Paul McCartney conspiracy

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

Because it makes more sense that the orchestral pieces found on the Beatles albums can be directly credited to the classically trained musician/producer.

Nobody in the thread even disputed that claim. Most Beatles fans are aware of George Martin's contributions and the working relationship he had with the band. Martin helped bring ideas to life through his arrangements. That is well understood already.

You're just trying to stir the pot and bait people into non-existent arguments. But you do you. Have fun with that.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

No one denies George Martins contribution. However it was Lennon, McCartney and to a lesser degree Harrison who WROTE the songs. Which Martin worked with.

originally posted by: AlroyFarms
This thread feels like some weird sock-puppet sh*tposting theater NGL.

It’s a put-on.

Guy wanders onto a message board and announces that the Beatles and Wings suck. Says weird stuff about Hendrix. Brings a somewhat random guy like Martin to champion. Then goes around in circles arguing with 10 different people, then writes a bunch of weird dense junk like boomer does.

Feels like someone who goes from website to website doing this.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: AlroyFarms
This thread feels like some weird sock-puppet sh*tposting theater NGL.

It’s a put-on.

No offense to the OP, but nothing in the OP makes sense either.

All the chronology and logic is wrong every step of the way.

I mean it's a fun conspiracy for sure, but getting all the fundamentals about the conspiracy comically wrong only to have some agitator come in and crap on The Beatles.

It's all a little too convenient!

originally posted by: StudMuffin
A couple other tid bits: Revolution #9 played backwards is where you can hear something that sounds like "Turn me on dead man" repeatedly. Forwards it's "Number nine". On the Abbey Road alblum front cover along with the boys walking across the raod there is a WV bearing the license plate "28IF" supposedly referring that Paul would have 28 years old IF he was alive at the time of the photo. On the reverse cover of Abbey Road there are shadows of leaves from a nearby tree that sort of look like a skull. There's another song (can't recall what alblum or song title) but there is a line that goes something like "You were in a car crash and you lost your hair"

The whole thing IMO is marketing, clever but just marketing.

Ok it is the same forward and backward. Play number 9 on a phono and it says the same forward as backward.

Now Led Zepplin did something really odd that may be Satanic.

if you can record yourself singing it "And she's buy eye eeing, the sta-air way to he-veh ahn" and replay that backwards. It says something gross: "your words are s**king me off". Playing that backwards it is clear as a bell whether it is Robert Plant does it or you if you just sing it close to the way he recorded it. I used my MS Windows recorder and it shocked my family one day a few years back as I recorded it in front of them and played it back. That backward masking is a science.

Paul likely is the same one is my opinion on that. They want all the publicity they can get. I am open to it no being him, but it the whole sound he had when speaking and singing were unique.

originally posted by: AlroyFarms

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

Because it makes more sense that the orchestral pieces found on the Beatles albums can be directly credited to the classically trained musician/producer.

Nobody in the thread even disputed that claim. Most Beatles fans are aware of George Martin's contributions and the working relationship he had with the band. Martin helped bring ideas to life through his arrangements. That is well understood already.

You're just trying to stir the pot and bait people into non-existent arguments. But you do you. Have fun with that.

YOU tried to dispute it.

You even went so far as to claim McCartney wrote classical albums in order to try to dispute that.

To which I pointed out he wrote classical music well after working with Martin.

And then I even laughed in your face when the same link you tried to use to dispute that Martin wrote the classical pieces in the Beatles albums showed that MARTIN WROTE PAULS FIRST CLASSICAL ALBUM.

amazing how bad at this you are.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

If you're going to troll, at least come up with some new material. You're transparent and repetitive.

Get better?

originally posted by: AlroyFarms
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

If you're going to troll, at least come up with some new material. You're transparent and repetitive.

Get better?

The only one trolling here is you.

"Nobody tried to dispute that. Except for me but I'm gonna deny it because we're on a new page. And nobody will ever know because they wont go read that last page where I tried to claim Paul McCartney wrote all the orchestral pieces on the Beatles albums and embarrassed myself by showing everyone that George Martin wrote Paul McCartneys first classical album."

Lmao. That's you.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Hey, Martin also worked with Gerry and the Pacemakers, Gary Glitter, and Peter Sellers back in the day. Did he write all their stuff too ?
Or did they write their own, being much better than Lennon-McCartney ?

originally posted by: arcticshuffle
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Hey, Martin also worked with Gerry and the Pacemakers, Gary Glitter, and Peter Sellers back in the day. Did he write all their stuff too ?
Or did they write their own, being much better than Lennon-McCartney ?

You mean like how Gerry and the Pacemakers debut single was written by Mitch Murray? I'll let you in on a secret... Mitch Murray wasn't Gerry, and he wasn't a Pacemaker.

What's with all the blowback here?

You guys act like this isn't a common thing in the ***entertainment*** industry.

Breaking news: completely fkn common occurrence.

How many songs did Elvis write?

Ozzy has been living off other people's music for how long now?

What about all those shows on TV where you get a bunch of celebrities who pick random talent from the crowd? Surely, those shows must be real right? I mean Simon Cowell must be the greatest mind in music history.

Ever notice how those celebrity judges always seem to be able to recognize the singer's voice without seeing them? Like they've already met somewhere, or have seen the singer performing before, even though they claim these are random as$holes off the street?

Yea, that's because the vast majority of the people who get selected on those shows are under network contracts, or have already been discovered because they're working musicians, or their parents have been signing them up for acting classes or talent shows since they could stand.

Sorry to burst all your bubbles.

Entertainment isn't real.

Unbelievable that on a CONSPIRACY website it's unfathomable that the entertainment industry, who's entire purpose is to sell you stuff, would sell Beatlemania, right after it sold you Elvis Presley.

If you truly love the Beatles then really study them. They played on rumors to sell albums that rumor came out before Sgt. Peppers and they ran with it!

Um or it's publicity. Watch Get Back which took place in 1970! Who ever is playing McCartney is very talented as much as the one who supposedly died...

Occam's razor says they are the same

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot
You're the only one making a big deal out of it, for whatever reason.

The blowback is against your claim that without formal training people can't write music. Some people have a knack, no formal training needed.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot
your claim that without formal training people can't write music. Some people have a knack, no formal training needed.

No, the claim was that without formal training, they cant write music that complex and intricate. As usual, you all either can't read, or need to misrepresent the argument in order to participate.

Any as$hole can can write music, as is evidenced by the never ending stream of crap on the top 40 radio stations every day.

But for someone with no musical background to write what people consider to be the most important music of MULTIPLE GENERATIONS.......

Bullsh!t.

Just be honest. Your world would end if it were true the Beatles weren't the songwriters you believed they were.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot
Who is misrepresenting anything? People already said that it is obvious that Martin played an important part.

None of the 4 Beatles was going to be able to direct an orchestra. Everyone knows that so what is the point of your argument?

Simon and Garfunkel majored in english and mathematics, respectively. They wrote good songs.

Sting went back to school to study music and he still hasn't put out an album, after all that newly acquired knowledge, that can outsell the police's synchronicity.

Just be honest. Your world would end if it were true the Beatles weren't the songwriters you believed they were.

This is too funny, I don't idolize any "performer". I might admire their "performance", even if they didn't write the piece. Pavarotti was amazing, never wrote a single song. I'm ok with that, what is your problem?

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot
your claim that without formal training people can't write music. Some people have a knack, no formal training needed.

No, the claim was that without formal training, they cant write music that complex and intricate. As usual, you all either can't read, or need to misrepresent the argument in order to participate.

Any as$hole can can write music, as is evidenced by the never ending stream of crap on the top 40 radio stations every day.

But for someone with no musical background to write what people consider to be the most important music of MULTIPLE GENERATIONS.......

Bullsh!t.

Just be honest. Your world would end if it were true the Beatles weren't the songwriters you believed they were.

Two things give you away ….. your juvenile last paragraph, and the fact that you’re splitting hairs now. Everybody has agreed with you that Martin did a lot of important work on the Beatles music. None of us can know the actual mix, we just have our opinions.
You’ve stated yours 50 times now, we heard you.
Everybody doesn’t agree with you. Quit bitching about it, it’s called “life”.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot
Who is misrepresenting anything?

You are.

your claim that without formal training people can't write music. Some people have a knack, no formal training needed.

When you say stuff like this, when you know that's not what I said.

And then how you can deny it the very next post.

I love how you all "agreed" with me about Martins contributions, yet nobody in this thread has actually agreed about Martins contributions...

Y'all have been actively working to claim he didn't do anything.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot
your claim that without formal training people can't write music. Some people have a knack, no formal training needed.

No, the claim was that without formal training, they cant write music that complex and intricate. As usual, you all either can't read, or need to misrepresent the argument in order to participate.

Any as$hole can can write music, as is evidenced by the never ending stream of crap on the top 40 radio stations every day.

But for someone with no musical background to write what people consider to be the most important music of MULTIPLE GENERATIONS.......

Bullsh!t.

Just be honest. Your world would end if it were true the Beatles weren't the songwriters you believed they were.

Two things give you away ….. your juvenile last paragraph, and the fact that you’re splitting hairs now. Everybody has agreed with you that Martin did a lot of important work on the Beatles music. None of us can know the actual mix, we just have our opinions.
You’ve stated yours 50 times now, we heard you.
Everybody doesn’t agree with you. Quit bitching about it, it’s called “life”.

Uh huh right. He wasn't a Pacemaker, right? But Mitch Murray was huh. That's you agreeing Martin was vital to the Beatles.

Go away.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
You are.

your claim that without formal training people can't write music. Some people have a knack, no formal training needed.

When you say stuff like this, when you know that's not what I said.

And then how you can deny it the very next post.

What you actually said:

There's no way in hell 4 kids with no ability to read or write music came up with that music

They most certainly did. Sure, maybe they had session players, engineers and whoever else who may have been a part of the final product. I'm thinking that at some point they had a big sway in what and how it would be included.

You don't need formal training to know when something sounds like you want it to sound.

The way this thread meandered reminded me of a video I saw where Gillian Gilbert, of New Order, talks about the early days with what was left of Joy Division and she mentions getting in tune and the other members look at her with faces of what does that mean, paraphrasing here, "I realized they did everything by ear".

So, how many songs did Elvis write? Who cares, he was just the delivery man. Some of us get that, our hearts will not be bruised if the singer didn't write the song.

George Martin got the same royalties as each member of the Beatles.

Producers do not get royalties.

Composers do.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
George Martin got the same royalties as each member of the Beatles.

Producers do not get royalties.

Composers do.

And you get nothing for posting all this BS on here.

You must be an artist.