-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Scumbag Steve: Douchebag Quarterly | Hipster Kitty: The Dark Lord Next »
» Read 247 Trolls (and some comments)
Leave a Reply
-
All Ur Memes... R Being Discussed
Ken on I Just Hold One Finger Back at… notmyname on Better Than Rage Against The… Mac on Señor Gif: Baa Ram Ewe SDReal on You Wouldn’t Know, You… ashgreen on Fandom Base: Get Bent Bobbk on SadistBob ashgreen on Señor Gif: Baa Ram Ewe linda on Or Just OCD Anyone linda on I Just Hold One Finger Back at… linda on Rage Comics: I Can Taste Your…
More MEMEBASE
This Is Photobomb - Surprise! Ruined Photos
Sneakin Behind Yo Girls
Very Demotivational - Work Harder, Not Smarter.
NIGHTMARES
GraphJam - Music & Culture for People Who Love Charts
Replotted: That's More Like It
Señor Gif - Funny Animated GIFs
OK, I'm in The Car, Now What?
Picture Is Unrelated - Funny WTF Pictures
For All Your Llama Needs
Comixed - Vertical 4 Pane Comics
Is This Thing On?
Derp - All the Derp Durr Hurr that's fit to Derp
Yerrr Perbly Thert It Wers Erlive
Art of Trolling - Trolls on Chatroulette and Yahoo! Answers
One Does Not Simply Ignore a LOTR Reference
Go Cry Emo Kid - Go Cry Emo Kids
Why Would You Do This to Me?
Superheroes - Superheroes
And Be Gentle
Rage Comics - Express Your Rage
The Joys of Working in Retail
Pokémemes - I choose you!
Away With You, Foul Serpent!
first
LOL LOOK ITZ A N00B20R5
What should we do!?
BURN IT WIT FIAR!!!
nah , we should dip it in oil first…..
NO YOU GUYS DONT MADE A COMPARISON BETWEN REBECA BLACK AND THE BEATLES!!!!
FANATIC TROLL IS FANATIC!!!and mad
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
wat
He broke the comment chain (above) in an epic fashion
Thanks, now you’ve ruined the Beatles for me.
turn it around! it made rebecca black a tiny l’il bit better
umm… how does copying make anyone better?
PROTIP: copying from one source is stealing, copying from multiple sources is research/inspiration.
Dont you see? now that the beatles are ruined, it is that much better in comparison. Umad?
THEY ACTUALLY THE WHOLE BUS
Not to mention afterward he goes back upstairs, has a smoke and goes into a dream. Instead of having “Fun, fun, fun. fun. fun.”
It’s not copying but mere intertextuality, most oftenly used to express one’s appreciation towards another artist. And if Rebecca Black does in fact now enough Beatles music to be able to convert it in such a way that their lyrics are hidden inside hers, it would make her a bit (and just that) better as an artist.
Although I highly doubt if she herself wrote these lyrics and she knew she was using Beatles material.
(On a side note; “Friday” really sucks as much as a song can suck, no matter how many references to good music it may contain)
She didn’t get it from a beatles song.
RB’s Friday is a word for word cover of a Bob Dylan song, also called Friday. Except for the rap bit.
You do know that the Friday version sung by Bob Dylan on youtube isn’t Bob Dylan, right? It’s an impersonator. It’s a joke.
Hell, it doesn’t even sound like Bob Dylan that much.
Not to mention that I highly doubt that the song was lost to time until a couple of days after Friday got infamous.
lol what a retard
Agreed. Pure sacrilege.
In their defense, rhyming seems to be a foreign concept to Rebecca Black…
Eh? Don’t you see bowl/cereal? Genius. There’s also everything/going (all words that end with -ing suddenly rhyme!).
Maybe you should start asking which seat can you take on her ride to super-stardom–she might just let you on board if you ask nicely/are a random black guy who can make her look cooler.
*to whoever wrote the lyrics (I doubt it was her)
*to whomever wrote the lyrics
*to whomever “wrote” the lyrics
There, I fixed it.
Bob Dylan.
As does singing in key
The Beatles sang using their voices. Rebbecca Black sings using her nose.
Pretty sure it’s her ass
+15 internets to you, sir!
And the friggen thing it’s still auto tuned.
Also, seeing as swears are replaced by candy.
Rebeca Black sings like BIG HUNK
*cries* why compare the demigods of popular music with that abomination!
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHY
not the demigods,the gods.not an abomination,an idiot form HELL
Note: This was not put up to destroy the Beatles, but to destroy Rebecca Black who is “copying” the Beatles. OP is just pointing out that Rebecca Black is a stealing betch. P:
Wait. What the hell? NoooooooooOOOOOOooo!
You dare compare the Beatles, the most well known and amazing European band in the world — arguably the best band of all time — to a thirteen year old auto-tuned nasal female who sings word-for-word something we all learned in first grade?
This.
This.
That.
Here.
Exactly. And I’m even European, simply don’t give a flying feck about Beatles. U MAD?
The Beatles? Fudge em.
The Beatles… proof that millions of people can be wrong!
^ I can agree with that
yup.. like, Bieber has more than 8 million fans.. there is a lot of work to do.. anyone can lend me a gun and 8 million bullets?
Don’t forget, the entire Western world once believed that the planet was entirely flat.
Collective stupidity: The only thing as certain as death and taxes.
western world?? they didnt even know about the western world!! the western world was england. but yeah we get ur point…(im with you… i was just pointing out.)
this
Yes! Someone speaks the truth
s/He did not only do that, s/he could
UK isnt ‘European’
Yes. Yes it is.
Yes. Yes it is.
and what’s more, it’s true. Yes it is.
It seems so strange for me to see England referred to as a European country, though I guess it technically is. o_O
I’m guessing they’re not from the UK and are trying to claim a bit of the Beatles glory for themselves.
It’s like in the English press when a Scot does something great, they refer to them as being British rather than being Scottish.
this.
The Beatles were overrated as hell.
Deal with it.
Exactly. I still don’t know how anyone ever listened to their crap. There were far better bands at the time, but everyone is always “The Beatles were so great.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/the-beatles-19691231
Look at the website, the beatles are #1 for a reason
Without the Beatles there would be no… Oasis…
John Lennon’s solo career was better.
Friday night arrives without a suitcase
Sunday morning creeping like a nun
At least Rebecca Black remembered Saturday!
lol Lady Madonna
agreed
To be fair, that was the one part written by Paul.
I lol’d at this
Err yeah just repeated what you said. Rest of the song is masterful, this poppy part was definately an odd break.
Just….no
NEVER COMPARE THE BEATLES WITH rebecca black!!!
NEVER EVER!
NEVER EVER EVER !
NEVER EVER EVER EVER!
NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER!!!!
NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER EVER!!!!!!!!
stfu =)
C-C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!!
Maybe the chart is intended to suggest possible plagiarism. It does read like the songwriters just took a beatles song and kid’ed it up.
Too late. Umad?
What is the beatles equivalent of “we we we so excited” thought?
^though – the item in quotations was responsible for temporarily dumbing me down.. I won’t say it again for fear of making another typo
No. That’s just mean.
because the world is round, it turns me on.
This.
Also ow. First “A Day in the Life”, and now “Because”?
He got feet down below his knee
Also:
He say “One and one and one is three”
(Come Together)
“Come on in such a joy. Come on in such a joy.”
It’s exactly how the song was written by Bob Dylan. That’s probably what Rebecca Black throught when someone gave her the 30-yr old lyrics to read..
oh my god. its a joke. bob dylan is an amazing writer and didnt write that. please use your brain!!! the youtube video was a joke.
Friday doesn’t seem to rhyme much.
It does when you’re stupid.
Untrue! You’re forgetting her clever “bowl” and “cereal” rhyme!
*shudder*
Gotta have my bowl
Gotta have my cer-eole
My ears started bleeding at that point.
This
I still haven’t heard Friday. Thank God.
Beatles ftw.
how dare u compare!!!!
u just found a place down in hell!
I read the news today oh boy
Four thausand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know ho w many holes it takes to fill the Albert Haal
I’d love to turn you oooooOoOooOoOon
This is the greatest and best song in the world… tribute.
Further proof that the Beatles are the worst band ever.
Wat…. WHUT?!? I hope to god youre kidding. *Gets out of way for Trollstorm*
you misspelled “Rebecca Black” and “person”
commencing sh1tstorm……
+1
Agreed. Beatles suck…their sound is wayyy old and out of style nowadays.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the beatles are a cultural legacy, one that won’t ever be forgotten. Nobody will care about today’s popular music fifty years from now.
we are alredy starting to forget justin bieber!!!
Of course they’re too slow and too simple now, they changed the way everyone else wrote music and the rest of the genre has had forty years to develop since then.
It’s like you’re saying “the Model T Ford looks so stupid. Anyone who drove one instead of a car that looks the way my car looks is stupid.”
Oh God, Mozart sucks too. He’s sooooo old and mainstream. He can’t compare to Justin Bieber mirite?
Yeah, and Ozzy was a wannabe…
erm… you can’t say much about the beatles as they ARE a cultural phenomenon, but ozzy was just a whiny old bastard, he didn’t add much to anything really
that’s like saying that just because you don’t like getting oral from a hot chick, getting oral from a hot chick is bad. you know, in layman’s terms.
But I don’t like getting oral from a hot chick. I like getting oral from a hot dude.
In Layman’s terms of course.
…Ah, so you’re just retarded.
Their music is from the 60s. They were big in the 60s. It is not the 60s anymore. Conclusion: No milk duds it’s “out of style”.
(Then again, talent has been out of style for a long time.)
hahahahahahahaha their sound is old??? no f-ing duh!! its called classic…. bieber lover.
idiot.there band was formed in the 60s,now who then knew justin beiber was going to be born,or all those other idiots like him.
You’re a troll.
And even if you aren’t (which I highly doubt), then I would love to see your explanation for why dozens of bands since the 70s to the modern period cite the Beatles as being one of their favorite bands and inspirations. Everyone from rappers to heavy metal musicians have said they love the Beatles.
They inspired them to not suck as bad, obviously.
Go cry emo kids.
……………………. i cant even…….
BANG BANG SHOOT SHOOT!
How can you compare a nobody to a boy band? Oh Wait! You just did….u jelly!
I’m serious. Heck, even the bloody Monkees were better.
…Actually, the only musician from the 60s that DIDN’T totally suck was Hendrix.
yallniggaspostinginatrollthread.jpg
and….. ALL THE MOTHERFVCKING MUSICIANS OF THE FVCKING 60S
60s musicians were, in general, bland and sterile hacks who sang song that were trite bland BS or with nonsensical lyrics that LSD-heads considered deep and profound.
At least Hendrix could actually play guitar.
songs*.
Also, why are people defending a band who considered “Yeah, yeah, yeah” a viable lyric… and who probably also make fun of Bieber for “baby baby baby”
Because the Beatles did more than She Loves You. Hell, if Justin Bieber comes out and starts singing deep, interesting, relevant songs, then I would at least respect him.
If you judge everything by how it is at first, then you’re going to hate a lot of things in life.
Where’s George Harrison???
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
i’m sorry october raven, that was just too hilarious for words, gtfo you musically oblivious 13 year old
No, trolling is saying that a boy band from the 60s who just wrote random crap and pretended to know how to use musicial instruments are a great musical act.
And that’s all they were. A boy band.
Another band that completely ripped them off, but yet were still better: The Ramones.
Sorry sir, but you lose.
Any musician whose name and inception are remembered by mainstream people well over forty years after their debut ceases to be a “pop star” and graduates to “legend”.
Doesn’t change the fact that they couldn’t sing/play/write a decent song to save their lives.
No, they wrote, like, two or three great songs. Eleanor Rigby, Come Together, and… uh…
You obviously haven’t heard much by the Beatles. They also have an important place in the history of popular music. They were quite innovative and one of the first groups to use multitracking technology (which is now used extensively without anyone even noticing).
Uh let’s see…
The Beatles: A tiny smudge in musical history
Rachmaninoff (40 years prior): Huge part of classical music history (especially orchestration and piano)
The Giants (Bach/Mozart/Beethoven/Chopin/Liszt – Roughly 150~300 years prior) – The Gods of the music world as we know it
Seriously: stop riding the d!cks of pathetic, over-glorified boy bands.
Ah, yes, because we all know that the Beatles haven’t influenced music at all. If they’re cited as a source of inspiration or as the favorite band by musicians to this day, then that must mean that they’re just a tiny smudge in history!
Hell, I even bloody like Classical, and even I understand that there are greats in every genre, and no genre is better than any other, since it’s personal opinion.
My point is, if you say “I don’t like the Beatles”, then that would be fine. That’s your opinion. But if you say “The Beatles are the worst band ever” or “They don’t matter.”, then that’s no longer an opinion. It’s stupidity you’re trying to pass off as fact. Hell, simply by leaving out the ‘opinion’ part, you’re either purposely or accidentally sending the message that you think that it’s common known fact.
Also, really, you think that the older the music has been around, the better it is? Well, Greensleaves has been around since the 1,500s at least, and I still hear it every now and again to this day, so that means that it has to be several times better than Bach, Mozart, and other Classical composers!
Wait, no, that’s a idiotic line of thinking. Silly me.
Uh…you forget the fact that Bach pretty much invented the wheel when it comes to music theory.
You know…music theory: that thing that lets other musicians produce music legible music? Pretty sure Greensleeves didn’t have that.
Common knowledge? Haha no not at all! That’s the point. ‘Classical’ is not popular in the least bit and is appreciated by very few people. In that group of people who appreciates classical music, very few do so for the correct reasons.
That is where popular music comes into play. It’s mass produced…for the masses. Please, do go ahead and look up the pop art movement in the late 40s/early 50s. It’s the same concept.
And now you’re trying to tell me The Beatles somehow were different than these other mass produced artists that we’ve dealt with for the past…oh…century?
So essentially what you’re saying is that a big pile of smelly poo has influenced other big piles of smelly poo to create big piles of smelly poo. You see…in the end it’s still smelly poo that is being produced.
So no. Sorry. That doesn’t fly around here. Come back and visit when you have a clue and we’ll chat about music history.
*produce legible music.
BTW, if you need Q.E.D., please observe the original chart that compares, lyric for lyric, the awesome creativity that is (apparently) “The Beatles”.
Oh, thanks for that. Didn’t notice that type. You’re right, Greensleeves.
And really? You think that Bach “invented the wheel when it comes to music theory”? Something tells me that you’re a stuck-up snob who isn’t familiar with history, yet acts like it.
First off, yes, Bach was important. But Bach didn’t invent or even reinvent music theory. What we consider music theory dates back to the Renaissance and earlier. Bach expanded on the work of others, and others expanded on his work. That’s how these things work. If you can’t understand that others have built on his work like he built on the work of predecessors, then you have a very limited view on history.
Hell, if you think that anything before Bach doesn’t really count as good music, or didn’t include understanding of music, or wasn’t important, then I don’t know what to say. It’s like saying that music didn’t exist until the invention of the violin.
Look at Einstein (or really, any famous scientist). He was a genius and pioneer, and developed many theories. But he was also wrong at times, or inaccurate. His work has been built on. Expanded. He’s a stepping ladder, not the pinnacle of science.
And the rest of what you said is primarily personal opinion. I don’t like modern pop or country, but I don’t go around acting like a snob, telling anyone who would listen that it’s crap.
You do know that music is an art, right? You do know what “opinion” means, right? It means that no music is better than any other genre of music. No band is better than any other. No song is better than another. It all comes down to personal preferences and personal opinion. Hell, the closest thing to a fact when you’re talking about opinions is how popular it is, or how many people dislike it. And if you go by that, then apparently Classical sucks.
TL;DR version:
1: Learn what personal opinion is.
2: Learn that music theory, like many things, has and is a work in progress that had it’s contribution by countless people before and after Bach.
3: Stop acting like a snob because you don’t like something.
Something tells me you don’t play the piano (or any instrument for that matter). Bach is pretty much a God when it comes to tempo/BPM.
But just to get this straight…
Essentially, what you are confirming is the fact that the origin of true music dates back hundreds of years and, ever since that period, music (which you seem to think was an ‘opinion’ back then) has turned to trash ever since?
I see. Very interesting.
Music is not an art: it’s a science. In fact, there’s this nifty little function…wait. Already going over your head.
So you do know that your perceived notion of ‘opinion’ when it comes to music is also a social construct right? You know, structural functionalism? Wait…going over your head again.
Unlike physics, music is not being expanded upon (at least, not in a positive way). There isn’t any Witten, Calabi, or string/superstring theory. Wait…going over your head again.
Go find me a composer who writes anything as ingenious as Tchaikovsky’s works or anything Liszt produced in the last 50 years. You can’t find one? Neither could I. What a pity.
And you know what’s sad? Most people know what Tchaikovsky sounds like but will never know his name, when/where he lived, or anything about his more important works.
Do you know why? Pop culture.
To be honest, I could have just stopped and pointed to the fact that you tried to use the Einstein stepping stone as an analogy for musical growth as a sign of your stupidity…but I decided to humor you anyways.
TLDR: You’re an idiot.
First off, my point is that there is no thing as true music, considering that it’s open to personal opinion. What one person likes is different than the next person, and that doesn’t mean that one is better than the other. Is that so difficult to understand?
Secondly, yes, music is an art. Just like how painting is an art. With painting, chemistry is also at play, but it’s a creative outlet. That’s what an art is. Art involves creativity and invokes emotions. If you really think that music isn’t an art, then you should buy a dictionary and stop using tired old sayings and cliches. Unless you seriously believe that music explains natural behavior in the universe.
Next, are you going to talk about how opinions don’t matter when it comes to painting or photography, and that it’s somehow scientifically proven that one method of painting is superior to all others? See, this is why some people think of you as a snob, I’m sure. Instead of recognizing that people have different tastes, you push your own tastes in music and believe that it’s better than everything else.
Music still is being expanded on, since it’s a field. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not being expanded on, evolving, and changing. You can’t say “I don’t like modern art, so that means there hasn’t been any significant expansions or evolution in art.”
Also, I like how you keep saying that you’re going over my head. Really proves how superior you think you are, and also how deluded you are.
And as I stated before, just because you dislike something doesn’t mean it’s not changing and evolving. It’s being expanded on in a manner that you don’t like, so that obviously means that it’s inferior. After all, you, of all people, know best! Why, we should all listen to your opinion above all because…I can’t even finish that.
TL;DR: You’re a deluded snob who can’t understand the concept of “opinions”, and believe that anything you don’t like is provably inferior to what you like. Oh, and you also don’t understand the differences between an art and a science.
Besides the embarrassing situation you made for yourself below, is there anything else you’d like to throw out there?
If music is personal opinion, how would you classify the opinions of a society at a certain period of time that lacked a genre of music? That’s right: you wouldn’t be able to.
Music is a cultural aspect. Music (especially pop music) seeks to integrate culture, reinterpret it, and express it using a different medium. Music itself is very much a science. How we interpret music is directly related to how one medium transfers to another and is then reinterpreted by our brains through a variety of chemical processes. The instruments themselves are the embodiment of science and math.
Your opinion is based on chemical processes in the brain, genetics, and is also shaped by cultural experiences. Last time I checked, neurology, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, and genetics were all forms of science.
Instruments use waves to connect one medium to another. These sinusoidal waves move through a medium and are reinterpreted. This entire experience is also dependent on position. These are both math and physics conceptions.
But, like I said, I feel like most of this goes over your head based on your comments. You mistake this courtesy as snobbery when, in fact, I do not wish to waste your time or mine delving into a subject you do not understand completely.
The fact of the matter is The Beatles are just a blot in music history and a rather unimportant blot at that (you know, the original thesis? the one you are trying desperately to disprove?). I don’t have an opinion about their music. Looking at the timeline of music history, I don’t need to have an opinion about their music to see this.
Some opinions do matter. Those opinions of the ignorant masses…not so much.
Obviously music involves methods explored by science. By your definition, the act of walking would also be a science since it involves electric pulses being sent to muscles, friction of your foot on the ground, and gravitational influences on your body.
Science explains what happens when we walk, but it doesn’t mean that the act of walking is a science.
As I’ve said before, music involves creativity, experimentation, and cultural connections. Hence, it’s an art, not a science. Music in the middle east is different than music in Ireland, even though it involves the same waves and the same chemical and electric reactions. Again, just like how other artforms could use the same paints and tools, and the same use of chemistry, but are still unique and open to interpretation.
Is that really so difficult to understand? Just because actions that are explored and explained in science doesn’t automatically mean that it’s a science. If you have such a loose definition of the word, then absolutely every single item and action would be a science.
Oh, so, instead of actually explaining your position or argument, you would prefer to instead change the definitions of words and say the equivalent of “I’m smarter than you, so I don’t need to actually explain myself.” Just so you know, that’s no way to win a debate.
Oh, and you do know you’re contradicting yourself, right? You say I mistake what you’re saying for snobbery, and then after that you make the claim that some opinions (most likely including yourself among those) are better than the opinions of ‘the ignorant masses’. If that’s not snobbery, then I’ve been reading the wrong dictionary.
If the matter is rocket science, and the opinion is coming from a rocket scientist or engineer, then of course their opinion matters. But if the subject is music, or artwork, or food, then personal opinions are the only ones. You can’t say “This lobster tastes better than that pizza.” or “This painting is better than that painting.” or “This melody is better than that one.” simply because these involves PERSONAL OPINIONS.
Want me to put it in more complex words? Chemical and biological differences in the brain, along with differing life experiences, and different cultural and ethnic backgrounds leads to unique, yet equal opinions and beliefs. One opinion is not better or worse than other opinion simply because each and every opinion is unique to the individual.
I apologize, but do you have a mental disability that makes it difficult for you to empathize with other people, and realize that they are people with different tastes, opinions, beliefs, and experiences than you? If so, I am so sorry for laughing at you so much.
If you don’t have a disability, then (and I apologize for quoting a movie that both you and I will probably agree wasn’t very good), you are one of the dumbest smart people I have ever met. (And that’s another field, film, that’s open to unique interpretation. I may have not liked I, Robot, but that doesn’t mean that someone who did like it is wrong.)
Now, if you were simply saying “The classical masters, like Bach, Beethoven, and so on, are more important than the Beatles because of how long their influences have been present.”, then I wouldn’t be able to argue with you. The works by Bach and others have been around longer, obviously, and have influenced a lot of people, genres, and so on.
Yet, you didn’t do that. You brought in your personal opinion, and pushing it on others as fact. You don’t like the Beatles. Fine. But then you start saying that the Beatles are horrible, that people who like modern music are members of the ‘ignorant masses’, and so on. And to justify your opinion, you bring up Bach and others you like, acting as if their influence proves that they’re better than everything else, and that opinions don’t matter unless they agree with you.
So, in other words, you admire a select group of people and look down, and act condescending to anyone who doesn’t agree with you. You bring up names and theories regularly, acting as if you understand them. Yet, so far, you’ve shown no actual evidence that you understand what you’re talking about, and instead just say “I would waste my time by talking about it.”
From what I can tell, you don’t even understand many of the things you’re talking about, hoping that brief references will prove that you’re more intelligent than anyone else, and since you’re obviously so much more educated than everyone else, then that means that we’re dumb animals compared to you, and your opinion is so much greater than the opinions of those mean dumb people who don’t understand the big words you say.
So, either you’re a snob who uses his intelligence and education to push his opinion on others and looks down on everyone else, or you’re an insecure phony who grew up being picked on, and are so delusional that you think that you’re opinions are so vastly more important than everyone around you.
So, tell me, which of those are you? Oh, and be sure to drop more names so everyone will know that you really do know what you’re talking about! Then everyone will listen to you and know that you’re right, and they’re wrong for having personal tastes.
TLDR
So, in other words, you’ve given up on actually trying to give a reasonable debate.
Either that, or you have one of the shortest attention spans for a snob that I’ve ever seen.
If you’re so willing to insult my intelligence, the least you can do is prove yours by being able to read 15 paragraphs. It’s not that difficult, Mr. “I don’t want to say anything, since it would go over the head of someone as stupid and ignorant as yourself.”
Once again, I’m the hypocrite?
Well, you see, even if I wanted to the reply button has seemingly disappeared from your post.
Yea, I’ve noticed that happens to Memebase after enough replies have been posted. Have no idea why.
I did read your post. You’ve just caught me playing with semantics and I don’t feel like playing with more semantics to draw this out (cause I’m tired TBH).
Of course I don’t think of music as a science. It was actually hard to reason that one away. lulz And I really have not listened closely to Beatles music. I do enjoy classical and play the piano but I also enjoy pop/rock/top40…yeah.
Have a nice night.
Oh, and if you really think you’re not being a snob, well, let’s settle it! What is the definition of a snob from dictionary.com!?!
–noun
1.
a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.
2.
a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field: a musical snob.
Hmmm, that second definition sounds so familiar. But I can’t remember why…
OMG you’re both snobs. Stop flooding the comments with overly long petty arguments. Why can’t either of you accept that you believe something different and leave it at that?
Because one of us is subtly trolling while the other is just oblivious. Why are you trying to ruin my fun?
And just to add insult to injury: you seem to be hung up on this concept of music as entertainment value only.
Music has been used for communication (both through distance due to the properties of waves and as religious rituals), to raise moral before or during battle, and even for therapeutic treatments.
You are so hung up on the topic of music as a strict entertainment medium only. You’ve neglected most of the mathematical concepts involved in music and have forgotten just how complex some instrumentation can be (see: pianoforte…especially grand).
This is a very good indication of popular music trends and the toll they have taken on society. While I could pass this off as simply ignorance earlier on, it’s clear to me that you have a little bit of hypocrisy on your chin coupled with a willingness to only focus on one topic with a closed mind.
And you just showed what it looks like when someone is running out of things to say. Instead of explaining yourself, you just say “You’re close-minded and stupid.”
Unless I was mistaken, this entire debate was based around the use of music as entertainment. When I mentioned painting earlier, I was talking about the paintings done by Van Gogh, or Da Vinci, or Picasso, not the painting of traffic signs or propaganda posters.
In other words, you’re expanding the subject and then calling me close-minded for focusing on the subject at hand.
And I haven’t forgotten the math and science used in SOME genres of music. I just understand that music is varied, and one genre of music has different rules and common practices than a different genre of music.
Also, I really did laugh at loud when you called me close-minded. “I like both recent music and classical.” “Music is horrible now and people are ignorant. You’re so close-minded!”
Again, what dictionary are you reading from?
Close-minded
adjective
not ready to receive to new ideas
Ah, yes, I’m the close-minded one. Oh, and apparently I’m also the hypocrite. Are you sure you’re not talking about yourself? Next are you going to accuse me of being a snob, of changing the subject, of only focusing on minor parts of a response, and of name-dropping?
The thesis was never music as entertainment. You were the one to steer it in that direction. The thesis, as I addressed it, was The Beatles impact/lack thereof on music history as a whole when compared to the entire timeline.
In that aspect alone, it is very hard to argue that The Beatles had very much impact at all when you compare them to other musicians who made leaps and bounds hundreds of years prior to the formation of The Beatles.
And, when you look at what they actually did contribute, you find that they really didn’t. Sure you could say they ushered in popular music or ‘boy bands’…but do you really want to put that burden on them? It’s generally seen as a negative thing.
As seen in this demotivational poster alone (which was the original point of this debate), even such a popularized group of individuals can be reduced to nothing in the blink of an eye. We have a non-talented soloist with lyrics identical to something The Beatles composed. While this isn’t their entire repertoire, it does confirm their pop basis and subtracts from their ‘credibility’.
Why would I be close-minded when I literally listen to all types of music?
Actually, here’s a list for you:
Music: Jazz/Classical [Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Chopin/etc]/Revised classical [Rachmaninoff/Debussy/etc]/Modern classical [Hisaishi/Jenkins/Yiruma/Williams/etc]/Game/Metal/Heavy Metal/Rock/Classic rock/Modern rock/Techno/Dance/Anime related/Vocalization and orchestration/J-Rock/J-Pop/K-Pop/K-Rock/Chinese pop/Movie/Punk/New age/Pop/Opera/Rag time/Classic pop/Rap/R&B/Rave/Folk/Ska/Instrumental [piano/cello/violin/etc]
Some favorites:
Modern Rock: Foo Fighters, Matchbox 20, Train, NFG, Skillet, Train (old stuff), Paper Tongues
Punkish Rock: Blink 182, Greenday
Contemporary Pop: Shane Mack
Pop: Michelle Branch, P!nk, Spears, Shakira, Kelly Clarkson, Adele, Christina Aguilera, Cher, anything mainstream (usually)
Soloist ‘Rock’: Rob Thomas
Alternative: Stabbing Westward, Jimmy Eat World
Metal: Metallica, System of a Down, Machinehead, Skillet
Classical Piano: Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Schubert
Classical Orchestral: Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto Number 2, Grieg’s Piano Concerto, Tchaikovsky’s 4th symphony, Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto Number 1, Liszt’s Piano Concerto Number 1
Game Music: Uematsu (just about anything he writes), Shimomura, Masashi Hamauzu
J-Pop: Hamasaki, Bana
Cello: Bach, Dvořák
New Age/Celtic: Enya, Loreena McKennitt
Being a part musician (even though it isn’t my major), I appreciate a wide range of music. Modern music isn’t completely lacking. There are occasional breakthroughs and movements that shift our culture in a different direction just like The Beatles did.
But is that a good thing? I would say not.
Please. Please please please. Go look up the Transcendental Etudes by Liszt. Actually, look up just about anything by Liszt. Truth be told, I am not a fan of Bach of Mozart even though they have more skill in music theory than Liszt.
Point being: we will NEVER have that level of composition power present in today’s society because of the route that music has taken as a whole and the musicians and music industry that continue to shape it how they see fit.
Look at Études-tableaux, Moment Musicaux, Totentanz, La Campanella, any number of the transcendental etudes by Liszt and the etudes by Chopin, the first piano concerto by Tchaikovsky, the 4th symphony by Tchaikovsky, Marche Slave, etc. I could literally list a hundred pieces of music that are so well done due to their theoretical structure and based off of cultural trends during that time period. Piano concerto 2 and 3 by Rachmaninoff, all of Chopin’s nocturnes, Schubert’s impromptus, preludes by Rachmaninoff, and so on.
TLDR Music has fallen quite a bit. Take the most popular Beatle’s song and compare it to one of these pieces. There should be little question as to which is more technically demanding to both perform and compose.
This period is when the theory came into play.
It’s just that simple. I have not run out of things to say. I have run out of interest when it comes to this debate. You clearly enjoy popular music and you seem to dabble in other genres…but I guarantee you that your music selection will never be as diverse as mine.
You are close-minded. You don’t seem to understand that I am completely right about this subject matter and the reason I am right is because I lack the bias that would normally interfere. I know enough about The Beatles to understand their general feel but I do not let that overpower my logic. I give respect to almost all genres where it is due.
You, on the other hand, do not seem to have much of a variety of music taste. So tell me: how are you coming to these conclusions when you have very little music experience to begin with? And aren’t you the close-minded one for neglecting most of these facts because you have let a little blot in music history blind you to other great musicians who surpass this over-hyped boy band?
Music is not horrible now. I listen to the top 40s, rock (classic and modern), and other variations as you can see. There have been lights in the darkness…but they are nothing like the reconstruction of music 300 years prior.
This topic had nothing to do with painting. This topic had nothing to do with music theory. This topic is about the music history continuum and where The Beatles fit in there and how much space they occupy on this continuum.
This is hypocrisy on your part. This is close-mindedness on your part.
And just to clarify: I’m a computer engineer. Music is a hobby of mine.
You, sir, just earned +9001 internets
“So essentially what you’re saying is that a big pile of smelly poo has influenced other big piles of smelly poo to create big piles of smelly poo. You see…in the end it’s still smelly poo that is being produced.”
The Beatles were a nice band, they had some interesting songs and some other not so interesting songs, but they influenced music in a pop way… and that influence has turned, now a days, in crap such as lady gaga, justin bieber or rebecca black, among others.
Therefore, beatles influenced music: Yes, in an awful way.
Pop music (poppular, for the masses) has never been skittlesier, and few years ago i though it wasnt going to get worse than britney spears or christina aguilera… i was wrong
I find it interesting that “a tiny smudge in musical history” currently holds four places in the top ten most covered songs of all time, at numbers 1, 2, 4, and 8, while John Lennon holds a fifth at number 6.
Of course, I suppose Frank Sinatra had bad taste in music as well when he covered Yesterday?
Well, Sinatra is awful too, so.
And, pray tell, who was the list created by? It couldn’t have been anyone raised in the past half century could it?
Gasp
not Derek, OctoberRaven
+1
LOL, here we have proof of what I’ve been saying all these years: The Beatles are massively overrated.
The funny thing is, everyone swore up and down I had to “give them their dues”, but honestly, most of their songs are very very meh. People say we wouldn’t have Rock’n'Roll without The Beatles and Elvis, and I call B.S.
People don’t think Black Sabbath, or Cream, or Hendrix would have written the music they did without hearing the World’s First Boy Band? They might not have realized how big they could have gotten, but they would have still made the music.
The Beatles were the beginning of the Boy Band/Pop Culture Machine: Big labels realized if they got a bunch of boys the girls would think were “dreamy”, they could write crap about walruses and submarines and make bank–and they do.
If you hate Backstreet Boys, N’Sync, 98 Degrees, New Kids on the Block, or whatever prancing fairies are famous nowadays, it’s because of the Beatles that they’re so big. Argue all you want, but “The First Boy Band” is quite apropos.
And where do you think The Beatles stole (oh maybe I should use the term ‘borrowed’) their music theory (now that’s a joke) from when creating (I’m in stitches) their “music” (ok…not even going to pretend on that one)?
You know what The Beatles did? They brought on this plague of boy bands. They ushered in this age of music that is so devoid of feeling, creativity, and passion.
Wait let me use a previous phrase: in Layman’s terms, the 1940s onward marks the downfall of music.
Boy bands aren’t actually bands, but rather singing/dancing groups. They’re just called that because of the catchy alliteration. And because it’s fun to see people get indignant when they are called bands. The Beatles, unlike, say N’Sync or BSB, are an actual band.
I don’t particularly like the Beatles, but to say their music is devoid of feeling, creativity or passion is false. It means something to them and their countless fans, regardless of your feelings on the matter.
Ah, yes, because we all know that Let It Be and Yesterday are on the same level as Bye Bye Bye and I Want It That Way.
Oh, wait, no. That’s stupid.
It is. Because the latter songs are better.
Congratulations, I think you have trolled this post quite successfully.
(inb4 iKnewitwasatroll!!!one!eleven!!!)
Anyone who responded to Raven, regardless of how well thought out your post was, has fed the troll and therefore the troll wins.
yes, because some dood on the internet agrees with you, it counts as proof. The Beatles didnt ruin music, they influenced countless good bands as well as many bad bands, but what killed music was, ironically, the music industry (ie, record companies) and computerized music and vocals. The Beatles did things with songwriting, vocals, and guitars that hadn’t been done. the artists you list list the beatles as influences. so, no, those bands would not have been what they were without the beatles pioneering certain musical nuances.
tl;dr
Except they were amazing musicians, they could play musical instruments, and they didn’t just write random crap.
First of all, their early stuff was what made them a “boy band.” None of their later music has any hint of boy band-ness at all. And even that was pretty much the norm at the time.
Even if you don’t like them, you can’t say they weren’t good musicians. They made 12 studio albums in 8 years, and are still famous and selling higher on iTunes’ than Taylor Swift’s album Speak Now. (Would you like me to go on? I just wrote a paper on the effect of the Beatles for my magazine class.)
Can you get to the part where they invented the circle of fifths or structured theories regarding harmonics?
You mean the Circle of Fifths, which first appeared on paper in a treatise by Nikolay Diletsky (not Bach.)
As I said a couple minutes earlier, Bach didn’t invent everything about musical theory. He, like every field in art and science, built on the work of people who came before him. If you look only at Bach, it’s like looking only at Galileo and ignoring Copernicus and others.
When were we talking about Bach?
When you were talking about how Bach practically single-handily invented modern music theory, and how countless techniques and theories about music go back to him, absolutely skipping the fact that he built on the work of others, and others built on the work of Bach.
*Scrolls up*
Ah, ok, my comment is still awaiting moderation for some reason, so you can’t see it yet.
There’s this really awesome reply key to the lower right of your comment box. Actually, I’m currently replying to your previous comment made on March 29, 2011 at 10:34.
Now, you will notice that on Cheezburger their forums are set up in a way that shows exactly who replied to which comment using embedded boxes. As you can (well maybe you can’t) see, that comment was a direct reply to Mae. In fact, it even answers the question:
“Would you like me to go on? I just wrote a paper on the effect of the Beatles for my magazine class.”
Indeed, I would like her to go on. I would like her to demonstrate exactly how The Beatles impacted music theory like the two examples I gave.
No where did I imply that either concept was related to Bach.
This does lend evidence to the conclusion previously mentioned in my comment made on March 29, 2011 at 11:45. =)
I was simply pointing out that countless individuals contributed to music and music theory, which is something you don’t seem to comprehend. After all, you already did mention how Bach “pretty much invented the wheel when it comes to music theory”, completely ignoring how he expanded on work that had been around long before him.
I know I ramble, but I’m pretty sure I don’t ramble so much that you can’t even understand me. So I’ll make it easier for you to understand.
You say Bach pretty much invented the wheel when it comes to music theory.
I say that Bach was an individual who contributed to something that had been around for centuries, and would’ve been expanded on even if he didn’t.
You have limited view on history, and pay no respect to the contributions of others, instead focusing on Bach and other greats, acting as if they invented all the good things about music and it’s been downhill ever since.
You also don’t understand how someone could dare to have a differing opinion! *gasp*
Ok. Let me get this straight.
You are hung up on an analogy about Bach and his invention of the wheel?
This is actually quite humorous. You do realize that the wheel doesn’t do you much good by itself…right? And that expansions on the wheel were what made it truly unique?
In other words: you’ve pretty much been been chasing your tail in circles (HA HA) about a failure to read something correctly the first time around. Oddly enough, this doesn’t seem to be the first time you have done so.
Music theory was mostly in place by the time Bach got his hands on composition but he laid the foundation (especially in tempo) for future generations? Actually, his compositions leave impressions on many of the 19/18th century composers that are so well (or not so well apparently) renowned today.
If I had said Bach was the epitome of music theory, that would be different. But I didn’t.
Why on Earth would I state that having referenced a piece of very important music theory (circle of fifths) that was not invented by Bach? Harmonic theory is only slightly Bachish.
If I had need to mention music theory and Bach’s relation to it, I would have stated his most notable endeavors regarding tempo. Oh but look: I did.
I can understand a person with a differing opinion. I can also understand (well, only slightly…but that’s redundant) an idiot. Guess which category you fall into.
It’s the parade of douches.
everybody’s entitled to their opinion. good trolling.
no,your talking about yourself.
This retard mutha effing retard misspelled Is and changed it to I dumbbut
BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!! NEVER EVER EVER EVER COMPARE THE BEATLES TO REBACCA BLACK *!EVER!*
NO. NEVER COMPARE THE BEATLES TO REBECCA BLACK. I WILL CUT A B*TCH.
Except “A Day in the Life” was actually a good song and was performed with actual talent…
When that punk band in GTAIV did it, you mean.
No one played Grand Theft Auto IV.
I see what you did there.
Hey, what’s the record for a reply-inside-reply chain?
Scroll up.
I vote that all Friday posts go to Artoftrolling from here on out. There is nothing funny about having that gawdawful song get stuck in my head every with other meme. I honestly JUST got rid of it, and now it’s back. Please don’t make me shoot myself.
with every other meme**
Why U No compare to Bob Dylan’s song? His much better…
OK, let’s just agree that Rebecca Black is a poorly auto-tuned annoying whatever-you-wanna-call-her, and that the Beatles, though a bit overrated, are a legend and no one can change that.
Besides, some of their songs(like Octopuses garden, twist and shout and all you need is love) are pretty darned skittling good.
I just lost some respect to icanhazcheezburger.com
HOW DARE YOU compare the BEST rock band of all time to that Red Hots Rebecca Black? This is disgusting >.<
the cheezeburger network is all user-submitted material, yo. vote it down if you don’t like it, but don’t blame the admins.
Except, You listened to the Beatles, High.
I never liked this song anyways so I’m still pretty unaffected by this post.
*Insert “What?” face here.”
Are you talking about not liking The Beatles or not liking “Friday”
The way it sounds you are talking about “Friday” getting degraded by The Beatles, it should be the other way.
Rebecca Black’s Friday would be the downfall of the western civilization
Rips off The Beatles, references The Monkees and The Bangles in the video, when will she stop?
……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\
Why would you try and compare Rebecca Black to The Beatles??? The Beatles actually HAVE musical talent! The never used auto-tune.
agreed. NEVER compare the Beatles to Rebecca Black!
Need more proof the beatles are the greatest band OF ALL TIME???
Look at this: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/the-beatles-19691231
I read the news today, oh boy
About a stupid man who made a meme
He compared Friday with the Beatles
the greatest band of all time
also the only one with rhymes.
I’ll blow his mind out with a gun
Cause of the Beatles you cannot make fun.
“A Day In The Life”‘s a masterpiece
Doesn’t he dare
to make such a compare.
dude, that was totally awesome xD
This.
You are a god.
+1000 internetz
all opinions aside, this was funnier then OP.
it didn’t take much, tho.
you just Made my day
You win ;D
That was beautiful. You just don’t compare Rebecca Black to the beatles. It’s an automatic fail.
WoW, just shows how awesome Rebecca Black is
While most of the song was written by John Lennon, this particular part of “a Day in the Life” was written by Paul, who was the Rebecca Black of his day anyway.
First, Paul McCartney is recognized by The Guiness World Book of REcordsas the most successful songwriter in popular music history.
Rebecca Black doesn’t write her own material.
Second, Paul McCartney is 68 years old, turning 69 this year(don’t laugh, it’s not funny), and has recently gone on tour and performed at the Super Bowl, and also goes on late night shows and performs. His voice has not gotten significantly worse over the years and can still sing.
Rebecca Black can’t sing. Nor will she ever be able to. Also, by this time next year, chances are we’ll have some new horrible child pop star to mock and she will be forgotten.
Third, Paul McCartney plays guitar, bass, drums, piano, trumpet, cello and flugelhorn(it’s a pretty obscure instrument;you’ve probably never heard of it), among other things.
Rebecca Black probably can’t tell a major scale from minor, let alone actually play one on a piano(or any other instrument, really).
So, in all truth, Paul really isn’t like Rebecca Black at all.
It’d only be funny if he is 64, which would still only be ironic.
Paul wrote “When I’m 64″ when he was about 15. So Paul was never like RB.
Flugelhorn is what Chuck Mangione made famous in the 1970s, if my memory serves.
And the rest of the lyrics what!? doesn’t that count? A day in the life contiunues…rebecca’s “friday” doesn’t, is the same $hit again and again…
bazookajoe you all who hate on the beatles.
I’d appreciate if you never compared the Beatles with anything that vile ever again.
Chappelle ftw!
This… is BLASPHEMY!!!
Looks to me like they just ran Beatles lyrics through an online translator twice.
How can you even think about,comparing Rebecca and The Beatles?!
This is an outrage that such a comparison was even made. I guess that just means society is at an all-time low. *sigh*
/sunglasses
deal with it.
even comparing the two is an insolence to the great beatles!!
let it NEVER happen again!
I went upstairs and had a smoke
and somebody spoke and I went into a dream
Rebecca Black? A nightmare’s more like it.
t(>.<t) this is my message to beatle haters
(
)
___ (
(o_o)__) im mad!!!!!i came along this while enjoying a smoke!!!!!die beatle haters!!!!
-a wise person i dont know
If anyone can get the sheet music for both songs, and post them here as a response, I’d love very much to be able to start breathing again.
Thank you.
Also; candy swearing? This sounds fun. (My apologies to the moderators, but I’d love to see this.)
Fuck
Shit
Starlight Mints
Mr Goodbar
1000 Grand
Mars Bar
Milky Way
Katy Perry
Lady Gaga
Ke$ha
I read the memebase today oh boy
About some trolls who made a retarded pic
And though the pics were rather funny
Well I just had to kill myself
did you do it in a car?
Why don’t we do it in the road?
wheres my shotgun its time to kickass!!! whos with me?
the Beatles had to audition to get a recording contract; they were all broke. The actually got rejected by decca.
I read the news today oh boy
About a girl named Rebecca Black
And though the news was rather sad
well I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph
She blew her mind out in a car
She couldn’t decide which seat to take
A crowd of people stood and laughed
They’d seen her face before
And everyone was really sure that she’d been using autotune
^ This.
i love you
BlueSkittles, you just made my day
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Hm, how far can we go, do you think?
I saw a show today, oh boy.
A little girl found her way to the stage.
The crowd of people turned away.
And then I realized,
with her the music died. (sustained for 6 beats)
We have to
Shut
Her
Down
i hate the beetles…..
You sir, shall burn in Hell
MY HAND IS A DOLPHIN!
WhoTF ? is this rebecca? really
Commercial success doesn’t prove the Beatles were good. It only proves that they were good at coasting with absolutely zero talent.
Go cry emo kids.
oh go listen to your justin beiber then. if the beatles had no talent, why do people still listen to them?? go die.
NO.
SUICIDE.
It is now the only reasonable option.