The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
The Beatles or more like The Charlatans?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
The Beatles or more like The Charlatans?

Back when I was a kid I was a huge fan of The Beatles, they were my salt and pepper, among the very few Western tapes I had available at the time growing up in communist Romania, in the late '80s. I didn't know the band ceased to exist for some time, but you don't care about stuff like this when you're 6-7 years old. I loved The Beatles, simply perfection for the ear.

However, now there's this thing called The Internet, and I've "heard" rumours that The Beatles didn't quite wrote their stuff, but someone else did. I wouldn't know if that is true, from a factual perspective, however, some things don't add up. Here's why:

1. What Paul and John wrote before The Beatles (they are listed for writing 75%+ of Beatles after rebranding from "The Quarrymen") is almost lame, re-written American rock'n'roll, you don't hear anything resembling the maturity and the cleverness of their Beatles stuff. Literally nothing, I don't hear that structure, I hear some normal teens having some fun in a garage, literally, heavily influenced by Elvis Presley and the entire American rock'n'roll phenomena at that time, as you would expect, in fact most of their repertoire were covers actually:



And to no surprise either, you can see here their interest was in jazz-blues-rock'n'roll:

https://originalfuzz.com/blogs/magaz...ing-to-in-1966

Which is fine, normal for any teen from that era! But not for what is about to be published as "The Beatles", completely original, one of a kind composition! I know from my experience that an artist hooked from an early age to cover other artists can't become a master of originality afterwards. It simply means that your comfort zone is where the artists that you're covering are at, you can't turn into a prodigy if signs were not there in the beginning, unless a meteor strikes you in the head or something. Again, this isn't a factual proof of anything, it's a personal opinion based on my own observations.

2. So The Beatles goes from THAT to this over-sophisticated stuff over night:

a)

which is a variation of:



b)

which is a variation of this(listen from 03:40):



c)

which is a variation of this:



d)

which is a variation of this (from 01:55):



and this (from 03:48):



e)

which is a variation of this:



f)

which is a variation of this:



and this:



I mean...it just keeps going and going, you need serious classical training for this to happen, and Paul and John didn't have any, they loved rock'n'roll, some blues and that's it, that's all they knew, so my instinct tells me that they were not honest, I mean, we're talking modified classical scores.

There's a name, that many think that was the actual song writer, Theo Adorno, a music professor from Frankfurt University, and an expert in classical music of the 20th century. I say that it takes a master in music theory to adapt so much stuff and so well to create album after album of consistent great quality, like all Beatles albums were, with no exception.

Some say that this guy wrote not only for Beatles, but for tons of artists, and again, from my experience, yes, a guy that masters classical theory to perfection can be highly prolific, he can adapt whatever from whatever source fast, well and consistent. Was it this Adorno guy, I don't know, but I'm now confident that Beatles had a 5th member all the time. Funny thing is Theo Adorno died in 1969 and Beatles disbanded soon after, what a coincidence. Also, rumours has it that he left a few hundred songs behind, that were given to various artists, and released up to 1975.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno

However, was it this guy, was it a team of composers, you never know unless it's factual, but my instincts tells me that Beatles was a band hired to play songs made by other people, exactly as they did under "The Quarrymen" title, prior meeting their manager, Brian Epstein.

All things considered, this doesn't mean I don't like The Beatles from now on, it's not the case, music is either good, either bad, but we should adjust the image and the history of the band a little, as it deserves.

PS: Another rumour, and the rabbit goes really deep this time, this Adorno guy had to create through his compositions a desired state of mind to control and manipulate masses of people for whatever dark reasons. Did he succeed? :D I do see tons of nihilistic-depraved zillion views youtube music garbage this days, so...you never know.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Old 1 week ago
  #3
I have heard similar information.
For example , I always thought this was a piece of pure genius when I was so much younger than today :




Then I heard the original :

Old 1 week ago
  #4
Lives for gear
[QUOTE=flanagan;14819002]I have heard similar information.
For example , I always thought this was a piece of pure genius when I was so much younger than today :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNbHn3i9S4


Then I heard the original :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coCRDnUogfk[/ur]

Yeah, absolutely, you need a genius to compose such a song. What happened to Paul and John after 1970? Where did that genius inspiration went? John came with Imagine, another song rumoured to belong to Adorno, and Paul:



Now this is the music he used to play before Beatles, so I'm confident that he wrote this one.

I mean...this guys "wrote" 12 albums in 8 years, each one as fabulous as the previous or the next, and after they broke (which occurred shortly after Adorno's passing away), nothing, inspiration went away like a mystic fog. Makes no sense.
Old 1 week ago
  #5
Lives for gear
Ok, so this one is pretty interesting:

At 01:10 you have Paul explaining where he got the idea from with "Blackbird":



I don't know what to say, Paul!

...but I kinda like this version more:



PS: Aaaaand...I think I got him big time! Listen to what Paul is confessing at 02:30. He says he didn't knew any composer other than Bach (when asked about in the studio). I guess Mozart, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, not to mention Friedrich von Flotow or Khachaturian were not his thing, but somehow there are major similarities out of thin air in a direct comparison with their songs. Ok, Paul, ok, just let it be...
Old 1 week ago
  #6
Well - it wasn't exactly overnight. "Penny Lane" is very much later Beatles, right?

Of course stuff is inspired by other things. Heard Maroon 5's last single? it's a complete reworking of "Pachabel's Cannon"...but at the end of the day, that's just a chord sequence and it can be used.

Early Beatles stuff is very much "rock n roll" - "she loves you"? "I wanna hold your hand"? They spent time gigging covers in Hambourg between the periods you mentioned, that's enough osmosis to allow the transition from writing derivative material to writing more progressive styled works.

Prior to the Beatles, many groups didn't write their own material - you had pro songwriters for that. Post beatles it was more expected.

As usual with any conspiracy theory - the amount of co-operation and silence required verges on the impossible to maintain. The simplest explanation is usually correct - they simply developed as writers.

That's what good artists do. Listen to Radiohead's "Pablo Honey" and then "In Rainbows". And then go back and listen to everything in-between and the journey might be come clearer.

Or go to Muse and listen to "Showbiz" and then "The Resistance" or something.

Or Bowie. Or anyone really. The Police are very different and less sophisticated than Sting's later solo stuff. The Rolling Stones are a good contemporary of the Beatles - early songs rock n roll and blues simplicity, later works much more sophisticated.
Old 1 week ago
  #7
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Well - it wasn't exactly overnight. "Penny Lane" is very much later Beatles, right?

Of course stuff is inspired by other things. Heard Maroon 5's last single? it's a complete reworking of "Pachabel's Cannon"...but at the end of the day, that's just a chord sequence and it can be used.

Early Beatles stuff is very much "rock n roll" - "she loves you"? "I wanna hold your hand"? They spent time gigging covers in Hambourg between the periods you mentioned, that's enough osmosis to allow the transition from writing derivative material to writing more progressive styled works.

Prior to the Beatles, many groups didn't write their own material - you had pro songwriters for that. Post beatles it was more expected.

As usual with any conspiracy theory - the amount of co-operation and silence required verges on the impossible to maintain. The simplest explanation is usually correct - they simply developed as writers.

That's what good artists do. Listen to Radiohead's "Pablo Honey" and then "In Rainbows". And then go back and listen to everything in-between and the journey might be come clearer.

Or go to Muse and listen to "Showbiz" and then "The Resistance" or something.

Or Bowie. Or anyone really. The Police are very different and less sophisticated than Sting's later solo stuff. The Rolling Stones are a good contemporary of the Beatles - early songs rock n roll and blues simplicity, later works much more sophisticated.
How do you comment Paul's statement that he didn't know of any other classic composer other than Bach when above I posted links to actual classic works that inspired Beatles song, and surprisingly, not one of them is from Bach. I mean...he said it! Did you watch the link provided in previous comment? Also, listen to the direct comparisons, and tell me if you hear what I hear, modified classical scores.

Also, to me is obvious that Paul has no idea about classic music one bit, all Beatles were coming from working class families, it's hard to believe they had any interest in classic composers, it's a known fact that they couldn't read notes, and Paul's statement about the minimum interest in classic music is pretty much spot on sincere, yet their albums speak a different story, as you can hear in the links provided in my first post. This to me is an indirect proof that they couldn't write Beatles albums. You're a mixing engineer, right? I mean...if you hear it and you know it's there, what other proof you need? Who cares what a tool has to say, the end judge is our ears.
Old 1 week ago
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiPiatra View Post
How do you comment Paul's statement that he didn't know of any other classic composer other than Bach when above I posted links to actual classic works that inspired Beatles song, and surprisingly, not one of them is from Bach. I mean...he said it! Did you watch the link provided in previous comment? Also, listen to the direct comparisons, and tell me if you hear what I hear, modified classical scores.

Also, to me is obvious that Paul has no idea about classic music one bit, all Beatles were coming from working class families, it's hard to believe they had any interest in classic composers, it's a known fact that they couldn't read notes, and Paul's statement about the minimum interest in classic music is pretty much spot on sincere, yet their albums speak a different story, as you can hear in the links provided in my first post. This to me is an indirect proof that they couldn't write Beatles albums. You're a mixing engineer, right? I mean...if you hear it and you know it's there, what other proof you need? Who cares what a tool has to say, the end judge is our ears.
You realise “Something” is a George Harrison right? And it’s also much later. They were “grown up” by then; I’m sure they had ample time to listen to classical I f they wanted to.

Your timescale is well off.

I always felt the genius of the Beatles is not what they did (there were other songwriters who wrote equally brilliant songs) but that they did it with little formal training, and with such consistency. The way “Yesterday” modulates for example - it’s proper preparation and resolution (and not a million miles from a Bach chorale).

The other thing is - there was absolutely no shame at the time for someone else to write songs for your group. Why would anyone bother to try to make up some marketing ploy? It’s daft. Their contemporaries had songs written for them - it was the Beatles that changed that!

Next thing you’re going to try to tell me Shakespeare was a ringer, it was all written by Marlowe or someone...
Old 1 week ago
  #9
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
You realise “Something” is a George Harrison right? And it’s also much later. They were “grown up” by then; I’m sure they had ample time to listen to classical I f they wanted to.

Your timescale is well off.

I always felt the genius of the Beatles is not what they did (there were other songwriters who wrote equally brilliant songs) but that they did it with little formal training, and with such consistency. The way “Yesterday” modulates for example - it’s proper preparation and resolution (and not a million miles from a Bach chorale).

The other thing is - there was absolutely no shame at the time for someone else to write songs for your group. Why would anyone bother to try to make up some marketing ploy? It’s daft. Their contemporaries had songs written for them - it was the Beatles that changed that!

Next thing you’re going to try to tell me Shakespeare was a ringer, it was all written by Marlowe or someone...
Oh, forget it, 12 outstanding albums in 8 years (and I mean it, each of those songs were a hit, and the cohesion created between the tracks within the album, similar to structuring a symphony, is just as amazing, only someone highly educated could do it), while during tons of touring, close to zero creativity prior being rebranded by Epstein (who btw, kicked the previous drummer out to make room for Ringo), and you think they started to listen to classic composers at one moment (yet they didn't, not Paul at least that admits he only knows of Bach...funny how he pauses before mentioning him, like it hurts to spell his name), you should talk to the musicians that you're recording if this is possible in real life. I'm not buying it, unless one of those satellites that you see in the sky fall onto their head at one point making them instant geniuses.

Again, do listen to the similarities between the classical scores and their tracks, never mind when they were released, and tell me you don't hear it.

PS: Yes, I agree, I mean even Elvis had his own song-writers, why would they hide this...that's to be investigated, cause they sure are to my ears.
Old 1 week ago
  #10
Gear Head
 

Old 1 week ago
  #11
Please remember the great quote from Picasso :
"Good artists copy, great artists steal"

The 'stealing' is not at all limited to the Beatles.

Have a listen to this Paul Simon interview where he openly admits to stealing from a Bach choral
and others to write 'Bridge over Troubled Waters'
....from 6'30" onwards :




Quote:
I always felt the genius of the Beatles is not what they did (there were other songwriters who wrote equally brilliant songs) but that they did it with little formal training, and with such consistency. The way “Yesterday” modulates for example - it’s proper preparation and resolution (and not a million miles from a Bach chorale).

Yesterday bears a strong resemblance to 'Georgia' by Ray Charles.
Harmonically and the chord progression.This has been pointed out before.


The most original Beatles standard could well be 'Michelle'.

i to iv minor in a chord sequence is very unusual.
Old 1 week ago
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiPiatra View Post
Oh, forget it, 12 outstanding albums in 8 years (and I mean it, each of those songs were a hit, and the cohesion created between the tracks within the album, similar to structuring a symphony, is just as amazing, only someone highly educated could do it),
Not EVERY Beatles song was a single - let alone a hit. Yes there's a lot of cohesion, but again it matures in later albums. Arguably, as far as pop music is concerned, they WERE "highly educated" by that time.

Dismissing the idea that some people are just born with a natural talent for things and drive to be able to accomplish it is quite naive.

Quote:
while during tons of touring, close to zero creativity prior being rebranded by Epstein (who btw, kicked the previous drummer out to make room for Ringo),
From wiki:

"Martin's first recording session with the Beatles took place at EMI's Abbey Road Studios in London on 6 June 1962.[40] Martin immediately complained to Epstein about Best's poor drumming and suggested they use a session drummer in his place.[41] Already contemplating Best's dismissal,[42] the Beatles replaced him in mid-August with Ringo Starr, who left Rory Storm and the Hurricanes to join them."

So no, Epstein didn't make that decision - or at least, was only a part of that decision.

Quote:
and you think they started to listen to classic composers at one moment (yet they didn't, not Paul at least that admits he only knows of Bach...funny how he pauses before mentioning him, like it hurts to spell his name), you should talk to the musicians that you're recording if this is possible in real life. I'm not buying it, unless one of those satellites that you see in the sky fall onto their head at one point making them instant geniuses.

Again, do listen to the similarities between the classical scores and their tracks, never mind when they were released, and tell me you don't hear it.

PS: Yes, I agree, I mean even Elvis had his own song-writers, why would they hide this...that's to be investigated, cause they sure are to my ears.
You know, whilst it's kind of fun to imagine monsters are behind every corner, the big baddies in government (aka "them") are lying to us all the time and nothing is as it seems...sometimes the obvious explanation is the right one.

I mean - honestly, what's more likely? that 4 guys from Liverpool just happened to have 3 great songwriters in one band, who managed for a period of time to push the popular music sphere forward almost single handed? or that there's a whole network of evil geniuses duping the public and manufacturing it...and in 60 years, no-one has spilled the beans. All for absolutely no profit or reason, because groups have been popular before or since with external songwriters

One thing I noticed - you mention growing up in Communist Romania. That might indicate a general distrust of government (when people most likely ARE lying to you, and they ARE all "in on it" - because if you're not in on it, you're one of the proletariat) and thus a general distrust of authority in general. It explains a lot in the way you approach things. Growing up in a more open society, you might be a little more open to things actually being "as they are".
Old 1 week ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

To some people, the entire universe is one big Grassy Knoll LOL
Old 1 week ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Fay Smearing's Avatar
 

I'm convinced they were genetically engineered in a lab in Wuhan to be used covertly as propaganda against the West, but their programming was broken after having a few pints in the pubs around Liverpool and they turned on their masters with lyrics like: "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...".


Of course some years later after they'd disbanded, the communist manifesto began to resurface with Lennon writing the song 'Imagine', in spite of Yoko having been sent in by Japan at the height of the band's fame just in case they turned out to be sleeper cell.

It's all so obvious when you stop to think about it.

But that's nothing, because the real story of The Spice Girls is on a whole other level, as is Ted Nugent having been bred in lab in Los Alamos, but in the meantime we'll have to make do with the the UFO Disclosure thread that's just been bumped in the last couple days.
Old 1 week ago
  #15
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post


From wiki:

"Martin's first recording session with the Beatles took place at EMI's Abbey Road Studios in London on 6 June 1962.[40] Martin immediately complained to Epstein about Best's poor drumming and suggested they use a session drummer in his place.[41] Already contemplating Best's dismissal,[42] the Beatles replaced him in mid-August with Ringo Starr, who left Rory Storm and the Hurricanes to join them."

So no, Epstein didn't make that decision - or at least, was only a part of that decision.
Ok, so who is Martin, who is Epstein? They are not The Beatles, that's who they are, yet they remove and add members as they please. I mean, it's obvious that they had to do what other people said, they were executing instructions, so why do you think is so not feasible that they played what they had to play. It's pretty much the same principle. But never mind going this route, as it's subjective and speculative, all you have to do is use your ears to come to the right conclusions, it's not detective work for the artists/engineers/producers that are here on Gearslutz.

PS: I grew up with Beatles basically, I learned my first words in English through their music even if I had no idea what they were saying, they're sitting at the very top of my list miles away from the rest of the artists, including Paul's only classic composer that he knows of, Bach (and I mean, Bach is maximum, is the speed of light of music, it can't be outrun, but my heart belongs to Beatles), but I can't state the obvious, truth must prevail.

Communist regimes have a good part, and a bad part. The bad part is that you get fairly frustrated for not having access to the material life as you guys in the West had. The good part is that you have more time to focus on little things (like appreciating nature, good, healthy food from fresh sources, reading books, developing imagination, keeping better focus on things that matter: career, family, health, to name a few). Funny enough, once the state oppression is there, after a time you become immune to it, you kinda integrate it in your daily life and move on, you don't stay mad in a corner for weeks, months and years looking for revenge, I mean, you couldn't last. I did catch the last years of Communism, so, it was pretty much part of my life, also, as a kid, you don't care much if it's Communism or Democracy, you live in your own world, so I was a happy child doing child things, as every other kid in the world at that time, but man, I still remember coming from school and going straight to the tape recorder (it was a Tesla made in Czech Republic, I think, my parents still have it) and listening to that Beatles tape. I remember having 3 tapes, one of Beatles, one was Vivaldi, and the other one was Scorpions. Scorpions was not my thing, Beatles and Vivaldi were. Haha, good times.
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
To some people, the entire universe is one big Grassy Knoll LOL
You reminded me of this wonderful track, so underrated:

Old 1 week ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 
PdotDdot's Avatar
This is nothing but pish-posh. The Beatles wrote all their tunes and they learned how to arrange and use the recording studio such that they pushed the envelope in all the ways they have been given credit for. To buy into any of these conspiracy theories is simply nonsense. I'm sorry, while I support free speech, threads that accuse Paul of being dead and the Beatles of being imposters is just plain rubbish. I grew up with the Beatles and they were simply that amazing and they still are.

OK, I was not in the studio so I cannot in any way prove what I believe to be the truth but as someone else intimated, to think that the Beatles were some sort of hoax and that no one has come out with provable facts to support any of the hoax theories simply rules them out in my opinion. Read about them, study the interviews, watch their performances - those lads were articulate, smart, funny and a great rock & roll band. Listen to their recordings in sequence and see how their writing and playing improved. There is simply no way they were a hoax. Just way too much evidence that they were gifted and too little evidence that they were a hoax.

Sorry - I do not get these threads unless the OPs are just trying to start arguments because they can.
Old 1 week ago
  #18
Lives for gear
I've listened again to the first album - "Please, please me" - impeccable! I can't find one song that is bad, they're all amazing, same terrific cohesion among tracks that went in all 12 albums, the maturity level was already high, the music knowledge and the artistry are top-notch, same quality that you can find on each album. This requires discipline too, but Paul keeps saying in many interviews that they were very spontaneous, writing whenever they felt like, wherever they could, and all the time it went so well, they were so prolific, that each time they started working at a song, they also finished it, yada yada. Neah, you don't get a certain level of unity, cohesion if you're writing whenever you feel like and/or you can't be as prolific. I refuse to accept this explanation. Also, my ears tell me I have to disagree with the theory that they became better as years passed by, as suggested by psycho. No way, only the music style changed, the maturity and the quality were already there. This is what my ears tell me. Forget it, I can't be convinced of the fact that you're such a genius and you're so skilled and talented, yet you stick to covers, until some guy comes in(Epstein) and boom...you're the new thing in town. This doesn't mean that I'm right, it only means that to my ears and my brain this isn't possible in real life. To sum it up, if you're not Bach, you can't become Bach at 20.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...w_RdBWy11ALc4T

I believe this to be the real level of creativity from Paul, at least. Who ever composed the 12 albums would laugh of this track, not saying is bad, but under Beatles a song of this artistry would never make it in a zillion years:

Old 1 week ago
  #19
Quote:
I believe this to be the real level of creativity from Paul, at least. Who ever composed the 12 albums would laugh of this track, not saying is bad, but under Beatles a song of this artistry would never make it in a zillion years:
That's one of the great things about Paul.He has no problem in being simple .
He can keep it real simple and then build it up.

It's the same guy alright.

Old 1 week ago
  #20
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by flanagan View Post
That's one of the great things about Paul.He has no problem in being simple .
He can keep it real simple and then build it up.

It's the same guy alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d_Wv-gkHts
You see, that's the point, Beatles was never about simple music. Did you listen to the entire album from where you extracted Coming up? Compare it with the cohesion, the structure of any other Beatles album and let me know what you think. It has the usual 2-3 decent tracks you find at any artist, buy poorly glued together, and truly uninteresting, uninspired songs, yes, I find it likely to be written by Paul, it sounds like coming from a simple minded guy that wanted some fame and a quick buck and a history of his own to be remembered. In his defence, it was an experimental album, he didn't have any goal to acchieive.

I mean...what teenager would say no to a guy coming up to you promising girls, money and fame? It's every guy's dream, and I guess the price he had to pay was to lie everyone about certain aspects of the pact he had with Epstein.

I'm being a dick now, it looks like I'm almost trashing them...and who am I to trash such an icon, right...Hell no, when I hear "Hey, Jude" , "Michelle", "Let it be", "Here comes the sun"...I immediately transpose myself to being a kid sitting in front of the tape recorder with my mouth open from pure and honest admiration. I'm not 15 now to see things in white and black, if someone does something stupid it doesn't mean that he's an idiot, and if he does something incredible, it doesn't mean that he's perfect, there are tons of colours to each of us, we're perfect when we're born, but we all collect weaknesses as time passes by, and for Beatles I'll have to assume not being completely honest about what happened in the studio is one of theirs, for whatever reason.
Old 1 week ago
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiPiatra View Post
Ok, so who is Martin, who is Epstein? They are not The Beatles, that's who they are, yet they remove and add members as they please. I mean, it's obvious that they had to do what other people said, they were executing instructions, so why do you think is so not feasible that they played what they had to play. It's pretty much the same principle. But never mind going this route, as it's subjective and speculative, all you have to do is use your ears to come to the right conclusions, it's not detective work for the artists/engineers/producers that are here on Gearslutz.
Not only is this completely irrelevant, and not even unheard of (record labels historically might only sign the band if a member is replaced) but did you not read? the band themselves were in agreement!

Quote:
Communist regimes have a good part, and a bad part. The bad part is that you get fairly frustrated for not having access to the material life as you guys in the West had. The good part is that you have more time to focus on little things (like appreciating nature, good, healthy food from fresh sources, reading books, developing imagination, keeping better focus on things that matter: career, family, health, to name a few). Funny enough, once the state oppression is there, after a time you become immune to it, you kinda integrate it in your daily life and move on, you don't stay mad in a corner for weeks, months and years looking for revenge, I mean, you couldn't last. I did catch the last years of Communism, so, it was pretty much part of my life, also, as a kid, you don't care much if it's Communism or Democracy, you live in your own world, so I was a happy child doing child things, as every other kid in the world at that time, but man, I still remember coming from school and going straight to the tape recorder (it was a Tesla made in Czech Republic, I think, my parents still have it) and listening to that Beatles tape. I remember having 3 tapes, one of Beatles, one was Vivaldi, and the other one was Scorpions. Scorpions was not my thing, Beatles and Vivaldi were. Haha, good times.
I really don't want to lead things down a political path. I'm just stating that your distrust for the obvious, simple explanation might stem from your upbringing. It's probably much harder to trust that anything is as it is, if things you were told at a young age by people in power later turn out to be false.

You seem to constantly be looking for a complicated, unbelievable, unfeasible explanation for just about everything!
Old 1 week ago
  #22
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post

You seem to constantly be looking for a complicated, unbelievable, unfeasible explanation for just about everything!
No, I'm not looking for anything special, but when I spot some inconsistencies, or a fail in logics I take a stand, not because I like doing this, or because I'm looking to gain a popularity prize of some sort, not to mention money or anything related to the material world, but because I believe in honesty, truth, and the need to show people a different version from what they know of as a moral obligation to my own kind. That's all there is, if I'm being stupid...no problem, I provide the best arguments I can come up with and leave it there for others to pick them up, if they wish so.
Old 1 week ago
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiPiatra View Post
No, I'm not looking for anything special, but when I spot some inconsistencies, or a fail in logics I take a stand, not because I like doing this, or because I'm looking to gain a popularity prize of some sort, not to mention money or anything related to the material world, but because I believe in honesty, truth, and the need to show people a different version from what they know of as a moral obligation to my own kind. That's all there is, if I'm being stupid...no problem, I provide the best arguments I can come up with and leave it there for others to pick them up, if they wish so.
Except you're taking something that's not even a "fail" - maybe just a situation that isn't fully explained - and attaching a conspiracy theory that is a complete fail in logic. That's what doesn't make sense. You need to suspend a huge amount of disbelief, see conspirators around every corner, and be prepared to believe a ludicrous explanation in front of the obvious. That doesn't make sense - unless the norm to you is people in positions of authority lying.

I worked at Abbey Road every day for a period of 6 months, in the early 2000s. Whilst I never met GM or any of the Beatles, lots of people around were working on Beatles related projects and so on. If there were actually any truth in this...don't you think someone might have gossiped at some point?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...altVJSF288Llw8 here's one for you anyway
Old 1 week ago
  #24
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Except you're taking something that's not even a "fail" - maybe just a situation that isn't fully explained - and attaching a conspiracy theory that is a complete fail in logic. That's what doesn't make sense. You need to suspend a huge amount of disbelief, see conspirators around every corner, and be prepared to believe a ludicrous explanation in front of the obvious. That doesn't make sense - unless the norm to you is people in positions of authority lying.

I worked at Abbey Road every day for a period of 6 months, in the early 2000s. Whilst I never met GM or any of the Beatles, lots of people around were working on Beatles related projects and so on. If there were actually any truth in this...don't you think someone might have gossiped at some point?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...altVJSF288Llw8 here's one for you anyway
I could only comment on this conspiracy theories if I had a degree in social studies, psychology or even psychiatry. However, from a social perspective I do see a shift from the start of rock'n'roll to the popularity of depravity and nihilism of many modern songs from today, and in other threads I tried to talk about this, as I find it concerning, but I'm missing the actual argument to define it as subliminal text and sound used to manipulate masses, so I'm not entitled to speak about this topic at all, and my saying means nothing to the general public, as it should.

However, regarding Beatles work I can make some decisions based on what I hear and my experience. I studied piano and classic composers from an early age, and I always had an interest for composing, and later on, for mixing, arranging, editing, orchestrating stuff. I'm not a professional, though, as I considered music more of a personal, intimate thing, so never explored it with the eye of someone wishing to become someone in the industry. It's probably because I'm born in a family where music was always regarded as something you do in your spare time, I was never encouraged to take this route as a profession as a kid, on the contrary, but this never stopped me from being around music as much as I could.

With that being said, here, I suggested people to connect the dots of the narrative by listening the posted comparisons and following their intuition and expertise, rather than speculating various conspiracy theories from various sources, more or less credible. That's where I got my suspicions on The Beatles for not being totally honest. Is this actual proof, as in "good to use in court" type of proof? Of course not, but it's proof for my own personal belief. Regardless of using or not using ghostwriters, history can not and will not change one bit, this guys recorded and played fantastic songs that will last forever. How creative they actually where? That's for nerds like me to find out.
Old 1 week ago
  #25
Gear Guru
 

There is absolutely no inconsistency or weirdness in what the band members wrote for The Beatles and how that developed.

I read threads like these and it's like people just can't understand how some people can be naturally supremely talented coupled with the drive to put that talent into practice + opportunity.

And this whole thing about copying: I really don't hear much that amounts to copying when briefly browsing through those videos. Even Blackbird is an easily explained example IF one understands that great musicians and composers have a knack for picking up on musical elements that they then incorporate in part in their own music. It takes nothing more than Paul having heard that piece once and then months later part of it popped up in his head. Could have been he was in an area where someone was playing it and he didn't even pay attention but it registered anyway.

Unless you've been around this amount of talent or have studied really extensively you might not pick up on the amount of talent they had. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy, it just means you have more learning to do. Not trying to be mean, but if you think Greta Van Fleet have something special that make them shine and then you question the Beatles having written their own music....
Old 1 week ago
  #26
Gear Addict
 
Syn303's Avatar
I think The Beatles ripped these guys off....









Old 1 week ago
  #27
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn303 View Post
I think The Beatles ripped these guys off....
Now you're being silly.

I miss some good old decent humour, tbh:

Old 1 week ago
  #28
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post

And this whole thing about copying: I really don't hear much that amounts to copying when briefly browsing through those videos. Even Blackbird is an easily explained example IF one understands that great musicians and composers have a knack for picking up on musical elements that they then incorporate in part in their own music. It takes nothing more than Paul having heard that piece once and then months later part of it popped up in his head. Could have been he was in an area where someone was playing it and he didn't even pay attention but it registered anyway.

Unless you've been around this amount of talent or have studied really extensively you might not pick up on the amount of talent they had. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy, it just means you have more learning to do. Not trying to be mean, but if you think Greta Van Fleet have something special that make them shine and then you question the Beatles having written their own music....
I'm not going to comment on the creative process from Paul and the other guys in the band, I was expecting to see various opinions, and each is just as valuable when taking into account that nobody can actually provide a factual proof by going this route.

Regarding Greta...man, my expectations of today's pop culture are so low, it's so easy to impress me with something decent enough, never mind for cloning Led Zeppelin sound or anyone else, if it sounds good, I'll take it! I still think they're quite talented, too bad they didn't invest in a sound of their own. I'm not hating them one bit, though, on the contrary, they're great for what they are.

Since we're talking about cloning sounds...I did have high expectations for the Lemmon Twigs (somewhere between American beach rock'n'roll and The Beatles), but I see them struggling and not being able to push it through their somewhat known condition. Maybe they're too late for the party, or to soon, the audience isn't there, so they sort of try different things, but man, I'll take any of their songs in exchange for whatever zillion views song on youtube of today, wonderful, talented band. The drummer reminds me so well of Ringo's technique, I hope they'll eventually make it.



📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
♾️ Similar Threads
🎙️ View mentioned gear