I find it quite amusing that almost all of the Beatles songs have their own entries on Wikipedia (nothing wrong with that in itself, actually), even if they are not singles, and each of them is meticulously dissected as if there were transcendental suites exceeding human comprehension, yet bands like Faust or Red Krayola, etc. have biographies even shorter than just one article about any random Beatles song. Needless to say, none of their songs have any articles on them, yet I'm sure there would be a lot more to talk about. Moreover, if you had put any bad review of their album on the site with the intention to show the broader scope of opinions, you'd risk your "life" there, since such fanatics don't accept any single sign of trying to be objective. You are seen as public enemy number 1 to them. It is like your article is one giant cognitive dissonance to them and vandalizing your bio was the only way to reduce this dissonance.
>>106485750It's almost as if the Beatles are way more culturally relevant than Red fucking Krayola. What a dumb Italian fag.
Really? It makes me want to smash my head against a wooden table.
Then write those articles yourself, pussy.
more people are likely to read up on the beatles than red krayola or faust
>>106485750Your post is cringe OP but Red Krayola is based and people don't talk about them enough
>>106486275>>106486352This. Obscure music has less coverage than popular music because it is obscure and not popular, you fucking moron. If only there were some sort of adjectives we could assign to these things to convey that information... anyway, if you want more information about there about a thing you like then you should probably just go make it yourself instead of waiting for your favorite underground band to suddenly become a worldwide sensation after decades of nobody knowing their name.
>>106485750none of their songs are as good as Beatles
>>106485750Why don't you like the Beatles OP?
>>106485750wtf are you talking about. go write articles about red krayola songs if you're so upset
>>106485750Guess that means Beatles fans care more about individual songs than you do about your favorite band. How embarrassing
I agree OP is a fag and should go (or at least try) and do that shit himself, but I kind of understand his point about the gatekeeping part (on those big ghetto sites like wiki).
>>106485750The bulk of wiki entries on Beatles songs are documenting the history surrounding them, what critics/other people have had to say about them and their general influence on music/culture more than examining the songs themselves outside of that context.
>>106486352>>106486682This is why Scruffy says rock is yet to be seen as a serious art form. In classical or jazz music there is just as much analysis of artists like Schoenberg or Ornette Coleman despite them having next to no mainstream appeal. Whereas in rock music the only artists that get serious attention are the commercially successful ones rather than the more artistically relevant ones
>>106485750Same thing with Pink Floyd
>>106485750Wikipedia only creates articles on subjects it can source. Every Beatles song has as least two citeable scholarly sources on it (Alan W. Pollack's theoretical analysis and Ian Macdonald's commentary), while there are comparatively few articles on Faust beyond fanblogs.
>>106489783>rock is yet to be seen as a serious art formAnd it shouldn't be. It's a popular and a commercial art form. Being a snob about rock music is simply ridiculous.
>>106490124Popularity prevents something from being a serious art form?
>>106490177Popular as in "popular culture". By the people for the people. Serious music can be popular too, obviously. Ex: Tchaikovsky
>>106490124Except that’s the notion that Scruffy fights against. The whole point of his history of rock music is to show that there are plenty of artistically relevant and serious pieces of rock music that simply go unnoticed, and that parading the Beatles as the greatest of rock music diminishes how it will be seen by people with a serious interest in music
>>106490231>there are plenty of artistically relevant and serious pieces of rock musicI think that by looking for that sort of artistical relevance in rock music he shows a deep misunderstanding of what makes rock music great in the first place, and ends up exaggeratedly praising works which are at best irrelevant, and at worst somewhat prententious
>>106485750They are dissected because they are within human comprehension. Macdonald's discussion of why All You Need Is Love is actually a boring badly written song, and why people loved it anyway at the time, is really interesting.I would say if you want to bring that kind of critical consideration to Faust and Red Krayola, then write the books yourself. This kind of deliberate intervention is common in classical music for example where someone wants to highlight overlooked work through being the person that gives it attention in writing. Be the change you seek anon.
>>106490231>The whole point of his history of rock music is to show that there are plenty of artistically relevant and serious pieces of rock music that simply go unnoticedIf you think any of those equal even the worst of Beethoven's symphonies (as Scaruffi thinks) you're out of your God damn mind