The Beatles
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
The Beatles were not what you think they were.
In February 1964, the western masses watched these moptop heroes perform on The Ed Sulivan Show. This was not long after President Kennedy was assassinated and America was left in a state of panic and sorrow. Then came "the four lads from liverpool" who were cheerful, witty, and made catchy songs and soon every kid, tee had pictures of these guys on their bedroom walls and would listen to their catchy tunes that blasted from every radio. What they didn't know is that they were being brainwashed on a mental, emotional, and spiritual level. Their music was carefully crafted by The Tavistock Institute in a way that would seep into the listeners psyche and train them to be slaves and group thinkers. They were basically four Justin Biebers. They were given scripts by handlers and were in fact clones.
to be continued..
>>17162789
Mental illness like schizophrenia and psychosis were provoked within the fanbase who would ignore, deny, suppress their subconscious feelings when they would look at various pictures of them over the years. On a deep level they knew that something was off - that there was much more going on behind the scenes. They even made a movie called "A Hard Days Night" that was designed to program people into thinking that they really were just four, innocent, jolly chaps from Liverpool with pretty faces. its deception. They were carefully presented to be that of Gods, causing everyday people to feel inferior and thus submit to slavery and idol worship. Their music is subtly designed to activate certain areas of the brain that would pummel the listener into a trance like state and pull them into the herd mentality. On the Ed Sulivan footage, what you are hearing are not screams of excitement. They're screams of terror. Thousands and thousands of families gathered around their TV sets on that day and were lulled into a false sense of security only to have their subconscious heavily fucked with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC0MEF6d1eU
That's good.
Where's it from?
I have always hated the beatles. Does that mean I am immune to brain washing?
>>17163461
No, it means you have shitty taste in music
>>17163461
>>17164052
>Beatles Inc. Zombie detected
You are not alone, keep up the real feel.
Anal sperm, you must have some sources anon.
>>17163461
They're smug cunts. Always prefered David Bowie
>>17164107
Good to know you judge music on the basis of the personality of the performers.
Anon is describing ALL BOYS BAND
back street boys
N sync
And a lot of other shitty bands that I don't remember and even care to
The Beatles were first and their music is actually good so no issue whit this brain wash
>>17162789
You literally have no legitement reason for believing this. I just think that you realized that the Beatles became a thing after JFK was shot and you think it was some type of conspiracy.
>>17162789
Yeah sure OP.
And the Grateful Dead were a government band created to test drugs on the masses.
Hence the song US Blues
>I'm uncle sam, that's who I am. Been hiding out, in a Rock n Roll band.
Not believing it at all. You're just silly OP.
That entire period was one giant social engineering project that never really ended. If anything, it's more pervasive now than ever. And it wasn't American alphabet agencies that instigated and guided it. The cultural revolution of the 60's was a gift from our old buddies the Soviets. Notice how Warsaw Pact countries never had their hippie/communal/peace&love phases like NATO did and are currently stamping all that shit out before it becomes widespread? That's because it was a weapon designed to destabilize American and Western European societies and it worked like a charm. Give peace a chance because all you need is love while we pump you full of Marxist antigens.
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.
>>17164508
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.
Paul died tho rite?
>>17164052
lol the irony
>>17162789
>>17162827
I mean, bands and music have never been feverishly popular. That's just impossible. I'm sure mass brainwashing is much more feasible.
>>17164107
Bowie's biggest influence was Lennon
http://www.beatlesarchive.net/david-bowie-tells-a-story-about-john-lennon.html
>“It’s impossible for me to talk about popular music without mentioning probably my greatest mentor, John Lennon. I guess he defined for me, at any rate, how one could twist and turn the fabric of pop and imbue it with elements from other artforms, often producing something extremely beautiful, very powerful and imbued with strangeness.
>>17163461
Why do you hate the Beatles?
>>17164484
>and it worked like a charm
are we living in an alternate reality where the soviet union didn't collapse?
>>17164508
>The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest
Nice pasta, but doesn't this kind of undercut the its own point?
>>17164508
i have never read such horseshit in my life on this board until those first two sentences you dense motherfucker
Beatles are alright,The Animals and Doors are both way better in my opinion
But lets face it, what you described about the Beatles could apply to any mainstream music producer, that's what music is for after all
Everything hosted by the media is a mind game that is purposefully planned to change opinions and shift power among leaders of the country
Just stop worrying about stupid bullshit like that though, you can't change it, its simply human nature for those pricks to do what benefits them the most, regardless of the strife it may cause. Normal everyday people do the same shit daily in their lives and don't give it a second thought
The Beatles might have actually been the first popular band that consisted of clones. The cloning centres have been going on since WW2 days and The Beatles were a deeply planned out scheme to mind control the youth. They probably made children write their songs for them and were mind controlled themselves. Look up Donald Marshall if you want to know all about celebrity cloning. Its all a big lie.
>>17165884
Angry 14 year old Beatles fan detected. Scaruffi speaks utter truth.
>>17165530
No.
>>17164508
Its like you only listened to the early shit. Fucking Sgt. Peppers, the White Album, Rubber Soul, Revolver and MMT are GOAT.
>disdain_for_plebs.tiff
>>17165969
Redditor detected
Their music was also full of witchcraft spells and curses. Think of all the kids who would sing along to their music without thinking about what they were letting into their minds. One of their songs is even clearly about demonic possession.
Beach Boys > Beatles
>>17165977
Sound rebuttal faggot. But m-muh Mick Jagger and muh blues riffs.
>>17165983
No. Pet Sounds is amazing, but the Beach Boys talents began and ended with Brian Wilson. Have you heard SMiLE?
>>17165977
Oh and Abbey Road is also pretty damn great.
>>17165990
I've heard a lot of Smile, even in it's fragmented state it blows anything Lennon or McCartney every recorded out of the water.
Plus, the Beach Boys continued to record solid albums throughout the 70s, and all the Beatles gave us were their shitty and forgettable solo albums.
>>17165965
>people only like them because they sold the most records
>they didn't actually sell the most records
Are you capable of putting together a coherent thought without using a copypasta?
They kept the public doped-up and naive with the whole "all you need is love, silly humans" bullshit to keep people docile, superficial, materialistic. Its simpleton bullshit.
>>17166008
The solos were vapid mostly. Tho' I do like a few of Lennons - Mother, Working Class Hero, etc.
SMiLE in its completed form is about the United States I believe. I used to get a nice Wines buzz going and fall asleep listening to the song "Windchimes."
>>17166008
>the Beach Boys continued to record solid albums throughout the 70s
Kek, get some taste
Brian Wilson was a better songwriter than Lennon or McCartney, though
>>17166024
Eh...Wilson was more orchestrally inclined than Lennon, but he was also boringly self indulgent at times.
Beatles got retardedly famous for writing some very vapid pop songs
Then instead of coasting on the fame and doing more of the same, they took the opportunity to do some weirder, fun shit.
You would have to be a pretty huge faggot to outright hate them. Or else you let popularity affect the way that you appreciate music.
>>17166021
Lots of theories about what Smile was gonna be, but I always thought of it has having two parts, a saga through American history and a saga through life.
Also, if you read up on what Wilson was into at the time, you'd see he was starting to research the occult and numerology, he even scheduled the radio debut for one of the album's single to happen on a day that he found most favorable though numerology.
Not to mention how he stated he wanted to create music people would worship to in churches and how the album was going to be a "Sympathy to God", really heavy stuff, heavy enough to drive the man completely insane.
>>17166024
You must not have listened to them, because if you seriously consider albums like Surf's Up and Sunflower to be bad, than you're the one with the taste issues pal.
>>17166052
Opps, meant Symphony, not Sympathy.
God, its just like /mu/. Some cunt ALWAYS has to drag The Beach Boys into anything to do with the stupid fucking Beatles and then its, once again, "MY BAND'S BETTER THAN YOUR BAND".
Fuck off.
>>17166075
Where was this thread going anyways?
>>17166075
back to /mu/ you go nigger
my mom doesn't understand english yet still was fan of them how come?
>>17165524
The Russians knew that they couldn't compete with American industry. They had to rely on more insidious ways to mess with us. 75% of the KGB's budget went towards espionage and psychological warfare. Here's a Soviet defector telling you in plain English exactly what they were doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
Blacks and workers unions were specifically targeted for infiltration and psychological subversion:
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_eisenhower_administration/1956_10_Communist_Party_and_the_Negro.pdf
There's much more to it, of course, but this is a pretty good starting point.
>>17166775
British style rules all.
>>17166075
Beach boys are just better tho they probably have more devil music stuff going on desu over just Beatles basic pop chords/rhythms
>>17167528
>basic pop chords/rhythms
even their early, vapid shit got a little atypical once in a while
look at the changeups in something like We Can Work it Out
TRUTH ABOUT BEATLES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2i9RvBOSZ4
>>17165931
Eric burdon
>my nigger
>>17162789
>They were basically four Justin Biebers
of course they may be were some project but comparin them to this...... fuck you op.
>>17166085
Nice try derailing the thread but it's not relevant how good or bad the Beatles music was.
The point is they were manufactured to push society on a different path. They said "We're bigger than Jesus" and were pushing the oriental mysticism fad that's taken root over the years.
And it's not the Russians behind them -- what would the KGB or GRU know about making an outrageously successful pop band for the Anglosphere? This is something like the best they could do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=729RmsV7QB8
That band was called the "soviet beatles" and it's just 'bu bu buuuu' repeated over and over.
>>17164352
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right
>>17166017
I don't think it does. Scaruffles is saying that a common argument in favor of the Beatles being the greatest/most influential band is them being the most popular. He's saying that not only is that irrelevant, it isn't even true.
>>17164352
Robert Hunter was in an MKULTRA test subject. It says this in his Wikipedia page. What do you think of that?
>>17164484
Uh no buddy most halfway decent critics can navigate the spectrum between the pop of a respective genre and the more experimental forces of the genre. These people know their history, and the Beatles discography is certainly riddled with pop, but if you're trying to tell me the beatles weren't experimental, or that they don't continue to influence music through that experimentation, then you're fucking crazy. Your entire argument/theory boils down to being contrarian for the sake of.
Fuck it, great job. You got me to reply.
>>17169200
Not surprised at all. But i highly doubt that the dead were created to test LSD on the masses.
It's probably totally true that hunter's lyrics had to do with drugs (China Cat Sunflower is a great example. It is basically a trip put into words. The Other One I would also say is an example, but it was written by Weir and inspired by Neil Cassidy. Not Hunter).
And the US blues lyric is most likely signalling that Hunter was part of MKULTRA.
>>17169310
Hunter wrote China Cat Sunflower on acid.
>>17169310
I think the Dead definitely had some weird government stuff going on, but how much I don't know for sure.
Hunter was in MK-Ultra experiments just like Ken Kesey was.
Hunter also was friends with Alan Trist, who's father worked for the Tavistock Institute. It was Trist who most heavily pushed for Hunter and Garcia to become friends.
If anything, I think the dead were a case of gov't spooks infiltrating a scene but not being in complete control of it. Or it's a case of they created something but it grew too unwieldy for CIA forces to control.
That doesn't mean I don't think they tried. If anything it would not surprise me if some other members of the band were involved in that spooky stuff, Bob Weir and Mickey Hart for example.
Bob Weir and Mickey Hart have played at Bohemian Grove numerous times in the past 10 years. They even played in the grove right after GD50 in chicago this year.
I was at GD50, and while it was great...there was one part during drums and space the first night where I was convinced that Mickey Hart was the devil and that they were ringing in a dark luciferian age.
Jerry was pure. I have no doubt that Jerry Garcia was basically a saint and a good person. His musicianship was and still is unmatched. People flocked to the dead and became deadheads because of that purity of soul that Jerry had.
Other members not so much. It's highly interesting that the dead never got seriously busted.
Also of interest is Owsley. Made so much acid only did a few years in jail. Also while high on acid he figured out how to do modern speaker arrays and completely revolutionized the entire audio side of concert industry. Also son of prominent US Senator.
>>17164145
>No issue with this brainwash
THAT'S WHAT A BRAINWASHED PERSON WOULD SAY
>>17164173
After JFK's grandfather died, JFK died and after he died, his son died. Coincidence? I think not.
>>17164508
Beat me to it
I don't dislike the Beatles, but they're the most over rated band of all time. People who haven't heard a single song by them will still argue their music is good.
>>17169182
>it isn't even true.
and yet people still think they're great, and cite them as an influence
ergo, there is no causative link
Imagine if he said:
>People only like this soup because its hot (also this soup isn't actually hot)
You'd think he was a retard
>>17169472
>and yet people still think they're great
I understand, but it's still a common argument that Beatles fans make when you press them about what makes the band so good: "The Beatles were the biggest band ever for a reason because they were the best!" The Beatles probably had the best PR of any band ever, and that's what fans really mean when they say stuff like that.
Always liked The Kinks better.
Idk if the beatles were totally a tool of soviets. I wouldn't doubt that it's part of promoting a culture of degeneracy, but I don't think that means they are promoting state sponsored communism.
If you go carrying around pictures of chairman Mao...you're never gonna make it with anyone any how...
Basically if you support Mao you won't get laid.
>>17169560
> "The Beatles were the biggest band ever for a reason because they were the best!"
What is the point of setting up stupid arguments and then shooting them down?
And I don't see how you can sit there and claim that influence isn't tied to popularity. How many Beatles fans grew up to be the contemporary musicians of today?
