“The Beatles is not a normal story. It’s a supernatural story." Philip Norman talking to Selina Scott about his Beatles biography, “Shout” on the television show “West 54th Street” in 1987.
This channel is dedicated to the esoteric nature of the true Beatles story.
My email: supernaturalbeatles@protonmail.com
My Rumble (backup) channel: rumble.com/user/SupernaturalBeatles
My Substack blog: supernaturalbeatles.substack.com
He died on the 28th August (Sunday) 1966 according to a new book called "Forbidden Fruit", he was ritually sacrificed somewhere in Washington State, USA. Something is telling me this information is correct, as it has been decided from the Beatles Art, Video and music, words and lyrics of the final 6 albums after 1966.
@@andyfowlds5738 Yes, I know about Sharon Clemons’s book. I read it about a month ago. It flies in the face of all the ideas expressed in “Memoirs”, especially the date of Paul’s death as it is described on the drum head on the cover of Sgt Pepper. The 28th August date only makes sense if you ignore a lot of other details.
@@supernaturalbeatles Hiya, I haven't read Sharon's book yet, so no spoiler alerts! Let's a lot that makes sense in her interview she did with Mike, I don't think there can be any question of Billy's whereabouts at the time of Paul's death. (lyrics of death cab cutie)
@@andyfowlds5738 I thought she was interesting when I saw her interview with Jim Fetzer at the beginning of August. Her book was an enjoyable read, but much of it didn’t make sense to me.
Strange I subsequently found 2 versions of the video "Blue Jay Way" and wasn't there a decapitated head of Paul or something featured in the original Magical Mystery Tour film or is this what as known as today as the "Mandela Affect"???
Imagine all the songwriters who wrote all these Beatle-songs. No one has come forward and say It was me and I'm a billionaire from all the royalties of the Beatle-songs I wrote. Instead they gave all the Royalties to these guys who couldn't play or write music through Northern Songs and Harrisongs. Michael Jackson got also a fair share when he owned Northern Songs which Paul and Yoko now owns. Pretty amazing!?
@@Amundsek I guess it’s hard to come forward when you are both very unlikely to be believed by the public, but also very likely to get shot by military intelligence or similar. Mal Evans wrote a tell-all book about his time with the Beatles. He then got shot by the LAPD in highly suspicious circumstances and the only hard copy of his book - which he kept in a locked briefcase - went missing.
@@Amundsek No, you’re right. Paul didn’t. It’s hard to write songs when you’re dead! Billy was good at writing songs though, especially at the piano. Unlike Paul, Billy played the piano from the age of 3, which is why in 1967, “Paul McCartney” suddenly became a very good pianist.
If you want argue that The Beatles did not write their own songs here's a thought experiment you can try. Listen to some songs credited to John Lennon, for example. Let's say 'I'm a Loser', 'Help', Norwegian Wood' and 'In My Life'. Ask yourself the question: were these songs really the work of some anonymous hack working for a paycheque; or are they the heartfelt and deeply personal musings of a genuine artist examining his inner self and his place in the world through the medium of song? To my mind, these songs, and many more by Lennon, positively exude authenticity. This same introspective authenticity can also be found in most of Harrison's songs. For this reason I find it hard to accept that Lennon (and Harrison) are simply taking the credit for someone else's work.
@@philosophyweb That’s a terrible thought experiment, and one loaded with assumptions from the start. Firstly, professional songwriters are rarely hacks. The clue is in the word “professional”. They would be far more capable of writing good songs than untrained cover band members. Secondly, the Beatles psyop was far too important to leave anything to chance. Everything about the narrative was planned. Why do you think that society changed so much in just one decade? Did you think that was an accident? The Beatles played their role, and so did many others in the counter-culture movement. The acceptability of drug-taking, especially LSD, was one of their greatest achievements for the deep state. Lastly, you are rather jumping the gun. My video ONLY concerned itself with the songs from their first album. I didn’t say they never wrote or played on later songs, or at least had a hand in their creation.
The Beatles had played 6 years Live before this recording session. In Hamburg they did 8 hour long Live gigs 8 months straight. The recording of this Album took 17 Hours in total. You compare your friends with The Worlds greatest Band. Give me a break Girl😅
Band worked liked donkeys or slaves playing same covers over and over then magically became greatest songwriters and musicians in popular music history then when they broke up they all suddenly lost their ability. Give me a break Girl 😅
Unpopular perspective: I think the 'tortured homosexual' card is often overplayed or exaggerated. The Gay Mafia of the 60s included many record producers, agents, DJs as well as the Krays and numerous key politicians. Homosexuality was technically illegal but the law was in place largely to outlaw 'cottaging' in public toilets, there wasn't a dedicated 'anti-homosexuality' squad in the police or CPS. Furthermore, in the public schools Epstein attended, homosexual activities were rife, possibly the 'norm' regardless of whether the participants considered themselves as 'gay' or 'straight'. Brian was a privileged 'insider' and the sticky end he came to not withstanding, we shouldn't feel too sorry for him-he was decadent, a gambler and no doubt promiscuous as is the norm in gay culture. He comes across as superior, smug and possibly quite narcissistic in interviews.
I think they got there sea legs in the beginning and had help with writing but then quickly started to evolve and become much more sensitive to the great well of creativity. They are all interestingly spiritual people as they are extremely sensitive individuals. I believe they were made this way by certain means
I was born on the Wirral,never had any connection to the Beatles although I’m glad the music is associated with Liverpool! Haven’t listened to music for years now,used to go to live gigs regularly! I know now why I don’t bother subconsciously I knew something was not right! Brilliant work Kat!
Thanks for posting this! I've been looking forward to it. A few things I noticed from the book collection of all the Beatles' scores, which I purchased a few years back: first of all, I was amazed that anyone could take the time to listen to their entire discography and precisely transcribe every part to every song. Of course, if the songs were scored in the first place for studio musicians, that difficulty is removed. Next, the bass part often fills in the missing third when one of the guitars plays open 5ths. I find it hard to believe musicians who do not read or write music would intuitively play this way. Finally, and this is more from listening to the albums than from the scores, the melodies to many songs contain non-chord based notes, 2nds (or 9ths), 4ths, 6ths and 7ths. In "Hey Jude," for instance, the melody pits a sustained 4th on F against a C7 chord of C/E/G/Bb played on the piano at the same time, but there are many examples of this type of thing. Bands and autodidacts who write their own music almost always keep the melody on tones that are present in the current chord they're playing. They may use passing tones, but they will not put a half or whole note (sorry, I'm used to the American terminology) into the melody that is not part of the triad or dominant 7th. (Occasionally they may use a major 7th, but not often). Looking forward to more of these videos!
I wonder who wrote the songs on David Bowie's first album. I somehow doubt it was David Bowie. They are really whimsical and sound like they were written in the 1930s. "You watched your father plough the fields with a ram's horn, sowed it wide with peppercorn, and furrowed with a bramble thorn"
I’ve wondered about that too. Much of his early work actually flopped really badly, so he wasn’t an overnight success. I think he owed much of his appreciation and knowledge of a wide range of musical styles to his older brother, Terry. Unlike the Beatles, David Bowie could read music. He did a lot of self-study, he taught himself to write music, and was taught the saxophone by Ronnie Ross (who played on “Savoy Truffle”, so there’s a Beatles link). He also had the good sense to delegate and work with the best musicians and producers he could. They added so much to his basic ideas for his songs. David was famously a prolific reader. He used to go on tour with flight cases of 400 books, because he was terrified of coming home to find his books lost or destroyed. I suspect some of what he read turned up in his lyrics. Certainly the “cut up” technique, that he had in common with the beat poets, worked some unusual sentences into his songs. Did he have outside help? Possibly. But he was more capable of writing his own first album than the Beatles were.
Your thesis is that The Beatles could not have written the songs attributed to them because they contain musical elements too sophisticated for a group of young men with no formal training - and yet, in the first part of your video you concede that they learned a lot from the 6 covers. In fact they learned a Helluva lot from these 6 songs ! For example, Modal Phrasing, Antiphony, De Picardy 3rds, without being familiar with these terms. If they could learn all this from 6 covers, think what they could have learned from the HUNDREDS of other songs they had listened to many times over many years ! Things like Mixolydian Phrasing, syncopated rhythm and Dorian Phrasing could all be learned from the many other songs they listened to but did not actually record (although, again, they would not have been au fait with these terms). Just because they didn't record a cover of a song doesn't mean they couldn't have learned from it. So where's the problem? Another point: you claim that I Saw Her Standing There is basically a rip off of a Chuck Berry song. Does that mean that the Ghostwriters ripped off a Chuck Berry song? I thought the Ghost writers were supposed to be so good that didn't need to rip off anyone? !!
@@philosophyweb I consider that I’ve been very fair in my presentation. I’ve tried my best to ‘say what I see’, rather than to assume things, and to reflect upon my own years as both a music student and a teacher, in order to give my profession opinion. The Beatles could have learned a lot from the covers they played (although, who knows how much they actually learned?) But their original songs contain ideas not included in their covers. And even if those same ideas featured in other songs they knew, (and that’s a big if), that doesn’t mean they knew how to take those ideas and write them into a new song. I’ve been a music teacher for 24 years. My composition students sometimes need a lot of practise to take an idea that they understand in theory and actually write it into a new piece of music. The harder the concept, the more practise is required. Good composition, no matter the style, is a lot harder than it looks. As for “I Saw Her Standing There”, the bass line is almost the same as the bass line in the Chuck Berry song. This is well known actually, and not controversial. That bass line is not that difficult, and doesn’t contain that many chord changes, so it could be the result of plagiarism or simply dumb luck. The most interesting thing about that Beatles song is what is built OVER that bass line, rather than the bass line itself. As for ripping each other off. Everyone does that at every level! It even happens in classical music.
@@supernaturalbeatles I don't doubt your credentials as a music teacher and musicologist, but your thesis that The Beatles did not - or could not - write the songs credited to them is actually very flimsy -if not actually libellous! As soon as you concede that John and Paul could have learned about things like secondary harmony, antiphony etc. from just these 6 covers, you leave yourself open to the obvious point that they could have learned all the other stuff they used from other songs. The Beatles listened to many different types of songs in their formative years - more than any other group. Their influences were eclectic to say the least and their influences are undeniable. P.S. I Love You for example has a strong Buddy Holly influence. I Feel Fine and Day Tripper are based on an instrumental called Watch Your Step by Bobby Parker. The Beatles have never denied this. It does not mean that they did not write these songs.
"The more vocally challenging the song was the more takes it took". That would support what Mike Williams has argued. The instrumentals were recorded before the Beatles entered the studio. Very good analysis!
@@freethinkingdragon8074 Yes. I suspect that this is what happened, if I had to take a bet on it. Alternatively, they could have tried to record the songs as a “live in studio” performance, with studio musicians providing instrumental parts and the Beatles on vocals simultaneously. Either way, the covers took fewer takes than songs they were supposed to have written themselves, which doesn’t make sense.
You're right about the harmonica. As far as I know it was only used on the first 4 albums and then disappeared completely. I look forward to you analysing the lyrics. Keep up the good work and don't let the critics bother you.
Wow - what an incredible video Kat! Your musical knowledge is tremendous and much appreciated. I know basic theory as a guitarist but my limit is substituting a couple of b7 chords here and there. I really think your work on this first album is a smoking gun. The excuse for future album complexity is always "well, they got better and better.." Cannot do that here. There is just no way an average bar cover band is all of a sudden going to compose a group of songs that are considerably more complex than the covers they are used to doing. The songs with 12 and 15 chords? Umm No. All the unexpected substitutions, modal flavorings, key changes etc - Not John and Paul at all. The hymnal borrowings are interesting to think that this is supposedly the beginning of the attack on Christianity - is this the start of a sustained mockery of sacred music? Your comment about their falsetto was very interesting in it's attraction to the female fan base. It's like the concentration of sappy love lyrics combined with this "new" pop music sound hooked everyone in. I do think "Team 1" writers were kicked to the curb. Your insight in the vocal range of the songs and its correlation to the takes is brilliant and makes so much sense and further indicates their neither played on nor wrote these songs. Looking forward to more but this one reveals so much. Cheers!
I was a huge Beatle fan when I was a kid in the early 90s. I remember my first time seeing the Please Please Me LP in my aunt's record collection and asking who was the guy next to Ringo on the cover. He certainly didn't look like the Paul from my Let It Be and Sgt. Pepper's posters. I was so confused.
Not to pile more work on, but a general overview of the Decca audition and the Star Club recording should give a good baseline. Anyway, extremely interesting info you’ve put out here. ✌️❤️
Standard tuning on the guitar (lowest string to top string) E A D G B E The open E major triad is arguably THE rock chord. The chord is voiced E B E G# B E or 1 5 1 3 5 1. The bottom string and the top two strings are open - so the 1, 5, and 1 are ringing out. For example the open G major triad is voiced 1 3 5 1 3 1. Not as muscular. Also, playing the first three notes of the open E major gives you the tough "genre defining" E5. AKA the power chord. No third. There seems to be something philosophical in the arrangements, the choice to avoid the saxophone, a star player in rock n roll. Maybe the rock n roll cats had to consider which keys were best for the sax. Many of the cover songs were rock n roll, but the original were Rock. New. Exotic. Off the top of my head, it wasn't until the end of album six, Got to get you into my life, that brass was introduced. Anyway . . .
You're comparing apples to oranges in your first argument. Your friends all together probably didn't have half the talent of George Harrison alone. The Beatles had 3 brilliant musicians, a great drummer, and a brilliant producer. That's why they were able to record 21 minutes of music in 9 hrs 45 mins. They had played these songs hundreds of times.
That's my take also. It's like saying Rudolf Nureyev cannot have been a great dancer because he started dancing at the age of 22, and my sister started dancing at the age of seven and she never became good enough to be accepted by the Bolshoi Ballet..
@@michaelharrington75 You’re making a lot of assumptions about both the Beatles and my friends. You don’t know how well the Beatles played in a studio environment in 1963 because you weren’t there, and there’s no video footage to provide any evidence of anything. The lead guitarist of my friends’ band also became a signed artist, then a studio guitarist and songwriter, so he is much more talented than you realise. I’m not singling the Beatles out. It was common practice in the 60s and 70s, to make use of studio musicians when recording, rather than the artists on the cover of an album or single. It saved the record label a lot of time and money, and meant that they didn’t have to deal with the unknown skill levels of artists, especially if they had only just been signed to the label. Being a studio musician is very different to playing live. When you play live, the mistakes are tolerated and often masked by the noise of the crowd, on a record, they are not. The documentary, “the Wrecking Crew”, interviews the studio musicians of that time and discusses this practice. If you haven’t seen it, you really should. It’s eye opening!
@@supernaturalbeatles I know how well the Beatles played in a studio environment in 1963 because I have the records. Each of the Beatles had a particular style of playing their instruments (as does everyone else). These styles were also observable in live performances during the same period. Their performances on the Ed Sullivan show, BBC recordings, ect. That's how we know the Beatles played their own instruments on the records. There are also hundreds of outtakes of them recording those songs. I've watched the Wrecking Crew documentary. The Beatles only used studio musicians for orchestral parts, except the one time in 1962 when Andy Williams was brought in to play drums. We also have video evidence of the Beatles writing songs, and playing their own instruments on the Let it Be sessions. What we see and hear on those video recordings is that when George plays a guitar solo..., it sounds exactly like George's playing on all the previous recordings before. Because it's the same guy playing. When McCartney jumps on the piano, or grabs his bass it sounds like McCartney's piano and bass playing on the previous records. Lennon's particular style of playing guitar, and Ringo's VERY DISTINCTIVE drum playing are witnessed first hand. These guys had been playing clubs across the UK for years before ever getting their recording contract. There's also the Decca audition tape. It easy to tell those 4 guys were playing their own instruments on that tape, because it sounds exactly like each of them playing their instruments. We just don't hear Ringo's distinctive style on that tape because he wasn't there. I understand the fun in searching through the clues about how Paul was killed in 1966, and was replaced by another guy. Because I did that too when I was 9 years old. But going from having fun with that hoax to claiming the Beatles didn't write their own songs, or play their own instruments is taking things way too far. The Beatles played their own instruments, and wrote their own songs. Paul McCartney's songwriting style stayed consistent from 1963 to 1969. People have particular styles in how they write. His style hasn't changed, because he's the same guy. A person can't be replaced. Especially one of the most famous and recognizable people in the world, at the height of their fame.
So even if they weren’t technically good there is evidence they had guitar lessons courtesy of capitol. Technically there ears were amazing and any band that has played as many hours on stage as them especially with all the freedom they had early on creatively. There are plenty of records and letters to show they could pick up a cover like nothing. You really underestimate the power of of a good ear and there ability as a band to know what would fit in an arrangement. With four people checking every input it would be hard to fall short after so much time at such a young age. You severely undermine there ears for there ability to sing with intonation as they had it comes down to what they heard in there heads and intuition
I agree they had help with some things but as a classical musician I need you to under understand they were really good at not needing sheet music, you will never understand the reliance of a good ear until you put down your charts for a while. They had it
As a young guitarist in the sixties these songs gave advanced my ear training and musical development formal lessons of the day lacked! At 14 I new these were different ! That is why I find the remark made by people that call them silly love songs bemuses me! This will be a brilliant collection of videos to digest!
Is there another band people obsessed with as much as the Beatles? I mean is anyone asking ,did the kinks,the who ,the Stones write and play there own music 🎵? It's nuts how in depth it all gets. But it is interesting and strangely amusing 😊
Pretty sure the Stones were perfectly capable of coming up with all their own awful music. I think the psyops behind them was convincing millions of people across generations that their music is somehow good.
If the industry model was to use studio musicians and ghost writers, then there were no organic self-contained bands. They were also selected for marketing. It is the same today.
@@freethinkingdragon8074 The UK industry standard was that almost no performers in the pop field wrote their own songs and not only was it not expected but record companies usually rolled their eyes at the thought. Previous to the Beatles, Tommy Steele had co-written some of his songs. Marty Wilde had written a handful and Billy Fury had written some but often hidden under his real name. There really wasn't much publicity about their writing and it certainly wasn't promoted as a major part of their appeal. Most pop singers, including the most successful UK performer of them all, Cliff Richard, wrote none. The pop audience really didn't care who wrote the songs until after The Beatles' publicist (desperate to clutch at any straws to promote an unknown regional oddity) made a point of their authorship. There was no previous indication that an act writing their own pop songs was a particular selling point, so who bother with a subterfuge?
@@johnnhoj6749, That is an interesting argument. It seems that a cult has been built around the Beatles as genius musicians and song writers. If it is not true then what remains is their singing. What if you were to rate them as singers alone? I would say that they were competent singers. They were better than me in the shower. But they were not great singers. Why are they so lionized? Other singers can and have recorded better versions of their songs.
Ok first thoughts. The Beatles had been performing sets of 8 hours plus a day in Germany for many months before recording anything so they would have definitley had the stamina and capability. Secondly ... amphetamines
@@hello55125 Yes, I know. But that kind of set up leads to recordings that sound live, and are a bit wild and thrashy. Personally, I like their live recordings, but their studio albums don’t sound like that at all. In the 60s and 70s, it was common practice for use studio musicians by default when making albums and singles, because it saved the record label a lot of time and money. If you’ve never seen the documentary, “the Wrecking Crew”, where many retired studio musicians were interviewed about that practice, you really should.
@@supernaturalbeatles Wrecking Crew is GREAT. If you have difficulty finding Wrecking Crew, 'Muscle Shoals' is tremendous as well, & perhaps little more entertaining for anyone unfamiliar with the practice.....Standing in the Shadows of Motown says it ALL in the first 3min intro, & was maybe the first to peek behind the curtain...and it's MOTOWN, can't go wrong w Motown & the Funk Brothers!!! ENJOY!!
If you really have the time not to sleep, a human could interpret the cover fade-outs as a historical commentary of that kind of 'kind music' being ok where it is, but now, come on, this is not America - this is THEM BEATLES and we tell you what to think (door nearly slams) you, the voters! (a typical case of thank you for the lift, sailor)
one of the fiction-keys is attributting initiative to them - they did this, they wanted that, when it's the other way around precisely - they DID what they were TOLD to do, which is what one does in a Constitutional Monarchy. No suffragists there
I you turn music notation upside down it becomes flame hebrew . Words can be translated into music if you use mathematics correctly . Love your work. Get the countess back again sometime you two are brilliant together ❤️
wow first time hearing this and makes sense if we think of the Alistair Crowley connection re. writing backwards . Many thanks for giving me another clue.
I’m convinced that Paul didn’t die and wasn’t permanently replaced. I think Billy came in and out of the fold as necessary. I’m also convinced that Mal Evans had a huge role in helping write the songs. That’s why he was kept around.
@@unlimitedhangout5🙏🙏🙏 my reasoning is, is that a lot photos of Paul from the latter half of 1966 and beyond are clearly another person. That along with the stark stylistic shift musically during that time seems a little too convenient. But there are interviews with him in the 70’s and 80’s reminiscing about the early days that are very descriptive and detailed. Also, I feel that the scene in the Get Back/Let It Be remake where Mal is helping Paul out with lyrics on the Long And Winding Road is really telling.
Thank you so much, I'm learning piano and your explanations are to the point and succinct..so helpful..BTW you have a beautiful singing and speaking voice. I would like to hear something you have recorded.
Another epic video in the books! This angle is a HUGE undertaking, and your perspective as a classical musician is unmatched. You really touch on technicalities that No ONE else has, and i can't wait for the rest of the series. Thanks for taking the time and great effort to bring this presentation to us all, my friend!
When I saw her standing there was copied on When the saints go marching in sing the words when the saints go marching in over the words when I saw her standing there and you will see
I'm surprised that no one has a clue to this day who the song writers were. I don't think Billy had a big role before late 1966. When George Martin didn't have such a big role anymore after Bill came on the scene, the songs based on solid classical construction were not coming so quickly anymore. In the Get Back sessions, they were struggling over the writing. And Bill seemed to love Vaudeville sounding songs at the time. I think John called them grannie songs. We know George Martin who was classically trained had a significant role in arrangement, but who wrote the lyrics? That should be known by now.
It will probably never be known. There could have been many writers. There is nothing that ties the œuvre of the Beatles together. There was never a unified style.
I think Harry Nilsson had a roll in crafting their melodies and likely wrote most of Lennon's more successful solo releases. “everything influences everything, Nilsson’s my favorite group.” - Lennon in a 1968 interview. Interesting the use of the word "group" when describing a solo artist. It feels like he's dropping a hint.
Currently at 00:10:42 & LOVE to hear your thoughts on the Complete Scores LOL!!!....As if you've not already enough on your plate, thought you may find interesting to 'check my work'. Cpl yrs ago I looked in to the publisher of Memoirs (Pepper Press) & it was a subsidiary of some other, then another, and...you get it. ULTIMATELY (if I didn't fall astray off the path), I ended up at MACLEN (Lennon/McCartney's Co). Not only was Memoirs listed, but also the Complete Scores, Anthology, & very few else (maybe Lewisohn).... only the most official of official Apple releases...and Memoirs
I love how you emphasize that this is NOT a Beatles fan channel at the beginning. After I learned the real story about this group, and mainstream, commercial music in general several years back (thanks to Mike Williams mostly), it really began to irritate me how much people continue to praise and worship all the artists like idols. I still enjoy listening to a lot of music, but the crazy "fandom" part is no longer appealing at all. Looking forward to the rest of this video and your series!
I get a lot of abuse from Beatles fans, who mistake my channel for a fan channel. They are very graphic when they tell me how stupid I am, how they are going to get my channel pulled down, and how I should end my life. That’s why that disclaimer is there. Thanks for your support!
@@supernaturalbeatles Yeah. I've seen such comments... rabid doesn't begin to describe it! Putting the disclaimer there should send them on their merry way before they can get triggered :)
