Album of the day (#992): Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Ba - Music

Guest

ppnw wrote:

Hating Justin Bieber for his music, style, or perhaps feminine physique is misplaced hate of Justin Bieber. People should hate Justin Bieber because he's quoted as saying "rape happens for a reason," because he recently spat on fans from his hotel balcony, because he did nothing to stop -didn't even address- the #cutforbieber phenomenon, because he wrote that he hoped Anne Frank would've been a belieber in the guest book at the Anne Frank museum, and a handful of other poor choices.

a) The "rape happens for a reason" quote seems a bit unfair to use against him. He was asked his opinions on a variety of huge topics as a 16-year-old, and when asked about rape he said, "everything happens for a reason". And he's right about rape. It does happen for a reason, that reason being that rapists are out there and they're fucking despicable people. He never once implied that the victims are the reason, just that there was a reason behind it, which there is.

b) The #cut4bieber thing was despicable, but why should he shoulder the blame for it? It was dickheads on 4chan who took advantage of vulnerable little girls. Even if he'd said, "please stop", do you think they would have? They were, theoretically, doing it because he'd smoked weed. As an 18-year-old. How would you react if, at the age of 18, you'd been told a bunch of tween girls worldwide were self-harming because there'd been a picture of you smoking weed on TMZ. You'd want the world to open up and swallow you whole.

c) The Anne Frank thing was misguided, but he did just say he hoped she'd have been a fan of his were she alive today. Hell, I wish Anne Frank had been a fan of my music if she were alive today. It's not some despicable act of deliberate disrespect for a martyr, just a dumb fucking comment.

I'm not saying Justin Bieber isn't a little prick, he might well be. I'm just saying that the above doesn't constitute good enough reasons to hate him, and you're just peddling a load of sensationalist bullshit.

Kool Keith Sweat

lethalnezzle wrote:

I'm just saying that the above doesn't constitute good enough reasons to hate him, and you're just peddling a load of sensationalist bullshit.

It works for me.

HoldenM
To Pedantically Split Infinitives

Gender: Male
Age: 29

lethalnezzle wrote:

a) The "rape happens for a reason" quote seems a bit unfair to use against him. He was asked his opinions on a variety of huge topics as a 16-year-old, and when asked about rape he said, "everything happens for a reason". And he's right about rape. It does happen for a reason, that reason being that rapists are out there and they're fucking despicable people. He never once implied that the victims are the reason, just that there was a reason behind it, which there is.

b) The #cut4bieber thing was despicable, but why should he shoulder the blame for it? It was dickheads on 4chan who took advantage of vulnerable little girls. Even if he'd said, "please stop", do you think they would have? They were, theoretically, doing it because he'd smoked weed. As an 18-year-old. How would you react if, at the age of 18, you'd been told a bunch of tween girls worldwide were self-harming because there'd been a picture of you smoking weed on TMZ. You'd want the world to open up and swallow you whole.

c) The Anne Frank thing was misguided, but he did just say he hoped she'd have been a fan of his were she alive today. Hell, I wish Anne Frank had been a fan of my music if she were alive today. It's not some despicable act of deliberate disrespect for a martyr, just a dumb fucking comment.

I'm not saying Justin Bieber isn't a little prick, he might well be. I'm just saying that the above doesn't constitute good enough reasons to hate him, and you're just peddling a load of sensationalist bullshit.

This, for the most part.

TracyJacks

Gender: Female

drakonium wrote:

My most recent re-listen told me it was by pretty far my favorite Beatles record. It should go pretty high on my next chart update. It features their exceptionnal talent of songwriting as usual, but it also adds more silliness, more unexpected twists, and just more fun. I think it's the album where they take themselves the less seriously, and it's a good point. Just unbelievably catchy, fun and unique, IMO.

I agree with this so much. I think every song flows perfectly from one to each other. But I don't think the whole album is funny and silly. Not only A Day in The Life but Within You Withou You is a serious and philosophic song too.
This has been my favourite Beatles album since I was 9 and on my personal all-time favourite list it is #1. Closely followed by Revolver...

Guest

sp4cetiger wrote:

Meanwhile, music critics and music lovers (like the people on this site), people who have probably had exposure to 1000s of the world's best artists, routinely vote the Beatles the best. That doesn't mean you have to like them or agree with the majority (or perhaps, plurality), but I think it's silly to imply that all of these people are somehow deluded by simple selection biases.

I don't think it's silly at all. I have always been of the belief that if you took thousands of people who have never listened to music, put them all into separate vacuums in which they could have no human interaction, had them listen to thousands of popular albums from the past 60 years without telling them anything about the critical response, popular response, context, or anything else of the album, and then asked them which artist was their favorite, I would frankly be pretty shocked if that many came out and said The Beatles. There would be some, I'm sure, but I imagine the band would probably fail to make much of an impression on a lot of people.

Why? Because, without being constantly reminded how important, original, influential, and everything else they were (which everyone in the western world is), they kind of just come off as a good band. A really good band in the opinion of some, but without this sort of trading of opinions humans have I don't imagine any band would come to be loved by the majority.

That being said, I agree with what you said about one band having to be the top-ranked on the site and that no matter what band it was someone would shit all over it. I actually made a similar point in the most recent OK Computer Album of the Day thread. I just think that that #1 band, whoever it might be, will inevitably be there on account of the ridiculous amount of exposure it gets. I'm not saying this is the band's fault, nor am I even saying this exposure is a bad thing. But it's definitely a big part of the reason The Beatles are in the #1 spot.

sp4cetiger

Necharsian wrote:

I was merely trying to show why the red is true. Im not whining about the beatles being proclaimed the best. Im whining at some people's foolish reasoning for it.

I agree with you, for the most part. I would say that some charts are specifically trying to select out albums and artists that are influential, in which case "they were great because they were influential" becomes relevant. Some people may interpret this site in that way, actually, and I think that's really a subjective thing. Personally, though, I prefer to focus on the quality of the music. Otherwise, Elvis would be near the top of my list.

Also, sorry if I get too passionate about this, but as RockyRaccoon already said, it can be tiring always hearing people trashing your favorite band. Sometimes I envy the people with more obscure tastes. Nobody ever goes on a rant about the Manic Street Preachers. Confused

Mother Nature's Son

Gender: Male
Age: 31

drakonium wrote:

Wowowow, thanks for the recs, but I think you completely misread my post. I said I loved Bohemian Rhapsody. God, Genesis is even in my top 20. My point wasn't that I didn't like pretentiousness, but it was that The Beatles couldn't handle it. They are good at writing great, short and unique pop songs like only them know how to do it, not at trying to sound like they are sonic geniuses, because they're not. I just think A Day In The Life is a pretty soulless, uninteresting and a bit too pretentious track. That doesn't make it a bad one, just a completely inappropriate one, considering the rest of the album. On the other hand, a song like Bohemian Rhapsody, which is openly crazy, ridiculous, schizophrenic and actually totally unique clearly fits its album.

Pretentiousness is cool, but only if the track has enough substance to justify it. I think A Day In The Life does not. That's all.

And seriously... Aqua? Like... What? Actually, you know what, I'm beginning to wonder whether your post was ironic or not. Shit, I might have written all of that for nothing. If it is, then congratulations, you got me Laughing

Hehe, got ya! Cool

No, I'm sorry for the rude comment. I totally accept you don't like "A Day in the Life". It's not only because it's Beatles, just some things that rubbed me the wrong way:

Pretentious, as long as the music is just a little serious, has become the easy way to describe music negatively despite the lack of an actual argument. The song might be "uncatchy" to your ears, but I still consider the melody very memorable. The uncatchiness might be the result of the lack of a proper chorus. This is where the "not interesting" part comes in. A song on a pop album without the arguably most important element in pop music: the chorus (another very important element being a catchy hook which the song also lacks). I definitely think it's interesting there how much they played around with the typical song structure. Plus you got the huge chaotic orchestra. Plus you got the contrasting silly Paul McCartney part (there's the fun you were missing). Plus you got the abstract lyrics. Plus you got the overlong piano chord at the end. Plus you got the weird laughter at the very end of album. Regarding the off the album's mood part, I think that's exactly the point. Definitely a song that fits the somehow very loose concept of the album. The show's over with the reprise of the title-track and now for something completely different. A dreamy, spacey outro that satisfies the hunger of the psychedelic subculture in 1967. Regarding the soulless thing, what about a song like "Good Morning Good Morning" inspired by a Kellogg's cormmercial? The rather silly love song about a female warden?

On the other side, "A Day in the Life" isn't a big Albert Hall overshadowing the other songs either (personally, I think Surfer Rosa with "Where Is My Mind?" is a much better example of a such album). There are many songs on the album that I consider just as good or even better, depending on the mood.

Okay, that's enough over-defensive garbage from me for today, but I think there's a great reason to make such a big deal out of it when it's objectively the second greatest album by The Beatles, in my opionion.
_________________
"The Beatles, the greatest band known to mankind." - Bismah Mughal

sp4cetiger

swedenman wrote:

I don't think it's silly at all. I have always been of the belief that if you took thousands of people who have never listened to music, put them all into separate vacuums in which they could have no human interaction, had them listen to thousands of popular albums from the past 60 years without telling them anything about the critical response, popular response, context, or anything else of the album, and then asked them which artist was their favorite, I would frankly be pretty shocked if that many came out and said The Beatles. .

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I know that such biases exist, but I really do think that the Beatles touch on something that appeals to a wide range of people, critics and casual listeners alike. Note that I'm not saying that *everyone* would prefer the Beatles in that hypothetical scenario, just that they would get a plurality, as they do on this site.

Guest

swedenman wrote:

I don't think it's silly at all. I have always been of the belief that if you took thousands of people who have never listened to music, put them all into separate vacuums in which they could have no human interaction, had them listen to thousands of popular albums from the past 60 years without telling them anything about the critical response, popular response, context, or anything else of the album, and then asked them which artist was their favorite, I would frankly be pretty shocked if that many came out and said The Beatles. There would be some, I'm sure, but I imagine the band would probably fail to make much of an impression on a lot of people.

This. I don't think many people at all would come out saying they thought The Beatles were better than all the other artists they heard.

Kiki

The Beatles sing catchy songs about life and the times. Ofcourse they are going to be well liked. Cool