Granny

>quads
Based

imagine for a moment that the beatles was just john, george, and ringo. it'd be total garbage. they'd be like some shittier british rip off of the Band

also, paul was the best vocalist in the band by a very large margin, also the best piano player which made him capable of composing a harmonic masterpiece like Because

>the Beatles without granny garbage would be bad
Makes 0 sense.

John Lennon wrote Because.

Lennon was the best vocalist; McCartney was the best singer.

so you like zero paul songs? the entire medley at the latter half of abbey road? helter skelter? get back? oh darling? paul was even better at basic rock than john. oh but psychedelic ramblings like strawberry fields were so réddit so they're """important""""

>oh but psychedelic ramblings like strawberry fields were so réddit so they're """important""""
Imagine shitting on SFF

regardless of who wrote it, mccartney was responsible for all the harmonies. he was basically the band's director. watch the let it be documentary. the beatles without paul would be the byrds

>mccartney was responsible for all the harmonies.
Not on Because. That's Lennon's. It's indeed a masterpiece.

no i actually like john's and paul's contributions, probably equally actually, but johnfags are so delusional that they refuse to admit that john has any cons to his abilities, when there are clearly many. also, he wrote imagine; the worst song ever written

>Not on Because. That's Lennon's. It's indeed a masterpiece.
Lennon was never responsible for the harmonies. He wasn't very musically inclined, in a classical sense. People hate Paul for his respect for the traditions of jazz and classical, which is understandable, but that's what made him a more intelligent musician

>john has any cons to his abilities
Why are you talking like it's a videogame?
>imagine is the worst song ever written
Kek. It's overrated, but it's far from being garbage.

>Lennon was never responsible for the harmonies.
Any source for that?
>he wasn't very musically inclined in a classical sense
He's the groundbreaking effect on Beatles' music. His main job is deconstruct music.
>people hate Paul for his respect for the traditions of jazz and classical
Where did you see that people hate him for that?
It looks like you're creating a lot of stuff out of nowhere.

>Why are you talking like it's a videogame?
weighing pros and cons is not video game terminology, but i'm a musician and i weigh the musicianship of any artist i listen to. it's clear who's responsible for what if you pay close attention. paul represents order and rules and i get why trannies like you hate that, but he'll always be regarded as the superior musician by actual musicians. john could never compose martha my dear, not in a million years. he could compose some plodding keyboard lullaby like imagine

this is the most reddit post ive ever seen. Cope

Paulsfags are always this embarrassing?

>no arguments
fuck off retards. when you grow up you'll realize you wouldn't want to listen to the beatles without john or paul in it. i don't feel obligated to take sides. i'm just honest

Answer

the beatles are a granny pop rock band lol, i don't see why'd you hate the melodic mastermind that is paul unless you're listening to the wrong band

Buttmad spammer

>melodic mastermind that is paul
lol

>granny smith apple
it all makes sense now

Attached: 59B468A5-F0EC-4027-9160-D3B55AB434DA.png (245x366, 89K)

He is the third best songwriter on the band. It's a shame that Paul had more space than George.

>Any source for that?
Well I know that Paul would figure out complex harmonies using the piano, so yeah that wasn't john, although john also clearly had an understanding of harmonies, as he implemented them on most tracks anyway
>His main job is deconstruct music.
give me an example of john "deconstructing music." that has no meaning. he just made unconventional song structures with nebulous meanings.
>Where did you see that people hate him for that?
>It looks like you're creating a lot of stuff out of nowhere.
no you people hate him and you talk about it every day, like he pushed you when you were a child or something and you can't get over it

>Well I know that Paul would figure out complex harmonies using the piano, so yeah that wasn't john
Again, do you have any source that John didn't came up with Because's harmony?
>give me an example of John "deconstructing music"
Revolution 9.
>no you people hate him and...
You didn't answer my question. Where did you see that people hate Paul for that reason?

Imagine being pleb-filtered by based granny music.

t.

Attached: B1C3EFC9-A44A-4E4F-9C80-DBA211EEB59E-6526-000005FA13B7CA0F.jpg (739x415, 25K)

>Revolution 9
Unlistenable garbage for pretentious pseuds.

Not an argument. Try again.

>Well I know that Paul would figure out complex harmonies using the piano, so yeah that wasn't john
But John also played piano. Thus it's reasonable to believe, if that is your argument, he too could figure out the parts.
>Unlistenable
What are you, a pussy?

>Again, do you have any source that John didn't came up with Because's harmony?
No I'm just assuming it based on the fact that Paul was essentially in control of the direction of the band at that point
>Revolution 9
you're one of the two people who liked that? nobody wants to listen to that. it's interesting once but it's just a bunch of chopped up shit, it's not good or listenable
>Where did you see that people hate Paul for that reason?
i extrapolated out from you hating "granny shit." paul made that shit because his style was entrenched in traditional english music. but john's shit was no less "granny" like cry baby cry or whatever the shit glass onion was

>But John also played piano. Thus it's reasonable to believe, if that is your argument, he too could figure out the parts.
yeah but every paul composition is far more complex than john's. listen to michelle and then listen to across the universe. i love across the universe but it's just basic three chord structure and such was a lot of john's instrumental writing

>No I'm just assuming it
Then your assumption is irrelevant and wrong, since on every source possible it says that John worked on the piano.
>you're one of the two people...
Not an argument. Try again.
>I extrapolated out from you hating "granny shit"
I didn't, though.

also, the granny argument is pretty fucking trite because as 4 brits in the sixties who wanted to be elvis, they are all grannies

>yeah but every paul composition is far more complex than john's.
Analyze I Am The Walrus and Good Morning Good Morning again. Then come back here.

>yeah but every paul composition is far more complex than john's
Like Get Back?
>i love across the universe but it's just basic three chord structure
I don't think you understand music

>Then your assumption is irrelevant and wrong, since on every source possible it says that John worked on the piano.
I didn't argue that John worked on piano, retard, if you could follow along for two seconds. I said I think Paul was responsible for the harmonies on Because. Now I'm admitting that I made a well thought out assumption, but prove to me instead that it was John who was responsible for those harmonies, because you said it was without any evidence.
>Not an argument. Try again.
You're an annoying faggot. You just ignored what I said about the song itself and then acted like I didn't say anything. Literally nobody listens to the Beatles for chopped up pastiches like Revolution 9 except for dishonest pseuds who desperately want to imagine they are superior for preferring something unconventional. But it isn't good and not worth hearing more than once

You should've gone with Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite. Paul was still a more consistently talented composer, though.

You're not making arguments, you're just being a contrarian. It's easy to tell that you aren't a musician. Just another fucking pseud who loves John for his spirit, as if he was any actual revolutionary instead of a sad junkie brit who wished he was Dylan

>You're an annoying faggot. You just ignored what I said about the song itself and then acted like I didn't say anything
You didn't say anything relevant, that's the point. You asked how Lennon deconstruct music, I said Revolution 9, then you proceeded to say if you like or not the song. I don't fucking care about your opinion on the song. It wasn't what we were talking about. So try again.

There's no such thing as deconstructing music. Revolution 9 isn't music. That's my opinion.

>You should've gone with Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite.
It isn't as structurally complex as those two, though.
>Paul was still a more consistently talented composer
How so?

no. i don't believe you actually care about what's true,so it's pointless continuing this

>There's no such thing as deconstructing music.
Learn music theory, you're absolutely clueless on structure decomposition, then.

>I didn't argue that John worked on piano, retard, if you could follow along for two seconds. I said I think Paul was responsible for the harmonies on Because. Now I'm admitting that I made a well thought out assumption, but prove to me instead that it was John who was responsible for those harmonies, because you said it was without any evidence.
Not that user, but there was no source to the claim that it was specifically Paul who came up with those harmonies in Because, but:
1) George Martin has said that he rarely had to guide the band's vocal harmonies, that they came up with them themselves. Since he did not specifically call out Paul (which he would have), it's reasonable to believe both John and Paul were able to do it.
2) John featured vocal harmonies on his albums, thus showing he was able to do it without Paul.
>You're not making arguments
Right, I am showing you the flaws in yours. Address them.
>It's easy to tell that you aren't a musician
I've been playing in bands longer than you've been alive. In contrast, you thought Across The Universe was just three chords, when it's at least nine chords. You are either ignorant musically, or can't count.

>I can't back up my arguments so I'll quit
Sure. Goodbye.

>>You should've gone with Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite.
>It isn't as structurally complex as those two, though.
Also, you don't even understand what a song structure is. Good Morning Good Morning is not a complex structure. The structure is the chords underlying the song, not the horns and instrumentation and that shit. Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite is far more complex. Look at the sheet music, pleb. I actually own it

>i love across the universe but it's just basic three chord structure
D Bm F#m Em7 A A7 Gm A7sus4
>Good Morning Good Morning is not a complex structure.
Look at the meter of the song.

>Right, I am showing you the flaws in yours. Address them.
Yeah I have, over and over again. You just ignore it every time I do. Because you have no point to make except to be a contrarian. You're worthless.
>In contrast, you thought Across The Universe was just three chords, when it's at least nine chords. You are either ignorant musically, or can't count.
lol you fucking dummy, i know there are more than three chords, i'm saying it's just a three chord structure behind the melodies like a generic pop tune. you can't follow along because you don't want to. if you're like this as an old man then i feel sorry for everyone who's ever been in your life. Your position is "I'm right and that's all."

Good Morning is John's most extreme attempt at craziness with meter since "She Said She Said". In spite of whatever superficial similarities exist between them, however, these two songs bear as much contrast with each other in this regard as they do comparison. In "She Said She Said" the metrical hijinks are saved for the contrasting "off" sections, whereas here in "Good Morning, Good Morning", the pranks are featured prominently in the main verse section which gives them more airplay as well more share of your attention. You might also note that the metrical shifting of the earlier song is rather passively wobbly in effect, while our current example is more aggressively agitated. It's probably his most experimental song when it comes to meter twisting.

>it's reasonable to believe both John and Paul were able to do it.
ok so you don't have evidence. gotcha.

>Learn music theory, you're absolutely clueless on structure decomposition, then.
That's not what we're discussing. There is no structure to Revolution 9. It's just random noises, not a song. You can't even follow this conversation for one second.

>There is no structure to Revolution 9. It's just random noises, not a song.
You're completely wrong on those two statements. Try to learn theory, then analyze the track, you'll perceive its musical structure.
And later try to read about the track's recording. Isn't random at all. You're plain dumb.

>Yeah I have, over and over again
Where did you address them?
>You just ignore it every time I do
I will completely acknowledge them if you show me where you did. You realize there are several ones you are taking to, and I literally stated I was a different user, right?
>lol you fucking dummy, i know there are more than three chords, i'm saying it's just a three chord structure behind the melodies like a generic pop tune. you can't follow along because you don't want to. if you're like this as an old man then i feel sorry for everyone who's ever been in your life. Your position is "I'm right and that's all."
Ad hominems huh? Anything else?
Evidence of what?
>It's just random noises, not a song.
It is absolutely a song because there are discernible lyric and melody. it is also legally a song as well.

Those fucking quads though

Attached: 5e0ed15.jpg (1440x891, 204K)

Yeah I was responding to you about a conversation I was having with a different user, then. Revolution 9 isn't a song. It's a track on an album, but there is no structure or melody. Because it's just a bunch of noises.

>meme straight from reddit

>there is no structure or melody.
You're retarded, and this is wrong.

Childhood: only liking Paul songs for the catchy melodies
Teenage years: only liking John for le sensitive revolutionary
Adulthood: understanding that John and Paul are both important to the legacy of the Beatles, and appreciating them both for their contributions

lol ok play it on an acoustic then and post it here. if it has a melody and structure then that shouldn't be a problem

>play it on an acoustic otherwise isn't music
You're retarded.
Here, read this, a musical analysis of Revolution 9. academia.edu/11789860/John_Lennons_Revolution_9_COMPLETE_
Educate yourself

>Here, read this
lol no

>I refuse to learn
Sure, that's none of my business.

>but there is no structure or melody
There is both structure and melody. Not sure why you pretended otherwise.

>I read an essay and now my mind is gravy
That's great, fag. But nobody would fucking care who the Beatles were if every song was revolution 9

ok play it on an acoustic and post it here

>I read a musical analysis of something you said it wasn't music
Ftfy.
>nobody would fucking care who the Beatles were if every song was revolution 9
I agree with this, but it's irrelevant and out of place on this discussion. We weren't talking about this.

>I read a musical analysis of something you said it wasn't music
>>My opinion is crafted by some guy who wrote an essay and now I think atonal garbage is music
Ftfy

I am not at my studio rn, sorry.

The very first thing you hear is a piano figure. That is followed by a lyric ("number 9... number 9"...) followed by a different melodic figure that is a reversed piano loop). Then an orchestral sample that is reversed and manipulated, but has a harmonic distinction.

As you can see, that is melody and a structure and a lyric as well, and that's only the first 40 seconds.

>my opinion
There's not an opinion here. Musical theory isn't an opinion, you retard. You're absolutely clueless.

youtube.com/watch?v=UxXA2_tRVi0

>and that's only the first 40 seconds.
Yes, and it'd be much more difficult to define the structure and lyrics of the rest of the 8 minutes. There are notes and there are lyrics, but I'd still give it the label of collage or pastiche or something like that. What was the genesis of this discussion? To express that John's contributions were not as focused around composition as Paul's were. But we have no reason at all to believe that Revolution 9 wasn't just as much Paul as it was John, anyway, and that goes for the rest of the music. Paul clearly had a lot to do with Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite, even if he didn't write the first draft. This band was a collaborative effort through and through, so all we can argue is that certain members had less to do with certain songs, and obviously that becomes more clear on acoustic songs with little to no instrumentation behind them. But as one user pointed out, George Martin was also making decisions in regards to the final cuts of many songs, so it's really hard to say. I'd say Paul's influence is heard all over Revolution 9, but it was probably also influenced but some focus group that sat above the influence of the actual members. Let's not forget that a massive team was behind Beatles albums, and they even worked with the British CIA, whose name eludes me at the moment.

this was very cute, but still a loose interpretation at best, and hardly reads as a song, even with the massively shortened length

>Yes, and it'd be much more difficult to define the structure and lyrics of the rest of the 8 minutes
Sure, but not impossible. I found at least three different musicians who have covered it in it's entirety. Here's two more
youtube.com/watch?v=ltp6d_BgIsY
youtube.com/watch?v=glrYaNqOPDU
And I have heard an 8bit version as well, which the musician would have to transcribe the entire piece to even do.

>What was the genesis of this discussion? To express that John's contributions were not as focused around composition as Paul's were.
I was not a part of that discussion, but that is still untrue. Paul's were generally more complex compositionally, John was still focused on composition as much as Paul was.
>But we have no reason at all to believe that Revolution 9 wasn't just as much Paul as it was John, anyway,
We actually do, as he was absolutely not involved in it's creation in any way. We have session logs that show who was at the studio, doing what, and Paul was simply not involved in Revolution 9's creation. he was off doing something else.
>so it's really hard to say. I'd say Paul's influence is heard all over Revolution 9
How so?
>Let's not forget that a massive team was behind Beatles albums, and they even worked with the British CIA, whose name eludes me at the moment.
Now you are just a fucking idiot.
Regardless, it shows that Revolution 9 can indeed be a song.

Average John Lennon score by Scaruffi: 5.83
Average Paul McCartney score by Scaruffi: 5

Lennon officially confirmed for having better music than granny tunes by 0.83 points.

Attached: 1558870647788.jpg (190x186, 6K)

>I was not a part of that discussion, but that is still untrue. Paul's were generally more complex compositionally, John was still focused on composition as much as Paul was.
Couldn't you argue that John wasn't as focused on composition as much as Paul if his compositions were generally less complex?
>>Let's not forget that a massive team was behind Beatles albums, and they even worked with the British CIA, whose name eludes me at the moment.
>Now you are just a fucking idiot.
Fuck you goddamn retarded boomer. I knew bringing up a different, potentially nefarious contributor would trigger the faggot boomer. It's still true though. "Now you're just fucking retarded" says the faggot who doesn't know what they're talking about. You don't understand shit about the music industry. Do you think John was fucking working on the production in the booth himself? No, he recorded some shitty screeching vocals and somebody else built the entire thing. "No, guy I don't want to be there was off doing something else because I say so." Sure thing, delusional boomer.

imagine thinking lennon's music wasn't granny music

>Couldn't you argue that John wasn't as focused on composition as much as Paul if his compositions were generally less complex?
Not necessarily, since 1) John did have some complex songs; 2) Paul had some simple songs and 3) a song should only be as complex as it needs to be.
>Fuck you goddamn retarded boomer. I knew bringing up a different, potentially nefarious contributor would trigger the faggot boomer. It's still true though. "Now you're just fucking retarded" says the faggot who doesn't know what they're talking about. You don't understand shit about the music industry. Do you think John was fucking working on the production in the booth himself? No, he recorded some shitty screeching vocals and somebody else built the entire thing. "No, guy I don't want to be there was off doing something else because I say so." Sure thing, delusional boomer.
Not an argument. Calm down and try again without sperging out.

>Not necessarily, since 1) John did have some complex songs; 2) Paul had some simple songs and 3) a song should only be as complex as it needs to be.
I agree, but Paul was clearly more versed in traditional classical and jazz structures or there would be no abbey road medley
>Not an argument. Calm down and try again without sperging out.
>>No way, no massively successful and culturally influential ever had any outside influence from shadow government forces! It's all authentic and real and not meant to affect culture in any way!!
This is your brain on boomer.

NOOOOOOOOOOO PURISSU DONT SHITTU ON THE BEATLESU THEY AR EBEST EVAR PLEASE NONO DONT SAY RANY MUSIC PURESUUUUUUU NO NOOOO JOHN DIDNT BEAT HIS WAIFU HE DIDNT RINGO COULD PLAY DRUMSSU PURISUUUU NOOOO SCARUFFI IS DUMBUUUU PURISSU STOPPPPPPPP

>Beatles thread is made
>posts about how the beatles suck
>people in the thread tell you why they disagree
>claims that Beatlefags are seething and hate any criticism of them
>goes on to the next thread
Rent free

Attached: Bowie-look.gif (360x280, 1.63M)

>>>No way, no massively successful and culturally influential ever had any outside influence from shadow government forces! It's all authentic and real and not meant to affect culture in any way!!
Prove it.
>but Paul was clearly more versed in traditional classical and jazz structures or there would be no abbey road medley
It was both of them equally. Why do you want this to be some sort of contest?