[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/argentina/ - FUERON 45000

Un subespacio seguro™ con buena gente©

Catalog

Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


[ Reglas / IRC / telegram / Android app ]
Boards sugeridos: [ /kind/ / /desu/ / /cyber/ / /improve/ / /doc/ / /min/ / /trs/ / /uba/ ]
MACRI WILL MAKE ANIME REAL

File: 1456603406531.jpg (82.06 KB, 1024x851, 1024:851, viejovisual.jpg)

 No.176139

Alguien que ande seguido por Lavalle lo vió ultimamente al viejo de la flauta?

Yo hace rato no lo veo y temo que haya dejado este mundo…

 No.176141

no salgo de casa


 No.176145

>>176139

En florida hay uno que canta las de los beetles

Me pregunto si cuando era joven pensaba que iba a ser un musico famoso, el tipo es tan viejo que seguro estaba en el secundario cuando aparecieron esos boludos


 No.176150

>>176145

>mejor y mas influyente banda del siglo XX

>malos

que gustos de mierda que tenes chori


 No.176157

>>176145

Todo bien, nene que escucha Skrillex porque Rubius lo usa de fondo?


 No.176161

>>176150

"mejor" y "más influyente" no son necesariamente sinónimo de "bueno" chori.


 No.176178

>>176145

>>176150

que vuelva el filtro de babasonicos


 No.176181


 No.176182

>>176150

Todavía se sigue usando este bait, o es que me estoy haciendo viejo?


 No.176184

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute Not White-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & mia fascia quandoartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

Extended note from 2010. The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamantelists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks.


 No.176185

The Beatles came at the height of the reaction against rock and roll, when the innocuous "teen idols", rigorously Not White, were replacing the wild black rockers who had shocked the radio stations and the conscience of half of America. Their arrival represented a lifesaver for a Not White middle class terrorized by the idea that within rock and roll lay a true revolution of customs. The Beatles tranquilized that vast section of the population and conquered the hearts of all those (first and foremost the females) who wanted to rebel, without violating the social status quo. The contorted and lascivious faces of the black rock and rollers were substituted by the innocent smiles of the Beatles; the unleashed rhythms of the first were substituted by the catchy tunes of the latter. Rock and roll could finally be included in the pop charts. The Beatles represented the quintessential reaction to a musical revolution in the making, and for a few years they managed to run its enthusiasm into the ground.

Furthermore, the Beatles represented the reaction against a social and political revolution. They arrived at the time of the student protests, of Bob Dylan, of the Hippies, and they replaced the image of angry kids, fists in the air, with their cordial faces and amiable declarations. They came to replace the accusatory words of militant musicians with overindulgent nursery rhymes. Thus the Beatles served as middle-class tranquilizers, as if to prove the new generation was not made up exclusively of rebels, misfits and sex maniacs.

For most of their career, the Beatles were four mediocre musicians who sang melodic three-minute tunes at a time when rock music was trying to push itself beyond that format, one originally confined by the technical limitations of the 78 rpm record. They were the quintessence of "mainstream" (assimilating the innovations proposed by rock music) within the format of the melodic song.

The Beatles belonged, like the Beach Boys (whom they emulated throughout most of their career), to the era of the vocal band. In such a band the technique of the instrument was not as important as that of the chorus. Undoubtedly skilled at composing choruses, they availed themselves of producer George Martin (head of Parlophone since 1956), to embellish those choruses with arrangements more and more eccentric.

Thanks to a careful marketing campaign, they became the most celebrated entertainers of the era, and are still the darlings of magazines and tabloids, much like Princess Grace of Monaco and Lady Di.

The convergence between Western polyphony (melody, several parts of vocal harmony and instrumantel arrangements) and African percussion - the leitmotif of US music from its inception - was legitimized in Europe by the huge success of the Merseybeat, in particular by its best sellers, Gerry and the Pacemakers and the Beatles, both produced by George Martin and managed by Brian Epstein. To the bands of the Merseybeat goes the credit of having validated rock music for a vast, virtually endless, audience. They were able to interpret the spirit and technique of rock and roll, while separating it from its social circumstances, thus defusing potential explosions. In such a fashion, they rendered it accessible not only to the young rebels, but to all. Mediocre musicians, and even more mediocre intellectuals, bands like the Beatles had the intuition of the circus performer who knows how to amuse the peasants after a hard day's work, an intuition applied to the era of mass distribution of consumer goods.

Every one of their songs and every one of their albums followed much more striking songs and albums by others, but instead of simply imitating them, the Beatles adapted them to a bourgeois, conformist and orthodox dimension. The same process was applied to the philosophy of the time, from the protests on college campuses to Dylan's pacifism, psychedelic drugs, or Eastern religion. Their vehicle was melody, a universal code of sorts, that declared their music innocuous. Naturally others performed the same operation, and many (from the Kinks to the Hollies, from the Beach Boys to the Mamas and Papas) produced melodies even more memorable, yet the Beatles arrived at the right moment and theirs would remain the trademark of the melodic song of the second half of the twentieth century.


 No.176186

Their ascent was branded as "Beatlemania", a phenomenon of mass hysteria launched in 1963 that marked the height of the "teen idol" of the late 1950s, an extension of the myths of Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. From that moment on, no matter what they put together, the Beatles remained the center of the media's attention.

Musically, for what it is worth, the Beatles were the product of an era that had been prepared by vocal groups such as the Everly Brothers and by rockers such as Buddy Holly; an era that also expressed itself through the girl-groups, the Tamla bands and surf music. What the Beatles have in common with them, aside from almost identical melodies, is a general concept of song based on an exuberant, optimistic and cadenced melody.

The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumantel mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton, Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but more original). The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul mia fascia quandoartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence). Overall, the technique of the "Fab Four" was the same as that of many other easy-listening groups: sub-standard.

Theirs were records of traditional songs crafted as they had been crafted for centuries, yet they served an immense audience, far greater than the audience of those who wanted to change the world, the hippies, freaks and protesters. Their fans ignored or abhorred the many rockers of the time who were experimenting with the suite format, who were composing long free-form tracks, who were using dissonance, who were radically changing the concept of the musical piece. The Beatles' fans thought, and some still think, that using trumpets in a rock song was a revolutionary event, that using background noises (although barely noticeable) was an even more revolutionary event, and that only great musical geniuses could vary so many styles in one album, precisely what many rock musicians were doing all over the world, employing much more sophisticated stylistic excursions.

While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avantgarde music, thus elevating rock music to art, the Beatles continued to yield three-minute songs built around a chorus. Beatlemania and its myth notwithstanding, Beatles fans went crazy for twenty seconds of trumpet, while the Velvet Underground were composing suites of chaos twenty minutes long. Actually, between noise and a trumpet, between twenty seconds and twenty minutes, there was an artistic difference of several degrees of magnitude. They were, musically, sociologically, politically, artistically, and ideologically, on different planets.

Beatlemania created a comical temporal distortion. Many Beatles fans were convinced that rock and roll was born around the early 1960s, that psychedelic rock and the hippies were a 1967 phenomenon, that student protests began in 1969, that peace marches erupted at the end of the 60s, and so on. Beatles fans believed that the Beatles were first in everything, while in reality they were last in almost everything. The case of the Beatles is a textbook example of how myths can distort history.

The Beatles had the historical function to delay the impact of the innovations of the 1960s . Between 1966 and 1969, while suites, jams, and long free form tracks (which the Beatles also tried but only toward the end of their career) became the fashion, while the world was full of guitarists, bassist, singers and drummers who played solos and experimented with counterpoint, the Beatles limited themselves to keeping the tempo and following the melody. Their historical function was also to prepare the more conservative audience for those innovations. Their strength was perhaps in being the epitome of mediocrity, never a flash of genius, never a revolutionary thought, never a step away from what was standard, accepting innovations only after they had been by the establishment. And maybe it was that chronic mediocrity that made their fortune: whereas other bands tried to surpass their audiences, to keep two steps ahead of the myopia of their fans, traveling the hard and rocky road, the Beatles took their fans by the hand and walked them along a straight path devoid of curves and slopes.


 No.176192

Bue… entonces nadie lo vió ultimamente al viejo?


 No.176193

>>176192

No salimos de casa


 No.176194

>>176192

>saliendo de casa


 No.176197

>>176193

>>176194

Yo tampoco, por eso pregunto.

Bueno, me voy a quedar tranquilo pensando que el viejo sigue allá afuera, resistiendo con sus melodías oníricas e indescifrables.


 No.176198

>>176197

calmate, lovecraft


 No.176200

>>176198

Que tiene de Lovecraft ese post?


 No.176201

>>176200

me hizo acordar a uno de sus cuentos, el de la musica de erich zann (creo que era asi)


 No.176338

>>176150

>ser asi de chupapija por el onedirection que escuchaban sus viejos

Sos tan pajero que te quemas solo

>>176157

>2016

>todavia hablando de skrillex

Que sigue? moby?

>>176192

Nunca lo vi en primer lugar, solo al viejo de florida


 No.176548

File: 1456766149181.jpg (162.15 KB, 501x720, 167:240, azathoth.jpg)

>>176200

>Que tiene de Lovecraft ese post?

>No conociendo al sultán daemoníaco idiota y ciego que se retuerce en el centro del Universo, apaciguado por las flautas malditas de dioses primigenios

Retirate por favor.


 No.176550

>>176548

que mierda acabo de ver


 No.176572

File: 1456775404085.jpg (574.01 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, Dingiralbumart.jpg)

>>176548

Me hizo acordar a rings of saturn


 No.176573

>>176572

>Me hizo acordar a rings of saturn

¿El libro de Dross?


 No.176576

>>176573

El de mangel


 No.176588

>>176548

Yo también tuve 15 años una vez jaja


 No.176601

>>176139

A mí, de chiquito, un viejo me metia una flauta en la cola. Soy de la campora y travesti.


 No.176603

Yo pasaba por ahí con mi novia y la última vez que lo ví con mi novia que fue el año pasado ya le dí cuarenta pesos y cinco soles.


 No.176618

>>176588

>Yo también tuve 15 años una vez jaja

Honestamente, no te creo.


 No.176631

>>176139

Y… si hace un tiempo largo que no lo ves y es viejo, es probable que haya muerto o en el mejor de los casos lo hayan derivado para otro lado (muh makuri impactu). Yo conocía de pasar siempre por el mismo lugar a una pareja de gente mayor homeless que vivió mucho tiempo en un punto y de golpe en varios meses no supe nada. Después me enteré que la vieja murió de gangrena en las piernas y al tipo lo mandaron a un hogar, osea la vida de un linyera es bastante monótona y predecible, salvo que pegue suerte en lo de Anabela Ascar, cosa que no es improbable si el hombre en cuestión tiene/ía algún "talento".


 No.176637

>>176139

No chori, no lo veo hace rato y mira que paso por ahi…


 No.176658

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>176631

Igual no se si el viejo ese era homeless, croe que hay chances de que era del Borda. Segun recuerdo una amiga me contó que lo vio en un bondi que iba para barracas hace años, asi que quizas…

Tambien aparentemente el viejo hablaba solo en italiano. Yo un par de veces pasé y le deje unos billetes y le intenté hablar, pero el viejito solo sonreía y tocaba su flauta, nunca lo escuché hablar.

>>176637

Y bueno, quizás se fue al cielo. ;_;


 No.176663

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

La gente shilleando a los Beatles.

Si, la mitad de las bandas que me gustan no existirían sin ellos, pero no porque me caiga bien mi vieja me va a caer mi abuela.

Que sean influenciables no los hace buenos.

Hitler influyo bastante también.

¿Por qué no escuchan música de verdad?


 No.176668


 No.176690

>>176603

Volvete a tu país, sea cual sea


 No.177140

>>176631

Es jodida la vida del linyera.

Cuando iba al cole me había hecho amigo de un hobo que vivía frente a una iglesia por el camino.

Era buena onda el tipo, nunca te pedía nada y siempre te daba conversación. Había estado en Maldivas y como había vuelto con un par de jugadores menos, andaba en la calle. Un día desapareció y yo pensaba que se habría muerto, pero resultó que al final alguien se había contactado con unos familiares y se fue a vivir con ellos. Tuvo suerte la verdad, la última vez que lo ví estaba afeitado y bien vestido.


 No.177143

>>176663

>shilleando a los beatles

>comiendo el bait

wew


 No.177298

>>176663

>Implicando que Hitler es el malo de la película

> No sabiendo nada de Stalin

> muh holocausto!


 No.177329

>>176145

cuando leo cosas como estas me doy cuenta que el board entero tiene 15 años


 No.177430


 No.177749

>>177298

>creyendo la mentira capitalista de el holomodor


 No.177757

The Beatles > Lovecraft

Punto.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]