paragraphs.

read something for once in your life, and you'll be all set. basically, with the combined influences of the band they suddenly got serious about their music. (The EXACT moment we know of historically, is "In My Life"). Suddenly, they went from 3 chord songs of their early years, to complex arrangements in Strawberry Fields Forever, I Am The Walrus, Something, Here There and Everywhere, etc. Suddenly 3 chord songs turned into songs possessing 8 unique chords in the introduction alone (I Am The Walrus), or a level of craftsmanship on McCartney's part that Wilson COULD NEVER touch within 100 miles. Listen to the arrangement on Penny Lane. We start on the tonic, go down an octave, go up two octaves, then down one more for the final cadence.

on a harmonic level, despite the Beatles saying they had no knowledge in theory, their music was complex on the level of the Classical Masters, which is why Lennon/McCartney will go down in history as not necessarily EQUALS to Bach, Beethoven, and Schoenberg; but they will get similar recognition. Wilson won't.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:17:23 2015 No.55210921

>>55210655
Dude, i straight up talked about their HARMONY. So then, I was tasked with DECONSTRUCTING THE HARMONY of the song. i looked at the composition, broke it down by its parts, and assessed it, as the point initially was. if you're going to try to give me some BS "WELL MUH FEELS SAY THE BEACH FUCCBOIZ ARE GUD" then you can get the fuck out.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:18:45 2015 No.55210951

>>55210818
Okay I see where you've misstepped.

Brian Wilson has more musical knowledge than John/Paul (as far as we know) but definitely we know that when they started out. John and Paul took the Everlys harmonies note for note up til Rubber Soul as far as I'm concerned. Wilson was more creative with it.

>more than a pop song
you claim experimentation and compositional technique is somehow noteworthy. it's not relevant.

>arbitrary notions of authenticity are meaningless
no. i'm not being philosophical here. it's authentic if it's written organically. i'm not crusading for that, like Spector, though. I don't care. I'm just saying it's composition method isn't innovative. If you think it's the first time in history writers have strung ideas together, you're dead wrong. It doesn't matter if they did it with paper or with a machine.

>we're talking about two different things
probably. i'm trying to talk about it the quality of their songwriting as objective as possible. that means to its rawest elements.

>Again with making things up
As soon as you mentioned production, arrangements, and studio experimentation, you fall under this false approach. It's in its veins. It's wrong no matter how wrong it is.

>How should I know?
I guess you should be able to at least infer it since you sound like a superfluous writer who doesn't compose music at all.

>'cos they're plebs
Yeah, no. It's because it's petty shit that makes the teenagers go ooo w0w!!

again, we're definitely talking about two different things.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:20:07 2015 No.55210983

>>55210921
You're avoiding what he's saying just because of the other posters?

>>55210903
>or a level of craftsmanship on McCartney's part that Wilson COULD NEVER touch within 100 miles
But God Only Knows and Surf's Up and Calfornia Girls! I agree about everything you're saying about the Beatles, but Brian Wilson dis some amazing things that it seems like you're ignoring

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:20:44 2015 No.55210996 I hate this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:20:59 2015 No.55210999 >>55210921 Oops did you miss the part where I noted you cherrypicked the song?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:21:24 2015 No.55211004 >>55210996 I hate you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:21:52 2015 No.55211013 >>55211004 rude.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:24:44 2015 No.55211071

>>55210983
>You're avoiding what he's saying just because of the other posters?
last i checked i replied to them, and didnt ignore

>I agree about everything you're saying about the Beatles, but Brian Wilson dis some amazing things that it seems like you're ignoring

This is what I said when I first entered this thread:

>the Beach Boys were good; but the Beatles were better. That's just how it is.

I'll admit my massive praise on McCartney/Lennon feels like my praise of Wilson is lacking, or it implies I hate Wilson. I don't. His written vocal harmonies are far superior to the Beatles, he consistently used larger ensembles of instruments vs. the Beatles (unfair, because the Beatles were primarily a Rock outfit anyway) and did a better job with orchestral arrangements; but as for the written works, I'll take McCartney/Lennon over Wilson any day of the week

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:26:33 2015 No.55211097

>>55210951
>note for note
Alright, specific examples?

>it's not relevant.
According to whom?

>it's authentic if it's written organically.
The end product is what matters.

>If you think it's the first time in history writers have strung ideas together
And did I say it was? Stop trying to say I've made points that I haven't

"Building upon the layered production approach he had previously formulated on Pet Sounds, Wilson recorded it piecemeal using several Los Angeles studios throughout the course of eight months, resulting in a cut-up mosaic of musical episodes marked by several discordant key and modal shifts which underlay choral fugues. Band publicist Derek Taylor dubbed the work a "pocket symphony," as it features an exotic array of instruments considered unusual for a popular song of its time, including prominent use of a jaw harp and the relatively new device the Electro-Theremin, along with conventional instruments played in ways novel to a pop hit, such as its cello and string bass which play a bowed tremolo over the song's chorus." - The Rolling Stone, 1968

>As soon as you mentioned production, arrangements, and studio experimentation
Again, pointless to argue. If you don't care about it, then you don't. I just don't see why.

>superfluous writer who doesn't compose music at all.
Baby shit.

>It's because it's petty shit that makes the teenagers go ooo w0w!!
Baby shit.

>again, we're definitely talking about two different things.
Yeah, this is going nowhere.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:26:37 2015 No.55211099

>>55210999
no. i disregarded it because I know you're full of shit. i ran through the whole song, presented the chords and their harmonic function. there is literally nothing to cherry pick about that.

oh, sorry, i forgot, there was an A# in that song as well which i forgot to mention. OH MAN, CHERRY PICKING SO HARDD AMIRITE?!?!?!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:27:52 2015 No.55211118 >>55211071 Fair enough then.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:28:27 2015 No.55211125 >>55211099 >i ran through the whole song Again, you aren't addressing the fact you are cherry picking the song itself. Try Surf's Up or God Only Knows. You won't though because you can't cherry pick the intentionally simple song.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:30:07 2015 No.55211147 >>55211125 >you are cherry picking the song itself [citation needed] >Try Surf's Up or God Only Knows. you choose

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:31:17 2015 No.55211164 >>55211147 >[citation needed] You did it here. >>55210538 >you choose God Only Knows

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:32:58 2015 No.55211190 >>55211164 >You did it here. again [citation needed] because you need to pick out EXACTLY what i cherry picked. looking over the song chords that were posted earlier, and my post, i dont see any cherry picking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:34:12 2015 No.55211212 >>55211190 I may not always love you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:34:51 2015 No.55211224 >>55211190 >[citation needed] Oh was that not you? >because you need to pick out EXACTLY what i cherry picked I already told you. You cherry picked the intentionally simple song to analyze rather than one of the more complex Beach Boys songs.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:37:07 2015 No.55211252

>>55211224
not him but he picked heroes and villains because someone called it genius and he wanted to challenge it by pointing out that its chord progression isn't genius whatsoever, or interesting in any way.

to that guy >>55211190 though, i wanna ask, don't you think it's complex in other ways though? its vocal arrangement, its production, the modular approach brian used, the instrumentation?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:38:35 2015 No.55211275

>>55211252
>not him but he picked heroes and villains because someone called it genius and he wanted to challenge it by pointing out that its chord progression isn't genius whatsoever, or interesting in any way.
The thing is the chord progression isn't what made it genius.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:39:32 2015 No.55211297 >>55211275 >don't you think it's complex in other ways though? its vocal arrangement, its production, the modular approach brian used, the instrumentation? Yeah he pointed that out

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:40:50 2015 No.55211325

>>55211275
i agree, but he seems to value chord progressions a lot. see >>55211071

>His written vocal harmonies are far superior to the Beatles, he consistently used larger ensembles of instruments vs. the Beatles (unfair, because the Beatles were primarily a Rock outfit anyway) and did a better job with orchestral arrangements; but as for the written works, I'll take McCartney/Lennon over Wilson any day of the week

i personally don't care about how complex lennon/macca's chords were and i love wilson much more as a composer/arranger because i value his complex vocal harmonies much more than the comparatively similar beatles harmonies, but that's just me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:41:31 2015 No.55211336 File: 21 KB, 631x155, brian.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:42:20 2015 No.55211357 >>55211336 What a plebeian ahahahah

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:43:25 2015 No.55211370 >>55211325 Oh man I bet he was that guy who claimed to write songs for artists and said that production is irrelevant lol

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:46:01 2015 No.55211423

>>55211164

GOD ONLY KNOWS:

>Intro: A, E, A, E

The intro is a I-V-I-V. Pretty typical so far

>Intro (cont'd): A, E/G#, F#m7

Here we have a I-V- vi7 progression (the third in the bass of the V chord is typical of the Beach Boys. decent voice leading on Wilson's part; but typical)

>Verse 1: D/A, Bm6, F#m, E/B, Cdim, E/B, A#m7, A, E/G#, F#m7

holy shit, that is the laziest modulation I think i've ever seen in my life. They use an F# (the third of D) to set up the subdominant (D, with the V in the bass). They go to the vii of D, back to the third, then to an E/B (V of A with the V in the bass). This is probably the only interesting part in the composition so far because it's not a full-fledged modulation, it's deceptive by adding more tension with the Bm6, but then it moves back to the dominant of the tonic within the same verse. Instead of going ANYWHERE with that progression, they go back to the tonic and couldn't modulate to a new key? well...ok then...

>Bridge: sudden jump to G a I-vi-iii progression. that jumps to an A with the E in the bass, and we're back to the tonic. The second, of only two interesting moments in this song. The problem, is my criticism with above: they go nowhere with it. A few chords out of the tonic for tension, then right back to A where we end in predictable fashion:

I-V-vi-V-I

again, harmonically nothing interesting closes this out.
In this song there were two moments that were any good; but even those should have an asterisk next to them because of the lack of direction those harmonic sequences go. nothing noteworthy here at all

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:47:51 2015 No.55211463 File: 568 KB, 584x2800, mystery.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:48:43 2015 No.55211478 >>55211423 lol

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:49:57 2015 No.55211503

>>55211423
can you explain why even people versed in music theory consider this song to be a masterpiece in terms of chord progression and you are so underwhlemed by it? are you just trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary? are you not putting this chord progression in the context of 1966?

i may not know a ton about music theory but i am honestly perplexed by the fact that there are TONS of webpages where people analyze this song and write out the same chord patterns as you are, but the difference is you're saying it's boring and literally every other person who has ever done this says it's genius, has an ambiguous key, etc. etc. what's the deal, dude?

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:53:19 2015 No.55211567

>>55211503
>can you explain why even people versed in music theory consider this song to be a masterpiece in terms of chord progression and you are so underwhlemed by it?

first you'll need to show me WHO these people are. second you need to understand critics hold different standards. for POP music you can say that is a masterpiece; but that isn't saying much when most pop doesn't venture outside of I-IV-V. It just so happens I have a stupidly high level of standards because im a classical bro. probably makes me a dick, but i have a certain amount of demands that pop critics largely ignore.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:53:37 2015 No.55211575 >>55207571 >SDT is treated like an STD >I actually enjoy it what's wrong with me

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:54:57 2015 No.55211604 >>55211567 >>55211503 http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/mob1.html

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 13:59:36 2015 No.55211689

>>55211604
See? This is what I mean:

on that site:

>Key of E (? or is it A, D, or F#m...)

If someone makes THIS statement for THAT song, they don't know how harmony works.

Harmony, and charting where modulations are going and if there's a new key, you have to look at the _"logic"_ of a piece. Where is the harmony going? how long do we stay in the "new key"? how do we modulate to the tonic? etc. To accurately say "this is a key change" the function needs to last longer than 2 lines in a verse or else it's classified as tension with chords outside of the tonic, which is evidently what God Only Knows is doing when it, just as quickly as we moved to new chords, it goes right back to the tonic.

This "critic" you linked to demonstrated a lack of understanding of key changes, something so critical for understanding harmony, that it makes me think he doesnt have much experience in the field.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:00:41 2015 No.55211712

>>55211567
>first you'll need to show me WHO these people are.

in addition to >>55211604, here are more

https://garyewer.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/classic-song-analysis-god-only-knows-wilsonasher/

http://www.hooktheory.com/theorytab/view/the-beach-boys/god-only-knows (this is a discussion, if the progression were so simple, how could this exist?)

http://www.richardsantos.info/2012/01/29/god-only-knows-by-brian-wilson/

found those on the first two pages of a google search "god only knows analysis"

also this isn't specifically about god only knows but it briefly mentions the ambiguous key that it's written in which you didn't address

http://www.tompolk.com/writings/petsounds.html

anyway, i get if you just have different standards, but what beatles songs impress you?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:01:15 2015 No.55211725 >>55211463 Why isn't A Hard Day's Night on there? Just because they're all love-dovey themed doesn't make a 10/10. It has no filler.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:02:32 2015 No.55211753 >>55211689 http://www.discogs.com/artist/1851232-Greg-Panfile-Talk-and-Roll He's released more music than you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:03:41 2015 No.55211774 >>55211753 and i bet it's as bad as his harmonic analysis

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:03:47 2015 No.55211777

>>55211689
What he means is that the verse part starts on the major chord of the flatted seventh, that is D major in the key of E. But when you add in that the intro starts on A, you have a song putatively in E where none of the parts start on the root, tonic chord. Looked at in isolation, this looks like a song in A is starting. The material here is interesting in itself, and moreso as a variant of what is to come later; a close but not exact match will be used (in two different keys) for the "hook" when the title is sung, and still another close variant for the outro/rondo at the end.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:05:25 2015 No.55211810 >>55211774 Probably, but you said he doesn't have much experience in the field, but he seems to be a professional musician twice your age, so in fact he would have more experience than you. Unless you think posting in /classical/ is experience?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:08:30 2015 No.55211871 >>55210903 >Lennon and McCartney same level as classical masters Dude put your boner away

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:14:53 2015 No.55211981

>>55211777
>What he means is that the verse part starts on the major chord of the flatted seventh, that is D major in the key of E.

That wouldn't be D major, it would be a Dm7b5.

>you have a song putatively in E where none of the parts start on the root, tonic chord.

not true when the opening is an endless I-V progression. it's done to define the tonic (A), not E.

as I said, the only notable sections are those when it LOOKS like a new key is defined, then it modulates back to the tonic. cool parts, but it could have been (and should have been) done better.

>>55211810
1 unlabeled album? shit i did several albums with my garage band when i was 15, therefore i accomplished more. i also tour on the weekends, so ha

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:15:26 2015 No.55211992 ITT: an academically trained music snob ruins music for everyone, including self, by constantly deconstructing it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:15:57 2015 No.55212001 >>55211871 it's 100% accurate, though...I said their writing wasn't as GREAT as the likes of Bach and Beethoven, but the complexity of their compositions are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:17:28 2015 No.55212032 >>55211981 >should've been done better And when you do things "better" be sure to post about it on /mu/

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:18:38 2015 No.55212051 >>55212032 But he did! See >shit i did several albums with my garage band when i was 15, therefore i accomplished more. i also tour on the weekends, so ha

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:18:42 2015 No.55212055 >>55212032 i wont have to. you'll do it for me

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:19:56 2015 No.55212079 >>55212055 It's actually pretty weird when people post your music here. I don't know how to take it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:20:17 2015 No.55212089 >>55211981 It's not supposed define a new key. It's purposefully "ambiguous"

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:20:38 2015 No.55212094 >>55212055 I'm sure. While you're at it go deconstruct and criticize children's songs

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:22:52 2015 No.55212151 >>55212089 What I mean is the whole last section where it dances around and never settles. That's the whole point!

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:23:18 2015 No.55212169

>>55212089
but it's not...it's only "ambiguous" insofar they jump to a new chord here or there; but it _always_ goes back to the tonic. ESPECIALLY the end when it closes out with the I-V-vii-I progression. Harmonically, there's not much else you can do to hit the audience over the head with: HEY, GUESS WHAT. WE'RE IN A MAJOR. ONE FIVE. A MAJOR

>>55212094
i'll deconstruct your mum's sexual fantasies and become your new dad

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:27:17 2015 No.55212250 >>55212169 Do you even enjoy music anymore? Or is it now just a tool you use to make yourself feel superior? You've lost the plot.>>55212169

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:29:11 2015 No.55212298

>>55212169
The song is known for its harmonic complexity and extensive use of inverted chords, including third inversions such as B7/A. The first chord of the verse (D major/A) is a non-diatonic chord. The tonic chord (E major) usually only appears with the major 3rd or the 5th in the bass. The entire verse progression sounds restless and ambiguous, until the line "God only knows what I'd be without you" when the chord progression finally reaches a clear goal (A—E/G#—F#m7—E). This has been cited by musicologists as a good example of how lyrical meaning can be supported and enhanced by a chord progression—along with the melody hook which also provides an example of "a sense of increasing melodic energy that comes by way of the gradually ascending line." In musicologist Philip Lambert's opinion, the song's vocal counterpoint evokes the sacred traditions of a cantata by Bach or an oratorio by Handel.

The key gravitates between A major and E major. Music theorist Daniel Harrison compared the song to an earlier Brian Wilson composition, "California Girls", as it both avoids a root-position tonic and suppresses a cadential drive.It also contains a step-wise descending bass-line like Wilson's other compositions on Pet Sounds.

After its instrumental linking passage, the key ascends to its fourth interval. According to author Jim Fusilli: "Brian came pretty close to writing himself into a dead end. There's really nowhere to go coming out of the bridge, which modulates to G major from D major but ends with a D major-A major-B minor pattern. Thus, when the song returns to D Major, it must do so from B minor, which is kind of static change, particularly when the next chord is a B minor with only a slight variation in the bass." The "choral fantasy" during this key change eventually concludes that "a clear sense has eluded us for the entire experience–that in fact, the idea of 'key' has itself been challenged and subverted.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:32:44 2015 No.55212380

>>55212250
yes i do. it's nearly impossible to put into words the level of satisfaction i get from analyzing music and understanding the intents of the composer / songwriter. for me, "muh feels" is derived from the profundity of the composition and quality of it.

though i have a soft spot for some simple music like Faith No More's Angel Dust and various albums here and there.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:32:45 2015 No.55212381
File: 75 KB, 481x618, 1339027713412.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]

>people still spend this much time arguing about these fucking bands

it's like i'm back in high school. holy shit, expand your musical tastes a little bit, and soon you'll stop caring about this comparison altogether.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:33:53 2015 No.55212401

there are much more to beach boys songs than just the chords. there are melodies, harmonies, and unique parts that all the instruments participate on (including drums and the bass). In pet sounds, all instruments played a big harmonic parts in the creation of those masterpieces. If you want to actually deconstruct their work you have to do much more than 2 mins rundowns of just their chords that you found on the web. You need to deconstruct and analyse every part and see how they interact with each other and what they're creating.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:35:34 2015 No.55212441

>>55212401
>If you want to actually deconstruct their work you have to do much more than 2 mins rundowns of just their chords that you found on the web. You need to deconstruct and analyse every part and see how they interact with each other and what they're creating.
That's true for all music except for like folk.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:36:32 2015 No.55212461

>>55212298
>The first chord of the verse (D major/A) is a non-diatonic chord.

LOL WHAT THAAA FUCKKKKKKKKK

did you seriously just say, D/A is non-diatonic? nigga u srs? The fifth of D major is A. Having a V in the bass is as straightforward and diatonic as it gets. In fact, it's retardedly typical and something you cover in elementary harmony.

>The tonic chord (E major)

E isn't the fucking tonic, we've been over this. A I-V in A major does not imply E is the tonic, at all.

>In musicologist Philip Lambert's opinion, the song's vocal counterpoint evokes the sacred traditions of a cantata by Bach or an oratorio by Handel.

this post just keeps getting funnier

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:37:14 2015 No.55212479 >>55212461 Not true, by the way

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:38:07 2015 No.55212496 >>55212441 not ALL music, but all music with that's really focused on the compositions and that have those big arrangements and instrumentation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:41:44 2015 No.55212580 >>55212461 >nigga u srs? When you say things like this, it really discredits the credibility of your arguments.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:43:50 2015 No.55212633

>>55212580
>When you say things like this, it really discredits the credibility of your arguments.

Funny. You'd think contrary evidence would discredit my argument, not the language i use to be condescending.

>le "im offended by u being mean therefore u lost credibility" meme

this is the last bastion of someone who has nothing to contribute, and has been systematically BTFO since the beginning of this thread.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:45:42 2015 No.55212674

>>55212633
>Funny. You'd think contrary evidence would discredit my argument, not the language i use to be condescending.
You thought wrong. It suggests your understanding of the material is unfounded and uncultured, especially since it's contrary to your point.
>this is the last bastion of someone who has nothing to contribute, and has been systematically BTFO since the beginning of this thread.
I wasn't the guy you were talking to just now. I've known you were full of shit for like an hour now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:46:13 2015 No.55212684 >>55212633 See >>55212479 You really just embarassed yourself

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:47:18 2015 No.55212712 >>55212380 >faith no more >Angel dust Hi dad

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:48:01 2015 No.55212725

>>55212674
>It suggests your understanding of the material is unfounded and uncultured, especially since it's contrary to your point.

Translation: I was offended by you using "nigga" to a gentlesir such as myself. therefore, your argument is invalid

man, you're trying really hard to convince yourself.

>I've known you were full of shit for like an hour now.

[citation needed]

you say that, yet you didnt offer any amount of a counter argument. i wonder why....

inb4 "well muh feels and music is le subjective" meme

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:48:49 2015 No.55212738 >>55212684 >embarrassed self >anonymous poster Oh yeah definitely

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:52:58 2015 No.55212823

>>55212725
>I was offended by you using "nigga" to a gentlesir such as myself. therefore, your argument is invalid
lol
>[citation needed]
Going back to when you were cherry picking. You've probably forgotten all about that though.
>you say that, yet you didnt offer any amount of a counter argument i wonder why...
I wasn't in an argument with you.

It comes down to you claiming you are experienced professionally and know your craft, but then you speak like a 14 year old. I don't care either way, I don't buy your argument. Just letting you know that in the future it might help your argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 14:53:09 2015 No.55212831 >>55212738 >Implying I don't know who you are

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:01:34 2015 No.55212996

>>55212823
>Going back to when you were cherry picking. You've probably forgotten all about that though.

No, I asked what I was cherry picking and you offered no response. I've been waiting.

>It comes down to you claiming you are experienced professionally and know your craft, but then you speak like a 14 year old.

We're on 4chan you dumb fuck. if you had any level of skills in critical thinking, you wouldn't let trigger words define arguments for you, you would look at the actual content. because you're unable to (you haven't demonstrated knowledge in the field of music), you get upset over "nigga", as if that is _at all_ relevant to the conversation. It isn't. So you take something _unrelated to the topic_ and use THAT as a refutation of the argument? A "well u used bad words therefore ur wrongg"

lel, you think i speak like a 14 year old, yet you have the critical potential of a 14 year old.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:03:14 2015 No.55213032 >>55212823 >I don't know anything about music >I don't buy your argument Beach Boy fags, everybody.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:06:37 2015 No.55213118 >>55203910 beatles patrician coming through! it's just a phase! u will realize the genius of rolling stones magazine! beatles best groups ever!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:13:35 2015 No.55213285 >>55212996 >No, I asked what I was cherry picking and you offered no response. I've been waiting. I've answered you several times. Read the thread >dumb fuck Opinion discarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:15:22 2015 No.55213316 >>55213285 >I've answered you several times. Read the thread or you could stop dodging and tell me right here so i can see it and address it. for some reason you keep avoiding it though..........hmm..

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:19:53 2015 No.55213417 >>55213316 I'd rather force you to be responsible and the work yourself.

Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:23:19 2015 No.55213496

>>55213417
oh i love it. people arguing on /mu/ makes me think you're all the same person.

>get btfo
>start dodging and trying to get the last word
>resort to "U HAVE TO FIND MUH COMMENT ON YOUR OWN BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I MADE THIS COMMENT WHICH IM VAGUELY REFERENCING, YOU MUST FIND IT YOURSELF AND ARGUE AGAINST IT EVEN THOUGH IM BEING VERY VERY VAGUE ABOUT WHAT IT IS"

this is called being intellectually dishonest. you can stop playing the games, give me the example of cherry picking, instead of trying to be a weasel bitch, or we're done here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:23:59 2015 No.55213507 >>55203910 tomorrow never knows

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:24:32 2015 No.55213513 >>55213496 >>get btfo [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:24:46 2015 No.55213518 >>55213496 Addendum: you're not _trying_ to be a weasel bitch, you _are_ a weasel bitch from here on out ill be patiently waiting for your response, and any more diversions from the topic will be met with silence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:40:17 2015 No.55213820 The Byrd's, Who, Rolling Stones, and the Kinks released far better material than Beach Boys or Beatles.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 15:43:27 2015 No.55213883 >>55213820 >The Who released far better material overrated circus rock band. Very funny, pleb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 16:01:11 2015 No.55214253 >>55209497 lmao brian wilson fanboys everyone

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 16:11:54 2015 No.55214450 >>55213883 And The Beatles aren't overrated. I bet you think Day Tripper is a masterpiece and My Generation or You Really Got Me Going are shit. Your the pleb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 16:16:29 2015 No.55214536 >>55211992 someone has to balance out the brian wilson snobs

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 16:18:26 2015 No.55214571 >>55214536 Not at the cost of your soul.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 16:21:17 2015 No.55214632 >>55207685 Underrated >>55203910 I like booth, but Strawberry Fields, Norweigan Wood, and A Day in the Life are better than those songs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 17 16:22:52 2015 No.55214663 >muh i have to put artists against each other!!!! just give up m8

Reply to thread

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]