Ryan Patrick Broderick
Ryan.Broderick@gmail.com
@RyanhatesthisFuck you, you 20-something tards and fuck your fork too.
“The Beatles’ run in the 1960s is good fodder for thought experiments. For example, Abbey Road came out in late September 1969. Though Let It Be was then still unreleased, the Beatles wouldn’t record another album together. But they were still young men: George was 26 years old, Paul was 27, John was 28, and Ringo was 29. The Beatles’ first album, Please Please Me, had come out almost exactly six and a half years earlier. So if Abbey Road had been released today, Please Please Me would date to March 2003. So think about that for a sec: Twelve studio albums and a couple of dozen singles, with a sound that went from earnest interpreters of Everly Brothers and Motown hits to mind-bending sonic explorers and with so many detours along the way— all of it happened in that brief stretch of time. That’s a weight to carry.”—
Pitchfork: Album Reviews: The Beatles: Abbey Road (via bwall05)
(via musichistory)
(via exspectator)
And this is where, my contrarian streak aside, I have to resign to The Beatles. Think of bands that started (or hell, were even active) in 2003 and then think about what they’re doing now.
Another reason to add to my list of why Pitchfork is a bunch of know nothing ass-wipes. Superficially this is contrived and elitist because it’s like “oh man, I’m usually so arrogant but if I really had to stop and think I guess The Beatles are awesome.” This is the Pitchfork equivalent of the process every 20-something goes through when they just give up and settle for classic rock. But because it’s Pitchfork it’s like ironic and “well, ya know, at the end of the day, like The Beatles rule.” Well Pitchfork, congrats, you’re like just like all of us.
Thematically here’s what makes this like “whoa, stop and think” moment completely retarded. When The Beatles were a band the entire landscape of mainstream media, music, song writing, marketing, it was all different. You can’t even argue it it’s so different. It’s like saying “man, in the middle ages Georgian Monks sure did write a lot of music together for a long time.”
The Beatles were able to have that 6 years to create because the pace of popular media was about half what it is today. So instead try this thought experiment:
The style of music The Beatles were playing is analogous to what rap was in the 80’s. But you could probably even argue that their style of “mainstream counter culture youth music” is still analogous to The Beatles’ form of mod and rock n’ roll. So taking that leap of faith let’s look at say… Lil’ Wayne or TI or Kanye West.
I don’t randomly pick those three, I pick them because Lil’ Wayne’s first album dropped in 1999. Kanye West’s first album as a rapper was in 2004. TI’s first album was in 2001. Each of them came from a social background arguably just as marginalized if not more.
Each of them in the span of their careers to date, have taken an incredibly raw form of music and polished it and then taken to a weird place. Most notably Kanye West and Lil’ Wayne.
Now I don’t make this argument to compare these three to The Beatles in terms of talent. I make this argument one, to illustrate how full of bullshit laziness Pitchfork is. And two, to try and finally put to rest “The Beatles did it” argument of music. They certainly changed a lot in 6 years, but they also stopped touring and released studio albums, so yeah… I fucking hope they progressed their sound, cause if they hadn’t like… what the fuck were they doing in the studio?
Just some food for thought.
(some of that is like typo’d but fuck, the thesis is fine)
Submit to Reddit