What is the greatest Beatles album?

[Metsfanmax]

Beyond all that, they were simply masters of harmony. There are very few bad Beatles songs. The worst you can say about some of them is that they are mediocre and derivative. After 1965, you can't even say that. Everything from Sgt. Pepper onwards was one amazing harmony after another. "A Day in the Life", "Piggies", "Lucy in the Sky" and so on, are just amazing packages of sound.

Next up in the amazing packages of sound:

[nietzsche]

why argue with haters?

if they don't like eleanor rigby, something, i saw her standing there, while my guitar gently weeps, a day in the life, etc. too bad for them.

[DoomYoshi]

Then now, my friend, I said, that part of music or literary education which relates to the story or myth may be considered to be finished; for the matter and manner have both been discussed.
I think so too, he said.
Next in order will follow melody and song.
That is obvious.
Everyone now would be able to discover what we ought to say about them, if we are to be consistent with ourselves.
I fear, said Glaucon, laughing, that the word “everyone” hardly includes me, for I cannot at the moment say what they should be, though I have a suspicion.
At any rate you are aware that a song or ode has three parts – the words, the melody and the rhythm.
Yes, he said; so as that I know.
And as for the words, there will surely be no difference between words which are and which are not set to music; both will conform to the same laws, and these have already been determined by us?
Yes.
And the melody and rhythm will be in conformity with the words?
Certainly.
We were saying, when we spoke of the subject-matter, that we had no need of lamentations and strains of sorrow?
True.
And which are the harmonies expressive of sorrow? You are musical and can tell me.
The harmonies which you mean are the mixed or tenor Lydian, and the full-toned or bass Lydian, and such-like.
These then, I said, must be banished; even to women who have a character to maintain they are of no use, and much less to men.
Certainly.
In the next place, drunkenness and softness and indolence are utterly unbecoming the character of our guardians.
Utterly unbecoming?
And which are the soft and convivial harmonies?
The Ionian, he replied, and some of the Lydian which are termed “relaxed”.
Well, and are these of any use for warlike men?
Quite the reverse, he replied; and if so the Dorian and the Phrygian are the only ones which you have left.
I answered: Of the harmonies I know nothing, but would have you leave me one which can render the note or accent which a brave man utters in warlike action and in stern resolve; and when his cause is failing, and he is going to wounds or death or is overtaken by disaster in some other form, at every such crisis he meets the blows of fortune with firm step and a determination to endure; and an opposite kind for times of peace and freedom of action, when there is no pressure of necessity, and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or man by instruction and admonition, or when on the other hand he is expressing his willingness to yield to the persuasion or entreaty or admonition of others. And when in this manner he has attained his end, I would have the music show him not carried away by his success, but acting moderately and wisely in all circumstances, and acquiescing in the event. These two harmonies I ask you to leave; the strain of necessity and the strain of freedom, the strain of the unfortunate and the strain of the fortunate, the strain of courage, and the strain of temperance; these, I say, leave.
And these, he replied, are the Dorian and the Phrygian harmonies of which I was just now speaking.
Then, I said, if these and these only are to be used in our songs and melodies, we shall not want multiplicity of strings or a panharmonic scale?
I suppose not.
Then we shall not maintain the artificers of lyres with three corners and complex scales, or the makers of any other many-stringed, curiously harmonized instruments?
Certainly not.
But what do you say to flute-makers and flute-players? Would you admit them into our State when you reflect that in this composite use of harmony the flute is worse than any stringed instrument; even the panharmonic music is only imitation of the flute?
Clearly not.
There remain then only the lyre and the harp for use in the city, and the shepherds in the country may have some kind of pipe.
That is surely the conclusion to be drawn from the argument.
The preferring of Apollo and his instruments to Marsyas and his instruments is not at all strange, I said.
Not at all, he replied.
Then let us now finish the purgation, I said. Next in order to harmonies, rhythms will naturally follow, and they should be subject to the same rules, for we ought not to seek out complex systems of metre, and a variety of feet, but rather to discover what rhythms are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the foot and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be your duty – you must teach me them, as you have already taught me the harmonies.
But, indeed, he replied, I cannot tell you. I know from observation that there are some three principles of rhythm out of which metrical systems are framed, just as in sounds there are four notes out of which all the harmonies are composed. But of what sort of lives they are severally the imitations I am unable to say.
Then, I said, we must take Damon into our counsels; and he will tell us what rhythms are expressive of meanness, or insolence, or fury, or other unworthiness, and are to be reserved for the expression of opposite feelings. And I think that I have an indistinct recollection of his mentioning a complex Cretic rhythm; also a dactylic or heroic, and he arranged them in some manner which I do not quite understand, making the rhythms equal in the rise and fall of the foot, long and short alternating; and unless I am mistaken, he spoke of an iambic as well as a trochaic rhythm, and assigned to them short and long quantities. Also in some cases he appeared to praise or censure the movement of the foot quite as much as the rhythm; or perhaps a combination of the two; for I am not certain what he meant. These matters, however, as I was saying, had better be referred to Damon himself, for the analysis of the subject would be difficult, you know?
Rather so, I should say.
But it does not require much analysis to see that grace or the absence of grace accompanies good or bad rhythm.
None at all.
And also that good and bad rhythm naturally assimilate to a good and bad style; and that harmony and discord in like manner follow style; for our principle is that rhythm and harmony are regulated by the words, and not the words by them.
Just so, he said, they should follow the words.
And will not the words and the character of the style depend on the temper of the soul?
Yes.
And everything else on the style?
Yes.
Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity, – I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only a euphemism for folly?
Very true, he replied.

[Socrates expands on the role of the artist in the ideal State and argues that unsuitable artists should be prevented from practising their art.]

And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful: and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justify blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he will recognize and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.
Yes, he said, I quite agree with you in thinking that it is for such reasons that they should be trained in music……….
Even so, as I maintain, neither we nor the guardians, whom we say that we have to educate, can ever become musical until we and they know the essential forms of temperance, courage, liberality, magnanimity, and their kindred, as well as the contrary forms, in all their combinations, and can recognise then and their images wherever they are found, not slighting them either in small things or great, but believing them all to be within the sphere of one art and study.
Most assuredly.
And then nobility of soul is observed in harmonious union with beauty of form, and both are cast from the same mould, that will be the fairest of sights to him who has en eye to see it?
The fairest indeed.
And the fairest is also the loveliest?
That may be assumed.
And it is with human beings who most display such harmony that a musical man will be most in love; but he will not love any who do not possess it.
That is true, he replied, if the deficiency be in the soul; but if there be any bodily defect he will be patient of it, and may even approve it.

[a6mzero]

Elvis put shlock in movies.

[notyou2]

Ron Jeremy put schlong in movies

[2dimes]

Ron Jeremy put schlong in movies

Cough-Daniel Arthur Mead-cough.

[pancakemix]

http://thebeatlesneverexisted.com/

Seems relevant.

[The Bison King]

I know that people "respect" them as musical "innovators." That does not mean I have to respect or enjoy their music. If you take it out of its historical context, no one today would listen to it over any number of contemporary bands. They're famous because they (sort of) did it first, not because their music is particularly listenable. Contrast this with Led Zeppelin, say, who were both innovators and also have remained essentially unmatched to this day.

Thats just your opinion man. I enjoy their music today, because I find it enjoyable. Don't presume to speak for me or anyone else. I don't sit there with a glass of wine and go "oh see this part here is good because at the time blah blah blah." I like both Zep and the Beatles but I listen to the Beatles more because I like them more... and that's by my self, not as a show for other people to see how musically cultured I am.

you know what, I hate discussions like this. It's just an excuse for everyone to get their panties in a bunch. When it comes to music everything is tied up with people emotions yet everyone insists on speaking in absolutes, and for other people.

"People only like the Beatles because of X"

"X is the best band ever"

ect ect...

Why can't we just say, that we feel the way we do and move on. We can have our own perspective view points with out feeling the need to impose them on other people or establish them as indisputable truths. We all know know that right? right, internet?

[The Bison King]

That being said the Beatles are the best band ever and if you don't like them you are tasteless moron

[Metsfanmax]

We can have our own perspective view points with out feeling the need to impose them on other people or establish them as indisputable truths.

Then stop arguing with me and telling me about how I shouldn't be establishing indisputable truths. If your point is correct, it automatically means you can't dictate to anyone what they should or should not be talking about. Simply by making your argument, you have proved it incorrect, and so I will continue to argue that the Beatles are boring.

[The Bison King]

We can have our own perspective view points with out feeling the need to impose them on other people or establish them as indisputable truths.

Then stop arguing with me and telling me about how I shouldn't be establishing indisputable truths. If your point is correct, it automatically means you can't dictate to anyone what they should or should not be talking about. Simply by making your argument, you have proved it incorrect, and so I will continue to argue that the Beatles are boring.

again that's just like your opinion man.

[Metsfanmax]

We can have our own perspective view points with out feeling the need to impose them on other people or establish them as indisputable truths.

Then stop arguing with me and telling me about how I shouldn't be establishing indisputable truths. If your point is correct, it automatically means you can't dictate to anyone what they should or should not be talking about. Simply by making your argument, you have proved it incorrect, and so I will continue to argue that the Beatles are boring.

again that's just like your opinion man.

[mizery24]

Who cares?

What is your favorite Metallica album?

[dario2099]

Who cares?

What is your favorite Metallica album?

Load

[DoomYoshi]

Who cares?

What is your favorite Metallica album?

Load

The Very Best Qualities of Metallica's Load and Reload albums:

Code: Select all

[list]

[/list]

[The Bison King]

We can have our own perspective view points with out feeling the need to impose them on other people or establish them as indisputable truths.

Then stop arguing with me and telling me about how I shouldn't be establishing indisputable truths. If your point is correct, it automatically means you can't dictate to anyone what they should or should not be talking about. Simply by making your argument, you have proved it incorrect, and so I will continue to argue that the Beatles are boring.

again that's just like your opinion man.

Fine I'll "debate" you.

You're a fucking idiot. The Beatles are great, everyone knows it except butt hurt morons who need to feel as if they're going against the grain.

[Metsfanmax]

Fine I'll "debate" you.

You're a fucking idiot. The Beatles are great, everyone knows it except butt hurt morons who need to feel as if they're going against the grain.

Alternate hypothesis: the Beatles are stupid and unexciting compared to 800 other bands, but everyone is either too ignorant of music or too unwilling to appear as if they're going against the grain to point it out.

[nietzsche]

[nietzsche]

[Army of GOD]

I think the Beatles are overrated as an "innovative" band because of their popularity. There was a shit ton of musical acts that did their own unique and innovative things during that time, the Beatles are only pointed out specifically because they're the most famous. They have good music, but they're not the gods they're proclaimed to be.


my theory is that the general public gives them so much credit because they refuse to give other rock and roll/jazz artists at the time (read: blacks) any credit.

[owenshooter]

There's no way an educated person would call them innovative. They were fortuitous in that they were in the right place at the right time and had the right appeal. That's marketing, not musical innovation.

-TG

this has to be one of the most ignorant things i have ever heard about the beatles or music in general... do you play an instrument or know how recording works? do you realize Sgt. Pepper was recorded on an F'ing FOUR TRACK?!!! in some cases that means over 64 recordings on each of the 4 track channels... you have absolutely no idea the innovations they created for recording, etc... good god, they changed the world... Abbey Road is listed as one of the greatest unstaged operas of all time!!! they teach classes on that album!! you have john and paul swapping punches for the entire second half of the album, making each other sing lyrics about their own wives/family members... "hey, paul... wrote a great song last night i want you to sing... nah, it's not about your wife or her father..." you are wholly ignorant if you can't respect the beatles for the things they did... wow...-The Black Beatle

p.s.-abbey road also has the only drum solo that ringo ever got to play on an album.. it was literally their last rock out... contrary to popular believe, this was their last album... however, they chose to release earlier recorded material that they felt would be more easily accepted... then said, f*ck IT, and let it out after they had broken up...

p.p.s.-words to live by, "and in the end, the love you take. is equal to the love, you make."
put it on my damn tombstone...

[The Bison King]

I think the Beatles are overrated as an "innovative" band because of their popularity. There was a shit ton of musical acts that did their own unique and innovative things during that time, the Beatles are only pointed out specifically because they're the most famous. They have good music, but they're not the gods they're proclaimed to be.


my theory is that the general public gives them so much credit because they refuse to give other rock and roll/jazz artists at the time (read: blacks) any credit.

True on all counts, though I would point out that their popularity is what made them so influential. Sure there were other innovative bands, but not as many people listened to them, so not as many people imitated them, so the course of music wasn't as shaped by them.

I'm not saying that innovation is the same as influence, just something to think about.

Velvet underground I think would be a good example of another band around the same time that was very innovative, and certainly influential. However not as widely popular, so they only went on to influence a smaller sub set of music rather than the whole of popular music.

[Dukasaur]

[Army of GOD]

the only reason that track is any good is because of Clapton

[muy_thaiguy]

I like only about 2-3 songs of theirs. Twist & Shout (done before them and originally by the Isley Brothers (whom also known for "Shout")) and She Loves You (that's only because I grew up with the Chipmunks' version as a kid). Hard Day's Night is okay as well. Otherwise, I don't really care for most of their music. I know others really like them, to the point of being a creepy fan girl in the body of fat, middle-aged, white hipsters, but they're not really my thing.