Who's the brain behind The Beatles?

George Harrison certainly had Ravi Shankar fooled.  Or was Ravi part of the conspiracy?

MartyMcFly89 wrote: John L. of course, he's The Genius, visionary, pacifist with imagination. Paul was close, but just close. And wasn't Brian Epstein on the other hand limitation ?

The Cigarette Smoking Man. 

I will say this and you are right that without solid proof it is difficult to prove, but just because something is excepted as truth does not make it truth. It was normal to burn witches (woman) at one time and people once thought that the earth was the centre of the universe and that the earth was flat. Humans have been sucked in by religion since the dawn of time and anyone with a brain knows that they are all man made.

So, what's to say that culture is not created as a means to an end? I think it is both dangerous and naive to except things as truth because the majority of people believe it. I will always view things from my own perspective and make up my own mind even if it does not agree with the majority.

As a result I have not covered my body with tattoos and stuck myself with pins or worn pants with the crotch hanging down to my knees. Outfitted my car with a sound system that makes your trunk lid rattle to the sounds of a de-based form of music that they call 'rap'. They call it rap for a reason to, but I won't get into that.

 

I recall from a movie once and it was Jack Nicholson who said in the movie, "the truth, you can't handle the truth" and I'm afraid that the vast majority will have that problem in the end.

Sacred 22 wrote: I think it is both dangerous and naive to except things as truth because the majority of people believe it. I will always view things from my own perspective and make up my own mind even if it does not agree with the majority.

this I absolutely agree with and applaud any independent thinking, as long as it's truly independent.. it of course goes both ways and the 'don't believe everything you read' axiom becomes even more important





Edited by Atavachron - September 13 2009 at 19:49

Sacred 22 wrote: "When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be. And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be. /admin edit - text removed

Edited by Dean - September 15 2009 at 02:21

I finally figured out what this thread reminds me of:  all those people who have argued over the years that Shakespeare could not possibly have written the plays attributed to him. 

This is hard but I went with McCartney. It's silly to get into a territorial pissing contest over who was a better pure songwriter: Lennon or McCartney. They were so damn close. I chose McCartney because he really pushed the band far ahead in the Sgt. Peppers days (the songs are mostly his) and he composed and arranged all of his own material. John couldn't really arrange his material much beyond basic guitar, bass, and drums. This isn't a huge problem, but it is a huge blow against him. Some of his songs, the bare melody and lyrics are so much better than Paul's. But Paul, George, and George had to arrange his ideas for him. Happines is a Warm Gun was put together by George Harrison: it was just three songs that John couldn't finish otherwise. And later, of course, listening to their solo work, Paul composed, arranged, and produced all of his own stuff. John couldn't do that. This may seem like a petty way for Paul to win, but it's the only way for me to decide as they are about equal as songwriters. While John never wrote something as lame as some of Paul's crappiest love songs, Paul never did anything as embarassing as John's experimental albums. Or if he did, he did a lot less of it...

SonicDeath10 wrote: Cesar Inca wrote: Paul was the individual genius behind the collective genius. It is not necessary to be as existentialist as Lennon nor as introspective as Harrison to be a man with a bigger musical depth. Very well stated. People who dislike Paul because he's "shallow" are like the people who disliked Mozart for being shallow when compared to Beethoven.

it's not whether one likes or dislikes Paul, it's who was the brain-- John formed the band [Quarrymen] in 1957and was the undisputed leader as late as 1967, that's a matter of historical record.  After Brian Epstein died in '67, I suspect Paul started handling more of the managerial and conceptual duties and became a leader figure

SonicDeath10 wrote: It's also a matter of historical record that Paul wrote almost every song on Sgt. Peppers and that his whimsical style was way more inline with Sgt. Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour. I think who the "leader" was isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about who was "the brain" i.e. the main musical thinker of the band. That is Paul.

The notion for the record came initially from Paul, but to say he "wrote almost every song on Sgt. Peppers" is incorrect.    

- Sgt, Pepper's - Paul
- A Little Help from My Friends - evidently a collaboration from a progression by Paul with a melody from John
- Lucy in the Sky w/ Diamonds - obviously a John concept and arrangement, perhaps some help from Paul
- Getting Better - Paul with notable help from John
- Fixing a Hole - Paul
- She's Leaving Home - a true collaboration
- Mr. Kite - John with help from Paul
- Within Without You - George
- When I'm 64 - Paul
- Rita - Paul
- Good Morning - John
- Peppers reprise
- A Day in the Life - primarily John

this means McCartney wrote 6 of the 13 cuts (I don't count the Reprise as it's the same bit), the rest written by John, George or were true collaborative efforts. 






Edited by Atavachron - September 16 2009 at 00:31