Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Would you rather...

Would you rather...

  • ... go to church

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • ... listen to some sick Van Halen/Rush guitar licks all morning

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
fair but isn't it possible to enjoy the music without endorsing the lifestyle or the fact that the artists may have sold their souls for fame and fortune?

They sold their souls so people would listen to what they produce, so that audiences would be influenced. I think that their success is self-evident.

I feel the same way about rock stars as I do actors, athletes and other celebrities or famous people (especially politicians). While I would like them to realize to some they're role models and behave as such, they're not my role models.

I'm relieved to state that none of these people gain consideration from me anymore.
 
They sold their souls so people would listen to what they produce, so that audiences would be influenced. I think that their success is self-evident.

Also fair but for me personally, there's a big difference between being entertained and being influenced. I like to think that's a product of my upbringing but it could also be the fact that I don't really pay attention to or put stock in lyrics/messaging of songs. Either one could explain why I don't get the hype over the Beatles - the music's good but if writing "Imagine" is all it takes for the a big chunk of the world to think you're a genius, a big chunk of the world has a pretty low bar for that label. If it comes on the radio, I'll change the station every time but I'll almost always listen to The Devil Went Down to Georgia.
 
Last edited:
Also fair but for me personally, there's a big difference between being entertained and being influenced. I like to think that's a product of my upbringing but it could also be the fact that I don't really pay attention to or put stock in lyrics/messaging of songs. Either one could explain why I don't get the hype over the Beatles - the music's good but if writing "Imagine" is all it takes for the a big chunk of the world to think you're a genius, a big chunk of the world has a pretty low bar for that label. If it comes on the radio, I'll change the station every time but I'll almost always listen to The Devil Went Down to Georgia.

Imagine wasn?t the Beatles. Imagine was written after the Beatles were ferkacta - or it was released afterward, anyway.

People were calling John Lennon a genius - rightly or wrongly (not unlike the way he must have been high low) long before Imagine was released.

In my opinion Imagine is okay; nowhere near as good as so much of what the four created as a collaborative.
 
Imagine wasn?t the Beatles. Imagine was written after the Beatles were ferkacta - or it was released afterward, anyway.

People were calling John Lennon a genius - rightly or wrongly (not unlike the way he must have been high low) long before Imagine was released.

In my opinion Imagine is okay; nowhere near as good as so much of what the four created as a collaborative.

it's still something Lennon is remembered as a genius for - even if as I recall hearing, he said himself that it was a dumb song. I like the Beatles - I have Revolver, Rubber Soul, the White Album, Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour and i think 1 or 2 others that escape me. I just don't get the hype or the people that get into parsing all the lyrics and reading into the album artwork, and the Paul is Dead crap and who the Walrus is. I remember talking to a friend who was a huge fan and a music snob and he was trying to convince me of the genius of the Beatles and their lyrics. The lyric he chose was "happiness is a warm gun, bang, bang, shoot, shoot" but all he could say about it was "it's...it's...it's just brilliant" without being able to explain why it was so brilliant. Apparently, it's one of those things where if you don't think it's brilliant, you don't get it.
 
Last edited:
To sum up my updated beliefs on the Beatles, based on my research and their from own words.

1. They were a manufactured entity, with a contrived narrative, instituted to influence youth at a mass scale, created and managed by a company called Tavistock. Other like British bands were so contrived and placed in the public view, ala The Rolling Stones, et.al.

2. They did not compose all of their songs, or perhaps, even a fraction of them. They were written by selected ghost composers. In particular, Rubber Soul was completely composed, mixed, with complete album art and song length finalized before the Beatles came to studio to add vocals. The official narrative was that they had no usable material ready when they began work on 12 October, 1965, after grueling tours in the US and UK from June through August. Somehow, they composed, arranged, recorded, mixed, mastered, acetated, pressed, packaged, and distributed a masterful 16-song album in six weeks. On 11-4-65, only half the songs, by the official narrative, were completed. Somehow, (again) the final mix occurred on 15 November, 1965. Typically, the process of pressing, packaging, and distribution of a record in 1965 took a minimum of six weeks, and that was an aggressive deadline. Apparently, the Beatles managed this process in two weeks, as records were in British record shops by 3 December, 1965, to complete a contractual obligation. They only logical explanation is that the only missing ingredient were their vocals. And they struggled with even these.

https://youtu.be/mB84lPOOljk

Scrub to 8:00. From 0:00 to 7:59 is wasted gibberish. The YT link says they were having "fun". I disagree. I hear four young men in distress and who are clearly out of their element.

3. They were not musical "geniuses", but willing accomplices in this massive ruse. Lennon himself referred to he and his mates as "mechanics" with zero music training. It's common knowledge that they lifted material from other performers, rather unabashedly. "Come Together" "I Saw Her Standing There" "I Feel Fine" "Revolution," as a few examples.

4. There are scores of songs on which Ringo did not play drums, because he was not a very good drummer, including their initial single, Love Me Do. The replacement (who replaced Paul in 1966) also completed much of the drumming on The Beatles, as he was an accomplished and professionally trained musician.

5. Paul McCartney was replaced after the production of the Revolver LP. Whether he died, was killed, or just vanished is not known. The replacement was very likely planned years in advance, after Paul expressed his reluctance to continue the charade. The gap between the release of Revolver and Sgt. Peppers was 10 months -- the longest interval between albums to date. The details of this conclusion are way too involved for this post. Sgt. Peppers was the first album with the replacement, and the inferences that illustrate this begin with this record. But the "clues" are like the sprinkles on the top of a 1,000-layer cake. The replacement insisted on total control of the music on Sgt. Peppers.

"The whole concept was for us to pretend to be someone else so that?s why the uniforms ? it was just a way to remove ourselves from just being Beatles and not be fed up with being musicians.?

The idea worked. ?It allowed us to do crazier things than we might otherwise have done,? Paul said. ?I wasn?t me. I was this guy in this other group ? it was freeing.?​

The replacement on Howard Stern.

Get at me if you want, or do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

EDIT: George Harrison is proven to be a talented performer and songwriter, and I think that all his songs are genuine.
 
Last edited:
To sum up my updated beliefs on the Beatles, based on my research and their from own words.

1. They were a manufactured entity, with a contrived narrative, instituted to influence youth at a mass scale, created and managed by a company called Tavistock. Other like British bands were so contrived and placed in the public view, ala The Rolling Stones, et.al.

2. They did not compose all of their songs, or perhaps, even a fraction of them. They were written by selected ghost composers. In particular, Rubber Soul was completely composed, mixed, with complete album art and song length finalized before the Beatles came to studio to add vocals. The official narrative was that they had no usable material ready when they began work on 12 October, 1965, after grueling tours in the US and UK from June through August. Somehow, they composed, arranged, recorded, mixed, mastered, acetated, pressed, packaged, and distributed a masterful 16-song album in six weeks. On 11-4-65, only half the songs, by the official narrative, were completed. Somehow, (again) the final mix occurred on 15 November, 1965. Typically, the process of pressing, packaging, and distribution of a record in 1965 took a minimum of six weeks, and that was an aggressive deadline. Apparently, the Beatles managed this process in two weeks, as records were in British record shops by 3 December, 1965, to complete a contractual obligation. They only logical explanation is that the only missing ingredient were their vocals. And they struggled with even these.

https://youtu.be/mB84lPOOljk

Scrub to 8:00. From 0:00 to 7:59 is wasted gibberish. The YT link says they were having "fun". I disagree. I hear four young men in distress and who are clearly out of their element.

3. They were not musical "geniuses", but willing accomplices in this massive ruse. Lennon himself referred to he and his mates as "mechanics" with zero music training. It's common knowledge that they lifted material from other performers, rather unabashedly. "Come Together" "I Saw Her Standing There" "I Feel Fine" "Revolution," as a few examples.

4. There are scores of songs on which Ringo did not play drums, because he was not a very good drummer, including their initial single, Love Me Do. The replacement also completed much of the drumming on The Beatles, as he was an accomplished and professionally trained musician.

5. Paul McCartney was replaced after the production of the Revolver LP. Whether he died, was killed, or just vanished is not known. The replacement was very likely planned years in advance, after Paul expressed his reluctance to continue the charade. The gap between the release of Revolver and Sgt. Peppers was 10 months -- the longest interval between albums to date. The details of this conclusion are way too involved for this post. Sgt. Peppers was the first album with the replacement, and the inferences that illustrate this begin with this record. But the "clues" are like the sprinkles on the top of a 1,000-layer cake. The replacement insisted on total control of the music on Sgt. Peppers.

"The whole concept was for us to pretend to be someone else so that?s why the uniforms ? it was just a way to remove ourselves from just being Beatles and not be fed up with being musicians.?

The idea worked. ?It allowed us to do crazier things than we might otherwise have done,? Paul said. ?I wasn?t me. I was this guy in this other group ? it was freeing.?​

The replacement on Howard Stern.

Right.

There?s also all that.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4WOSnzIGNmY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-abNGP1BK4#
 
Last edited:
To sum up my updated beliefs on the Beatles, based on my research and their from own words.

1. They were a manufactured entity, with a contrived narrative, instituted to influence youth at a mass scale, created and managed by a company called Tavistock. Other like British bands were so contrived and placed in the public view, ala The Rolling Stones, et.al.

This didn't work on me - either because I wasn't around during their heyday (born in 1970) or because of my general indifference to narratives of bands and their music. I did enjoy the Rush documentary on Netflix - the most interesting aspect being the number of artists who said they were influenced by Rush. Also there was another for a Canadian metal band I'd never heard of called Anvil that was pretty entertaining - sort of a real life Spinal Tap, but not as comical.

Get at me if you want, or do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

I'll take your word for it - it all sounds pretty interesting and I admit it's sparked a bit of curiosity but not enough to do re-allocate what free time I have to it. besides, I doubt any amount of time spent will change what I think about the music, which i do enjoy listening to from time-to-time.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^^^ I'm not getting the inference ^^^^^^

It?s one of my favorite Beatles songs.

I don?t know if Paul wrote it before he was replaced or not.

The first clip is little kids singing it in Love Affair, and the next clip is Paul (again, not sure which) and John singing it together.

It?s nice.

Genius?

Meh...I of the beholder, eye guess.

I had my doubts on your theory about post 1966 Paul; but now I think you may be onto something.

This guy looks so much older.

And he just keeps getting older and older every time I see him.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: George Harrison is proven to be a talented performer and songwriter, and I think that all his songs are genuine.

Ok. As long as As My Guitar Gently Weeps is legit in your view...we're good.
 
current vote 4-3.

I don't mind Rush. They weren't as overplayed in my day maybe.

For the record, I was jamming "Working Man" and driving past that creep Joel Osteen's mega church as mass (or whatever they call it at non-denominational prosperity gospel kinda joints) was getting out when I came up with this poll idea
 
Last edited by a moderator:
current vote 4-3.

I don't mind Rush. They weren't as overplayed in my day maybe.

For the record, I was jamming "Working Man" and driving past that creep Joel Osteen's mega church as mass (or whatever they call it at non-denominational prosperity gospel kinda joints) was getting out when I came up with this poll idea

It?s definitely not Holy Mass. Anything but that. And Osteen?s charade is definitely ?denominational?. Otherwise, he would not stage it.
 
so not Holy Mass, but maybe just regular mass

With the exception of selected Lutheran and Anglican Rites, the approximately 45,000 protestant sects and non-denominational churches would never call their services a ?mass.?

Definitely not Osteen. His followers would strongly object.
 
With the exception of selected Lutheran and Anglican Rites, the approximately 45,000 protestant sects and non-denominational churches would never call their services a ?mass.?

Definitely not Osteen. His followers would strongly object.

I don't know much about his actual Church, theology or anything like that, although I despise it as much as you do.

It seems like lowest common denominator kinda stuff. Sunshine blown up the ass, while the collections cups rattle around.

His show is all over the local airwaves here, so I've unwittingly absorbed a few seconds of it here and there when the TV is on while I'm loading the dishwasher and times like that
 
I don't know much about his actual Church, theology or anything like that, although I despise it as much as you do.

It seems like lowest common denominator kinda stuff. Sunshine blown up the ass, while the collections cups rattle around.

It?s called ?Prosperity Theology?. Utterly antithetical to the Gospel.

?For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?? Mark 8:36
 
I don't know much about his actual Church, theology or anything like that, although I despise it as much as you do.

It seems like lowest common denominator kinda stuff. Sunshine blown up the ass, while the collections cups rattle around.

His show is all over the local airwaves here, so I've unwittingly absorbed a few seconds of it here and there when the TV is on while I'm loading the dishwasher and times like that

500 years ago John Calvin was coming up with ideas on Christianity/Money/Predetermination.

That was back in the televangelical days when there was only like three or four channel options, and a person had to get up off the sofa to change the channel, too.
 
500 years ago John Calvin was coming up with ideas on Christianity/Money/Predetermination.

That was back in the televangelical days when there was only like three or four channel options, and a person had to get up off the sofa to change the channel, too.

ha, when I was born, we still had a black and white TV, with no remote control.

I think my parents were anti-tv or something and tried to make it as inconvenient to watch as possible.
 
Go to church. I don't miss church for anything in this world so it is always church for me. Every other thing can wait
 
Back
Top