Paul McCartney conspiracy

ATTENTION...please read before posting further....

BE AWARE THAT IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND/OR IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO HAVE POSTS REMOVED. OR YOU MAY BE TEMPORARILY POST BANNED!
AND, PLEASE REMEMBER THERE IS NO MORE MUD PIT....MUD NOT ALLOWED. Just because the MUD PIT is gone, doesn't mean ATS allows muddy politics.

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it.

OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.
Those who refuse to get that concept may be POST BANNED!!!

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: G1111B1234

I don't know. There are tells in music.



Not saying Paul is a hack or anything, but you can tell the two distinct songwriters.

You have John's part. Which is this beautiful masterpiece of melody, and then it switches to Paul's super-poppy ha-cha-cha part and I'm like, "You totally killed it!"

In Beatles songwriting hierarchy it goes: John, George, Paul, Ringo, definite tiers between the first two and second two. There is this identifiable bad poppiness without much authenticity that attaches itself to Paul's style a step behind Bowie in creativity.

As heard in Sir Paul McCartney's most painful song ever.



It's a continuation of marginal songwriting. I read he's arguably a far better person IRL though. Hypocrite comes up a lot with John.

So Paul's NOT dead.

- The Possessive Spirit of Lester Bangs.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

The stop whining man. If you do not care, are a #ty songwriter and cannot prove you studied theory....you are just as good as the Beatles.

It was a simple question. A person is influenced by someone for music. Mom. Dad. Grandparents. Aunt. Uncle.Teacher. Significant other. Friends. Teacher. Someone gave you the push just like all of these musicians.

Prince never studied or READ and wrote intricate and influential music. Pete Townshend is a musical genius and never learned how to read music.

You are starting to sound like this guy...

"I recorded....in Denmark!"

Hey….. George Martin died only one month before Prince ….. Martin wrote all his stuff !

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: SchrodingersRat

He won't answer. I have been in bands and the studio for over 30 years. Played countless gigs. I am a singer/songwriter who knows some guitar, piano and drums. Self-taught with some lessons from a family member when I was young.

I hate writing sheet music. I do not like reading sheet music. But if you play me a few chords and a few progressions i write great songs.

I just cannot figure out if this guy is older or younger. It would help to know what musical generation he came from.

Because it has no bearing on what we're talking about. It doesn't matter if I play, what I play. How long I studied for, where I studied, when I studied, who I studied with.

In fact, it's another misrepresentation of what I said. Y'all are treating it as if I'm claiming to be an expert in music because I studied theory.

When, IN FACT, I said I studied music theory under the context that even people who have studied music have trouble writing music as complex as the music attributed to the Beatles.

I did not write good music. I did not write great music.

I most certainly did not write what many, if not most, people consider to be the greatest pop music in multiple generations.

And THATS what we're talking about.

NOT that some kids from England wrote some music.

Instead, that 4 kids from the same part of England with no musical background somehow managed to write intricate and complex music that is considered to be the most important music in music history.

And they did it by listening to some skiffle records.

Even though literally all logic tells anyone with half a brain that the music industry uses ghost writers ALL THE TIME.

Even though they had a classically trained musician who could write complex and intricate musical compositions producing them.

Yet here we are, lying to ourselves that putzing away in our little garage bands, is the equivalent of what the Beatles allegedly did.

Or should I say instead, here we are on a forum lying to everyone, claiming that any schmuck with a guitar can write GREAT, complex, intricate music that will be shape the musical landscape and be remembered and argued about for the next 50 years.

Because, according to the people in this thread, Pip farting on a snare drum is the next Eleanor Rigby.

We already established that both McCartney’s and Lennon’s fathers were in the music biz. Lennon’s grandfather as well.
At least stick with the truth that we know. Don’t just pretend it away to bolster your own bias.

a reply to: Degradation33

For me Band On The Run shows McCartney's genius to its full extent , brilliant writing.

a reply to: gortex



The Frog Chorus?

Not so much.

Then there were his law suits about the Lennon/ McCartney credits.....

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Live and let die , best Bond theme ever written.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

4 kids from the same part of England with no musical background somehow managed to write intricate and complex music that is considered to be the most important music in music history.

What background did William Shakespeare have in litrature ? His father was a glove maker, yet somehow managed to write the most important llitrature in history, and at the same time adding around 2,000 new words to the English language.

a reply to: gortex

He got better when he co-wrote with Linda too. And had his brilliant moments all long, I'm not a hater, I just like making that joke.

Actually, what I consider one of the greatest Beatles songs of all time is primarily Paul McCartney.



But then Yellow Submarine songs like the title track make me want to advise them not to write on acid anymore and then go bash my head against pavement.

Despite the bad press and animosity, I prefer Lennon Solo, even with the Irony of being shot by Holden Caulfield.

a reply to: gortex

I'll give you that. He was brilliant at Glastonbury too.

I never expected that!

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Degradation33

For me Band On The Run shows McCartney's genius to its full extent , brilliant writing.

McCartney could simply write as many pop, or rocking, or ballad top hits as he wanted. With the Beatles, Wings, Micheal Jackson, Stevie Wonder, solo, Badfinger. If he wanted to have songs in the top 10 for every minute of his adult life, I’ll bet he would just do it.

Lennon just a little less automatic, and George almost as capable as him.

3 guys who could have each been the lead talent in a HOF band.

Is there another band like this ? MAYBE Stones, Who, Eagles ? Genesis almost.

a reply to: Degradation33

I think this is a better McCartney song.



It's all about opinion.

a reply to: arcticshuffle

Blue Oyster Cult? Iron Maiden? Sabbath? Yes? ELP? Jethro Tull? Procul Harum? Chicago? And so on?

originally posted by: gortex
Live and let die , best Bond theme ever written.

To each his own but at 1:25 he pops up with that cheesy McCartney pop thing that I think Degradation33 was talking about.

Personally, I always liked "The world is not enough" by garbage but searching for that I came across "No time to die" by Billie Eilish, now I'm torn.

Not saying "live and let die" isn't good but they should have left that 15 seconds of tape on the editing floor.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: G1111B1234

I don't know. There are tells in music.

Not saying Paul is a hack or anything, but you can tell the two distinct songwriters.

You have John's part. Which is this beautiful masterpiece of melody, and then it switches to Paul's super-poppy ha-cha-cha part and I'm like, "You totally killed it!"

In Beatles songwriting hierarchy it goes: John, George, Paul, Ringo, definite tiers between the first two and second two. There is this identifiable bad poppiness without much authenticity that attaches itself to Paul's style a step behind Bowie in creativity.

As heard in Sir Paul McCartney's most painful song ever.

It's a continuation of marginal songwriting. I read he's arguably a far better person IRL though. Hypocrite comes up a lot with John.

So Paul's NOT dead.

- The Possessive Spirit of Lester Bangs.

That last video was painful to watch and listen to.

I need to purge now.

[* Putting on some good Rolling Stones *]

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

4 kids from the same part of England with no musical background somehow managed to write intricate and complex music that is considered to be the most important music in music history.

What background did William Shakespeare have in litrature ? His father was a glove maker, yet somehow managed to write the most important llitrature in history, and at the same time adding around 2,000 new words to the English language.

It was all written by Sir Francis Bacon, lol.

There’s no escape from the conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: arcticshuffle

Blue Oyster Cult? Iron Maiden? Sabbath? Yes? ELP? Jethro Tull? Procul Harum? Chicago? And so on?

This is where I actually think that Martin does make a difference.

These bands had lots of talent, but not the unifying influence that Martin gave the Beatles.

It’s like they had the freedom to just go full out with their most creative urges, knowing that he was there to tie it all together and give it back them as a creative and commercial gem. I think it relieved them of having to worry about the technical drudgery and profit motive; he was always there to make that stuff happen.

a reply to: arcticshuffle

It was all written by Sir Francis Bacon.

Of course it was.

The man could not write a play. We know this because he penned some court entertainments, and they are sadly static affairs in which stock characters—a hermit, a soldier, a secretary—stand and deliver set pieces about the joys of being a hermit, a soldier, a secretary. There’s not a trace here of the grasp of plot, character, nuance, conflict that we expect in Shakespeare’s plays. In short, Francis Bacon had no drama.

www.shakespeare.org.uk...