Again stop being a jack ass. I didn't say the songs, you said Beatles innovatived the "12 song album"..

Im talking about the NUMBER of songs on any given record, NOT the songs themselves. Record industry 101 the record contract determined the number of tracks for most records and to a degree still does

Even worse why am i wasting my time? You're talking logistics when im asking about MUSIC THEORY

Now i wanna listen to mingus

this is the shit right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpZTtaWqxsQ

fucking 6/8 time sig!

Again,i did the homework hours ago, i made some interesting discoveries, i will wait until Severian does his (because i KNOW that nerdy fuck is like me and can't resist homework) before i spoil the learning experience by just posting the answers.

Remember my brotha i already mentioned i totally agree that Beatles were and are an unparalleled cultural influence but the crux of the discussion is i don't believe they were a serious MUSICAL influence

Agreed love you to bro and thanks for the deftones link made my weekend..

Alas the whole reason i started posting here in 2004 was because a lot of users talked aboutmusic theory stuff and i love it

I don't care so much as id like to know. I have ALWAYS felt Beatles musical influence was overrated and the conversation with severian got my gears spinning so i finally decided to check it out empirically using music theory. Also i just am a music nerd and love the excuse to research and discuss music theory.

And i love you too Teddy Bro-sevelt for totally remembering that indeed its the only Zepp album i can hang with. I legit wish they released some dub instrumental versions of their albums because i always liked their instrumentation its Plant's voice that irks me worse than that loud mouthed bitch you can always hear chearing bleeding through the floor mics for San Antonio Spurs home games

I listened to II and III last weekly oddly.

Nay. No. Nope. No sir. Untrue. False. Not even. Some bands had concept albums around the same time (Kinks, the Who), but before the Beatles? Tell me, what concept albums can you recall from pre-1962? And jazz records don't count, different kind of concept.


You're kinda right about the album lengths... But also kinda wrong. The Beatles were heavily involved in planning their albums even at the very start. In the UK, they pretty much called the shots thanks to having Epstein on their side. Labels didn't truly begin to interfere with track listings to profit off of singles until the Beatles albums were issued in the US. And the Beatles HATED it.

You're basically asking me to tell you what the Beatles invented. Innovated isn't the right word. You're asking for examples of Beatles music that contains musical elements that were completely novel.

My answer to that is, everything that came after Help! Literally everything they did from Rubber Soul to The White Album contained never before heard sounds and recording techniques and engineering.

Integrating the sitar into rock music? Beatles. Backward guitar solos? Beatles. No "lead singer"/shared songwriting duties split at times between all four members? Beatles. Concept albums? Beatles. Hybridizing R&B and folk with "rock and roll" beats and guitar/bass/drum arrangements? Beatles. Leading songs with note assortments instead of chords? Beatles ("And Your Bird Can Sing") Self-referential lyrical wordplay/myth making/song sequels/interconnected lyrics? Beatles!

Long story short, pop music as we know it is a periodic table made up of fragments of what the Beatles did musically. There's no overstating this. They're not my favorite band, but they were the BEST. Pop culture revolves around them to this day like the solar system revolves around the sun. The connections are here, there and everywhere.

nah I do too. They're one of those bands that every album is maybe my fav. Be it IV or Houses Of The Holy or Physical Graffiti.

I mean shit, I even like In Through The Out Door.

You'd probably facepalm less... for starters.

them facepalms are comfort food, son. You're my dood.

Can't go wrong with "Fool in the Rain" when it comes on the radio. God awful, stupid ass premise, but one of the catchiest songs there ever was or ever will be.

George Harrison was a revolutionary guitarist, truly. I actually think he's underrated. Playing Beatles songs (even the easy ones) can be tough. The interplay between the lead and the rhythm, the bass and he percussion. Some songs have truly *fucked* changes. Truly complex chords. I mean, Helter Skelter's pretty damn simple, but check the timing on "Everybody's Got something to hide except for me and my Monkey" ... Insane. And "Here there and everywhere" is strummed so peacefully and eloquently and simply that it feels like a simple song, but it's rooted in five chords, stretches at the odd verse to seven or eight, goes minor chromatic out of nowhere...

See, I'm way behind on my theory talk. I haven't fact checked this shit, just speaking from memory. But still, what a beautiful bunch of sounds that band made!

I don't need everyone to love the Beatles as much as I do, and I know there are folks out there with perfectly sensible arguments against them being THE band (wrong, hole-filled arguments, yes, but sensible ones too!) I just can't say enough about them. Why? Because I'm a HUGE music nerd and I'm HYPER critical. If music can't hold me, make me feel new things, I don't stick with it. I'm astonished that the Beatles still captivate me so much after a lifetime of listening to them, and nearly half a century after their last record.

Sorry if I've been a dick. I just dig talking about this stuff.

Also- that new KEVIN GATES album really is pretty damn good, louder! I detect a hint of lil Wayne at his peak on Islah. It's good and it's full and it's complex. Might join the ranks of Vince Staples and Kendrick if it holds my attention.

I plan to check it.

nah Puffy sampled "Cashmere." There's your segue.

FINALLY. Some theory. So it turns out you are right about Beatles doing some innovative things with chord progressions and timings. If you are interested here is some theory

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/...d_chords.shtml
NOW for the meaty part of the discussion. What specific examples can we find of OTHER BANDS OR ARTISTS utilizing these different chord changes or timings and yes, to be empirical about it we must be both specific and accurate. It can't be what we "feel" or "think" ot is either the same chords and timings or its not and THAT is how we can MEASURE musical influence empirically

I always understood the Pet Sounds was the first "concept" album but Wikipedia seems to say that Frank Sinatra put out the first concept albums?
Im sure that they had plans but as i told Southern Comfort homie you got to prove that. Record companies defined the number of tracks. Indeed the Dead tell the story as to why their first concept album Anthem Of The Sun used "subtracks" such as "1a" and "1b" precisely because of record company issues. The contract for the album at least 8 songs and they only made 5 so they just and if you listen almost arbitrarily subdivided the opening track into four subtracks. Whenever they performed it live they always considered it one song. I would imagine Beatles weren't in a drastically different situation as record companies are record companies. Now i got the Dead story from their own interview so i would imagine that if the Beatles had done something especially artistic with the NUMBER of tracks well they probably would have mentioned it.




Yup, that is exactly what i am saying.


That is just nonsense and you especially know it.


Ill give them that, even Jimi said he picked this up from them.



debatable

You're not being serious are you?

Possibly


I get this your fav band but i think even Beatles might call that hyperbole.


Show me the music theory evidence please.

I never disagreed with that in the least.