Banner
Views: 843,522,688
Time:
21 users online: Amine Retro,  Anorakun, B1oodbathMcGrath, brickblock369, Doug Walker,  FPzero, fullmetal-oranges, Haithius, HamOfJustice, Hunter-, Kick, King Mayro, Kusrry, MarioriaM, megaBC333, Miscalc, OrangeBronzeDaisy, Second, Slithy, SwampMage, TheMorganah - Guests: 67 - Bots: 79 Users: 46,346 (2,844 active)
Latest: apollowo
Tip: Create a thread for your hack in the Works in Progress once you have enough screenshots/videos to show.Not logged in.
On the Beatles
Forum Index - Sunken Ghost Ship - Forum Graveyard - The New World of Insanity - On the Beatles
Pages: « 1 »
So I was listening to The Beatles' "Rubber soul," like I do every day, and I noticed at the end of Norwegian Wood, John says,
"So, I lit a fire.
Isn't it good?
Norwegian wood."
In the beginning of the song, he's talking about how her house is made of Norwegian wood... does that make him and Arsonist?

--------------------
Nixon's the one.
Norwegian wood...it seems like a euphemism for...well...you know what "wood" is a euphemism for.

--------------------
don't click this link...
good rhymes with wood bam there you go.
if you wanna interpret it as a euphemism then go right ahead you sicko

--------------------
ask me about my VASTLY SUPERIOR music taste and style~
Originally posted by Newhacker
good rhymes with wood bam there you go.
if you wanna interpret it as a euphemism then go right ahead you sicko


Its a bit how like I infer that Strawberry fields is about someone going insane, and something with dying. Hell i think that song is a bit creepy, and yet it's the first song I liked from the Beatles.


Don't concern yourself with the Beatles too much
Originally posted by mathelete
Norwegian wood...it seems like a euphemism for...well...you know what "wood" is a euphemism for.


Lighting yourself on fire while having sex is a different song.
While we're analyzing the beatles, why do people listen to them?
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "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 worth of being saved.

In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention 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 one 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 free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.

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. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who 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 white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not 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 & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold 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 to read a page about such a trivial band.

--------------------

I'd do another ^ post, but I feel like I'm already pushing it in this forum.

It's also worth noting that the critics give the Beatles a lot of credit for their "progression" into more complex music. Stuff like Revolution 9 had already been done by John Cage and Stockhausen, and making songs longer and more complex isn't much when other genres had been doing it for decades.
@Ixtab: Wowzers. I didn't think there was anyone else who thought the same of The Beatles as I did. I can't say that I hate their music, I just never even found it noteworthy, it is mind blowing to me that they are even a thing anymore, or really ever were.
Originally posted by Ixtab
mediocre

Nigga please.
U ratchet.

--------------------
Nixon's the one.
The Beatles most certainly belong to the history of the 60s, but their musical merits are at best dubious.

--------------------
aran - Graces of Heaven
Originally posted by Hobz
While we're analyzing the beatles, why do people listen to them?


Because they have actual good songs and their line-up's worst are simply repetitive and formulaic.

Their only sin is being overrated.

Edit: And the occasional "homage" of course (aka theft sampling)
Pages: « 1 »
Forum Index - Sunken Ghost Ship - Forum Graveyard - The New World of Insanity - On the Beatles

The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.

Copyright © 2005 - 2020 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Privacy Policy - Link To Us


Menu

Follow Us On

  • YouTube
  • Twitch
  • Twitter

Affiliates

  • Super Mario Bros. X Community
  • ROMhacking.net
  • Mario Fan Games Galaxy