Why the Beatles?


Founding member
he lost that range and tone i guess before the beatles were even done.
I don't know if he lost it so much as abandoned it. Everything changed, his songwriting went inside, so I guess his singing changed along with that self-reflection or whatever he was doing. He always blamed Twist and Shout for ruining his voice, but I think he just didn't want to do that anymore. They always wanted to do something new and not rehash, so who knows.

I always saw that as the real dividing line between Lennon and McCartney - that McCartney never went for introspection the way Lennon (and Harrison) did. That's a generalization, but Lennon would have never sang Listen to What the Man Said or Silly Love Songs or any of the cloying, tra la la lightweight commercial pop that McCartney churned out, and McCartney would have never sang...well, most of Lennon's post-Beatles songs. Just pick one at random. Ha.

But of course it was that dichotomy that made The Beatles in the first place. And it was why both of them were only occasionally great separately, while they were pretty consistently great when they worked together. But then very few songwriters are consistently great throughout their careers. Most peak when they're young.

d gray

tried to do his best but could not
Founding member
that's one of my favourite beatles/lennon songs. i'm assuming it's mostly or all lennon's.

i have no technical knowledge of music but his early songs seem very sophisticated to me, almost without him knowing what he was doing, as far as theory goes.

if that's the right way to put it. o_0o


Art should be its own hammer.
Founding member
when I want to see how different Lennon and McCartney were/are I only have to look at Lennon's song "Mother" from Plastic Ono Band. on the fade out, Lennon is screaming the word 'mother'. absolute vocal chord blow-out screaming. McCartney would never, ever do that. sometimes you have to forget that people are paying attention to you and lay shit out. McCartney always seems aware that someone is watching.

I agree. Or agreed.
i was talking specifically about the tune "ask me why".
Dowlding has this as 70% Lennon and 30% McCartney as authorship (for what that's worth). But, upon listening, it certainly does sound and feel like a Lennon composition. It's sophisticated from a 1963 R&R perspective, but not really all that complex.


Founding member
I think they could write relatively sophisticated songs because they performed so many different kinds of songs, especially when they had to play for 4 or 6 or 8 hours a night in Hamburg. Learning and arranging and performing other people's songs is how a lot of rock or pop musicians learn to write songs, and the Beatles certainly admitted to copying bits of other songs in their own songs. At least until Chuck Berry's lawyers showed up and wanted to get paid for "Come Together."


“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
Here's a guy listing to the Beatles for the 1st time and breaking it down, just off the top of his head. It still blows my mind that people go so long without actually having heard the Beatles.

I've got one of the original copies entitled The Beatles Again. It's an odd record; moving rapidly from '64 to'66 to '68 and '69. But the material is all quite good.


Founding member
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
Differing memories aside, it doesn't matter who wrote any Lennon/McCartney song, because both of their names are on all of them.
I’ll interpret that in the best light possible, as in: “stupid fucking math geeks just don’t get it.” Which is constructive as all hell, and, which I’ll decide not to take personally. A reminder: Buk bet on horses based systems, mathematical ones. He went from system to system, it’s true, but he always got his “figures together.” Call that data analysis. He wasn’t a math nerd, no, but he knew the value of, and had respect for, numbers. He didn’t bet on feel or anything else like that. Even artists needn’t always be subjective creatures.

It was agreed by both Lennon and McCartney from the very earliest days of the beatles that they’d put their names on one another’s songs. Later, it would be taken for granted that the singer of a given Lennon/McCartney song was the author of that song (“Hello Goodbye,” does come to mind as one of the few exceptions to this rule). Then, there were disputes like this, where, because of a death, what seemed to many to be implausible nonsense was allowed to perpetuate. (Sound familiar?) This data-driven, in-depth analysis of this song—by boring, non-artists, yes—makes it pretty clear that it is next to impossible for anyone other than John Lennon to have written “In My Life” based on quantifiable patterns in both Lennon and McCartney songs. This is a good thing. That you’re not even willing to consider that such an analysis might help the cause here is worrying. “Science” could help here, even if “Science” falls short of getting at deeper, artistic, human truths. Which sounds boring as fuck. Which does not prioritize your deeply felt anger. But which could also be used as a cudgel in the advancement of your cause.
That’s an oxymoron only if “close to certain” is, too. As for “complete certainty” dig into the opening chord of “A Hard Day’s Night” and how Fourier series helped to get definitive answers where other things had failed.
Ok, ok, ok. Maybe that sounded “dickish,” that last post. Fourier series help in the analysis of waves. They’re a tool in math that are useful when breaking a complicated wave into simpler waves. As for the opening chord of “A Hard Day’s Night,” Fourier series helped to show that that opening chord could not have been produced by the members of the Beatles themselves while playing their respective instruments. Fourier analysis showed that there was one note—one—that just could not have been made by the band (the note was put there by George Martin, who put it there as a puzzle-to-be-solved, an Easter egg, or whatever). There is an interesting article about this, the Beatles, etc. over in OpenCulture.

Anyway: I am excited to know that methods like these are out there and could potentially help. And I’m frustrated with the lack of consideration for said models. At least let on that they’ve been remotely considered or something.

That being said, I have not taken anything personally, and I suspect that no one here has lost any sleep over the thought—which is oddly encouraging...


Founding member
I think (one of) your problem(s) is you've been conned by headline writers who sit around communal tables in dotcom sweatshops all day thinking up headlines that the kids call "click bait." Because neither the opening chord of A Hard Day's Night, nor the authorship of In My Life were in question, let alone "mysteries" to be solved (by science or Cub Scouts or anyone else).

What actually happened was some scientists or mathematicians or Cub Scouts got together to do an exercise and then released the results of that exercise. But SCIENTISTS OR MATHEMATICIANS PERFORM EXERCISE isn't a good headline, so we get MYSTERY SOLVED! instead. From your point of view, scientists and mathematicians have solved two vexing mysteries. From mine, there were no mysteries to be solved. Get it now?

As for applying the rigorous scientific methods mentioned in the article(s) to Bukowski's posthumous work, knock yourself out. Go do it. No one here is stopping you, but you seem to be asking our permission (or is all of this just the sound of you trying to get someone else to do the work?). If you think there's some value to some kind of analysis, stop talking about it and do it.

There's no mystery surrounding Bukowski's posthumous poetry collections as far as I'm concerned, but you seem to believe that there is, so you should do something about it.
Again: I won't take any of that personally. Of course, I know what clickbait is. And it was only out of convenience that I linked to or mentioned any pages. (Here's a link to the actual abstract page--it's much drier than the clickbait, though I assume you'll treat it with the same out-of-hand dismissal that you have treated most everything else so far.)

Clickbait is not the issue, though I suppose the links might have led you to believe that. The information in the abstract might be interesting to you--just give it a second before you write it off as, let's see... "a bunch of scientists who are overreaching, who should have done enough due diligence to realize that the "mystery" they're researching isn't a mystery at all, and who should have been wise to clickbait in the first place." About right?

To you, it seems, everything has been decided. You know, even though matters might not be so clear to others. As per MJP: "From [my perspective], there were no mysteries to be solved." If we only had that privileged knowledge...

That being said, there have been serious people with serious questions who have wanted answers. As per clickbait: "Randy Bachman... [might have saved himself the trip to Abbey Road] to hear the individual tracks that make up the opening chord in the Beatles’ 'A Hard Day’s Night,'... [if he had just asked MJP about said chord.]" He--and other people with questions--could have just turned to you. But your imprimatur most likely means more to you than most anyone else.
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new posts.