I don't find it impossible to think that if EMI really were so much behind the Beatles, that it's possible they just GAVE the Beatles all the good songs that came to them from all kinds of young british songmakers, credited them to the beatles, and then paid off the real writers by promising (and then following through) to help start out their own music careers later on...
Possible, though it would have entailed a lot of non-disclosure agreements from parties who have maintained strict silence over the decades, Now, there are, are there not, 3 or 4 songs from "Help!" that were buy-outs; and the title song to SPLHCB was claimed authorship (at least partial) by Mal Evans.
There is a consistent recognizable quality in a lot of Paul songs; the sweet melodies based on repetition of catchy sequences (Penny Lane, Rigby, Work It Out, PW, Blackbird, You Wont See Me, Looking Thru You, etc.), smooth and satisfying harmonic flow, well hammered lyrics, tended to live in a "diatonic", or classic harmonic idiom. Lyrics seem to come in three part narratives, set in a musical form built in well defined 'verse-climb-bridge' sections. Text and scansion often reminiscent of British music hall songs, only oddly strung into the pop-rock medium. British story teller/troubadour.
Lennon had his ace at innovating, building musical tension in rising pentatonic chord series; using repeated melody notes under a cycle of chord roots rather unconventional for pop-rock, and in lyrics, weaving fantastic puns and elusive metaphors while remaining, in his own motoric way, "catchy." Artistically caught between Buddy Holly and Bob Dylan.
I think, after a point, nobody could have written Lennon songs but Lennon; nobody could have written Macca songs but Macca. What they offered each other creatively I surmise, was less "initial inspiration" but "finishing touches."
The earlier songs seemed modeled after big hits of the day. I think from the guys having done so many hours of cover versions of Holly/Little Richard/etc type songs, they "absorbed" the style and the process to a degree where its hard to see where it's a "knock-off" to Ray Charles, for example, and where their fledling creativity began.
I tend to think they really did write most of their stuff. I think the buy-outs were an ocassional resort simply to have enought material on hand.....and I think the cases of that were few, maybe less than 10. No way to prove it; but that's my feeling about it.
Also, having seen the 1965 TV tribute, "The Music of Lennon and McCartney", and knowing musicians who toured with Mancini for nearly twenty years---and how Hank Mancini was about things-----his presence there gives me a feeling of credibilty about the Paul/John being known among upper echelon song writers as "the real deal", songwriting wise.
I saw that Theo Adorno post a while back, the idea that whoever he was, he wrote all the Beatle stuff. And, I have seen also the remarks about Illuminati persons supposedly beaming the completed songs into their heads.
No. Musical minds-the songwriter type--just work that way. Composers, for centuries, like to talk in mystic terms about the talent of song making. Read about Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms, etc.
It all boils down to a unique set of mental, aural, and idea coordinating abilities which are learned, or found, and quite easily by some.
If "they" had these powers to beam in mind control songs, they would not have picked those songs or those boys. Look at American Idol. They might have picked a Sylvie Vartan, or a Sheena Easton, or a Madonna.
But, "they" don't pick the songs or the performers. We, the audience, do.
What "they" probably really do is, sot of watch and observe the trends closely, as they develop. Then "they" create sequels, replicas, and hope for big sales and publishing. They move on quickly from band to band, from solo artist to solo artist, ever in search of harvesting the most return for product. They dont care what the lyrics and the tunes are. We do. We buy it; "they" note the sales charts.
"They" don't control the music market; "we" do (as the vast public). What "they" probably really do is work it to their advantage. For them, it's all about the return, the profits.
OK, this is the end of my post. Hopefully, that annoying frequency that's been bouncing around in my world for the last 80 days, saying :
"perplexed can you hear me? write down these notes:
Ab, Db, ----Ab, C, -----Ab, Bb, ----F, F,
Ab, Bb, Ab, Bb,
Ab, Bb, Ab, Bb;
Ab, Bb, Ab, Bb;------- low C,C.........."
will finally stop. But, I don't think it's "them". It's just Victor Young.
Adendum. I might be blind--(or deaf)--and, maybe you all are right that think that maybe they are beaming our heads everyday with Matrix like instructions. I don't know. Personally, I dont think we are really at that point-------YET.............no doubt some secret lab is working on it somewhere, but I dont know why they'd bother trying to come up with something like that, when they've already got something that does the same job real well without anybody noticing.
Television.
Addendum number 2.
If I write a song, for someone else to perform it, I must either (A) write it in musical notation, for someone else who can read musical notation, or, (B) expose that person to a clear performance of it, either live or recorded.
So, i had written "Think for Yourself", for example, since the Beatles COULD NOT READ music notation, I would need to rely on option (B).
Which further means that I would have to sit and effectively put them thru enough repeats of the song for them to memorize it. Chords they read in chord name form, like A7, Bminor, etc, but the meter and melody, and accompaniment would HAVE to be imparted to them by repeated hearing.
Since the Nagra rolls, in my mind, prove without a SHADOW of a doubt that
retention for the Fab 4 was not always thourough, or easy to attain (listen to them struggling thru correcting some simple, parallel harmonies in the chorus of that song)--then, there would have been ENDLESS hours of a mysterious person coming in a teaching them songs, OR, endless sessions with George Martin rolling a demo of same said song for the 4 Beats to hear and master.
How costly. EMI? No way.
They took the Beatles cause they had a huge public buzz going, in Europe and Germany---but, also because they could write and REMEMBER their songs themselves. I think George ultimately took them, also, because they were bright, basically well mannered (though as silly and prone to outburst of hilarity as most smart, crerative musicians are), and absolutely in love with what they were doing. There is no evidence of recording sessions or secret time clandestinedly learning Theo Adorno's songs of "evil" enchantment. It's as simple as Paul or John (rarely the other two) bringing in a proto-song, in a basic, udimentary form, to George, going thru it, recording it, and beginning to "build" a track around it with real polished, musical interest.
Listen to John's "Strawberry Fields" demo. He wrote it, and they he and George Martin worked thru developing it.
No mystery composer off to the side. No beams, no microwaves, no death rays, no telemetrics, no radionics, no tin foil hats. Just John and a guitar, and a microphone, a tattered saheet of paper with a few chord names and lyrics jotted down. Let's face it, the beginning of the Beatles songwriting career was probably on a bar napkin with lipstick on one side, ashes on the other, and some ball point poetry scribbled in between.
Well, he-he, that's how I like to work, anyway.
Is this post two long? OK I gotta go, the bandwidth police are here with another citation. I just toss 'em in a drawer with all the bar napkins. OK. OK. I'm goin' already.
