These "plagerisms" are not plagerisms.

They are things like imitating a general style or song structure.

Man, if that is plagerism then blues music is all plagerised, nearly every tune!

Comparing Ballad of a Thin Man and Elenor Rigby, the book calls it a bit plagerism because, among a few other things, Dylan ends a line with a question, and the Beatles ended a line with a question.

Oh, come on...

Or that George Harrison plagerized the TV theme song from Batman as the opening lines of Taxman. Yes, now that you point it out, it's a stylistic imitation; it falls nowhere near legal plagerism, as far as I am concerned. I would never have made the connection if you didn;t point it out to me.

If this is all plgerism, what about the Axis of Four Chords in pop?

Oh, and it wasn't California Dreaming. It was Sebastian's song Daydream. That lilting style of theverse. Again, it's a style, not plagerism.

I borrowed this from T.S. Eliot, made it my own

Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn

Wouldn't know where to start on the main subject, but here's a comment that's plainly incorrect.

..."But John Sebastian, lead singer of The Lovin' Spoonful, whose song 'California Dreamin' was rehashed by McCartney in 'Good Day Sunshine' knows better...."

Cal Dreamin' was, of course, by John Phillips. And done by the 'Mamas and the Pappas'.   

The author Cruz may have lifted a comment from Wikipedia to support his conclusion.
But then crossed his 'Johns' and their songs.

A remark Paul apparently made long ago about John Sebastian's 'DayDream'.

Specifically (from Wikipedia),
--McCartney said thea he was influenced by The Lovin' Spoonful:the song's "old-timey vaudevillian feel" particularly recalls the Spoonful's hit "Daydream", to which 'Good Day Sunshine' bears some harmonic resemblance--
 

So wonder just what else author Edgar O. Cruz has confused and wrongly concluded?

Correction please.

"The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists" reads:"McCartney converted 'Good Day Sunshine' (Lennon-MCCARTNEY) from The Lovin' Spoonfuls' feel-good song, 'Daydream.' The Lovin Spoinful's leader John Sebastian commented that the wonderful thing about the Beatles was that they could copy ideas without giving a hint in the final product that they did so."

For better understanding and fairness, please base your comments after reading the book, not from its preview.

....Please base your comments after reading the book, not from its preview.

That's what was available. Perhap DMN should fix anything inaccurate in their report.

It's currently $25 on Amazon.  
Will be looking for a much cheaper copy. Will check again in a while. I can wait.

The current three glowing reviews on Amazon seemed to be ahh....very much cut from the same cloth.  
The one negative review appears to be based in reality.

Edgar, 

Certainly we'll update.  I'm pretty sure that's part of the kit from your publisher or publicist, fyi.

/paul

I'm sure the person who gave a negative comment in Amazon.com never read the entire book. What the person said as wrong about the book is exactly what the book states. So how could it be wrong?

Paul,

I checked with my publicist and found out the error was his mistake, not Digital Music News'. I think the preview is excellent. Thank you for the article.

The lads borrowed from many sources, Robert Zimmerman, Beach Boys (who did plenty of "borrowing"), Everly Brothers, Charles Holley, Chester Atkins etc.

Amazing, given the remarkably limited number of notes available, that there has been such a variety of sounds created which please our Western ears.

Mr. Cruz calls the Beatles "plagiarists" - a pejorative, loaded term from the start.

I say the Beatles were the greatest, most innovative artistic assimilators of the twentieth century.

As a professional musician, what the Beatles accomplished with the absolute minimum of musical training and keen ears beggars belief.

Mr. Cruz should study what the Beatles did right rather than trying to demoize them for what he perceives as intentional sleights.

STU, Please read the book before commenting. There's a big surprise towards the book's end about the term "extraordinary plagiarists."

Not likely, Edgar, when I could just as easily co-write a better volume on the subject with any of the other posters here - and we'd be on a more solid musical footing straight off, I can assure you.

Skip the titular invective next time if you want to sell your work to an audience who enjoys the music you're impugning.

Oh, and don't personally respond to them defensively in a public forum. It's in poor form, no pun intended.

Read the book before you even attempt to write your first sentence about the subject. You have prematurely judged it

"Read it"?

You mean buy it, don't you, Edgar?

Not bloody likely I'll be paying you for a project this thin on substance.

"A Tribute To African American Music" (???)

Excuse me,  but music has existed since for thousands of years on Earth. "African American Music" exist since how long? 50 years? 100 years? American music come from Europe and Africa. And perhaps Europe music and Africa music come from Asia. And perhaps Europe music, Africa music and Asia music come from Inuit. Like you wrote "music is never created in a vacuum". There is only one music: Human music. The rest is just $$$

european and african music (you refer to sub-sahara, not north africa) music have been well seperated for centuries. the scales and harmonies are very different, so was the purpose. Both are far from the scales used in antique music (rome and greece) .

You can denote influences between arabic/andalus music and india duue to the commerce (silk road), but I don't think  much more  connections that that can be made before the 19th century. I think Sub-saharian african music came to european ears because of the slaves "imported" from west africa.

Yes it's evident, that Sub-Saharan music  came to European ears because of the slaves imported from west Africa, but the reverse is also true. European music came to Sub-Saharan ears because of the slaves imported from west Africa. Expression "Rocking And Rolling' was used by British sailors at least as early as the 17th century. It was to describe the combined movement front and rear and on the sides the movement of a ship on the ocean. What is funny is that after black people in Usa will use this expression for describe make love. Hey guy, when you make love it's the same movement that a ship on ocean (front and rear and on the sides) (lol). But it's possible that British sailors also used this expression for say make love. After all, when they arrived in one port, they were see prostitutes.

hehe, fun facts :-)

Anything not completely original is in essence plagarism but let's not forget that: it's not what you take it's where you take it to. 

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

-- Isaac Newton

Edgar O. Cruz  wrote he used 213 Beatles song for his demonstration. But it's incoherent. The numbers of Beatles songs is approximately 185. So that means  he used songs wrote by others composers for prove that The Beatles were a extraordinary plagiarists. For example,The Beatles covered 'Rock And Roll Music' a song composed by Chuck Berry and Edgar O. Cruz used 'Rock and Roll Music' for prove that The Beatles were extraordinary plagiarists. Highly interesting (lol). I think i will to sell a book call "Chuck Berry was a extraordinary plagiarist" and i'm going to use Beethoven songs. After all, Chuck Berry wrote "Roll Over Beethoven". No? Apparently this book is a joke. Edgar O.Cruz needs money.

Read the book, LOL. It clearly states the book is based on the Beatles' officially released songs in Great Britain.

This is the last time I'm going to honor your jokes with a reply. Happy to know you are a bigger joker than I. 

Hey, don't try to confuse the facts with the law.

But seriously, people know so very little about copyright law and misappropriation (including our politicians) that discussing the law really leaves them scratching their heads.

Igor Stravinsky: "Good composers borrow, great composers steal."

First time I have heard this quote credited to Igor.

It was Leonard Bernstein who unabashedly borrowed from Stravinsky.

This is musicalogically completely illogical.  By this definition, every song written is a rip.  I am surprised you'd publish this. Ask anyone who knows music theory, there is much to admire in these tunes.

"By not exceeding the two bars" (???).Well, if i understand each Blues song is a plagiarism of another Blues song. Well, BB King is the biggest plagiarist in history.

The book in question is a self-published vanity project printed in the Philippines. Guess it was too dangerous to be handled by a reputable firm in New York or London.

You guessed wrong, HmBoy, even maliciously. The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists is printed exclusively by Amazob.com USA and Amazon.com Europe. Amazon.com is not a reputable American company? Or you are confused about your continents?

And what is wrong with the book being printed in the Philippines? Such bias is probably the reason China have take over America in manufacturing sector.

Interesting hip-hop music and rap music is largely based on sampled music, loops, altered vocals, not many chords and an up-front repetitive bass and drum sound well the Beatles "Tommorow Never Knows" recorded in 1966 well before hip-hop and rap music. I guess you can write a book on how African American stole from the Beatles.

The Beatles were leaders of the zeitgeist in popular music in the mid-1960s, so even when they weren't the first to do something, they effectively encouraged a lot of other bands to try it out. Examples include making album-oriented music (like Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band being audaciously released without singles), rock music with sitar or tambura, and rock music with a mellotron. So the list of immediate influences would be quite long. A great deal of the English prog rock bands like Genesis, Yes, The Nice, and King Crimson are good places to start brainstorming. They typically acknowledge the influence of The Beatles, and in some cases cover their songs from time to time.

I'd like to see a Cruz-compiled list of "truly original" songs to which no one could point to examples which meet his expansive definition of plagiarism. I seriously doubt such a list is possible.

No question the Beatles were thieves but the question of whether spin-of art is as valid as its progenitor is as old as the artform itself. As a musician I know that everyone steals licks and "assimilates" other things into their art. I also think that Elvis got way too much credit for being mediocre on the grounds that he wasn't a great musician or artist, as much as he was historically significant (the fact that there is no mainstream "racial crossover" in music without him is duly conceded). The beauty of this book (and hopefully the purpose of it as well) is that it encourages an auspicious and objective analysis of music and its place in the artform's progression. Frankly, The Beatles as a band (a group of musicians judged on their musicality) weren't fit to sit in the same room as the Funk Brothers or occupy the same stage as J5, but as artists (individuals that utilize the art form of music to express and/or advance ideas) they are as important as anything before or surrounding them. I understand that people love the Beatles and that love fuels the laud and legend, but for the sake of music itself it's high time that that the Beatles are credited for what they actually did: advance the sibling arts of songwriting and music production (not virtuosity... or even proficiency in the styles they so admired). The perpetually sideways posture of race relations has made this discussion almost completely ineffable up until now and I for one am glad that someone has broached it. I repeatedly made this point during my time as a student at Berklee and while every learned musician there conceded the point, it was taboo to discuss in any meaningful fashion. Many musicans on both sides of the color divide have sham in their legacy. For example: I love Marvin Gaye but the fact that he needed Leon Ware and T-Boy Ross is still a reality. To get back to the blues idiom, Eric Clapton and Stevie Ray Vaughn are and were killing guitarists but when it came to the Blues neither of them are on the same planet as Son House, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, or Albert (B.B.) King. Conversely, neither Son House, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, nor Albert (B.B.) King were as stylistically versatile, technically proficient, or theoretically sound as say a Joe Messina (who, mind you, had more soul than a sock with a hole!). Do these truths make any of these artists less great? I don't know but it sure does go a long way in contextualizing and clarifying things for future generations of artists looking to learn their craft efficiently. When we do a better job being of accurate about and respecting what various people did I think we'll be that much closer to a musical environment (and possibly world) we all would approve of. 

You are off-topic. This book talk about musical composition. So, i don't understand why you quote Jackson5. It was just a vocal band. 

You are wrong, LOL.  The book is about pop culture, not musical composition alone. Read the book!

A Book about Pop Culture? So you must know the origin of the term "rock 'n' roll" .

In fact "Maybellene" song of Chuck Berry is a plagiarism adapted from the traditional fiddle tune "Ida Red" . We can find this information in your book?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFef08YZ6qk

read the book or BUY$$$ the book (lol)

Everone has influences but maybe read this comment from Bob Dylan and do a little more research IMO.

Beatles have once been known for their notorious chords and chord progression. Robert Zimmerman, a musician who was influenced and later influenced The Beatles once said: “Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid...I knew they were pointing the direction of where music had to go."

Someone mentioned the Funk Brothers and the Jackson Five and I love both acts but here is some cold facts to digest but Post Rubber Soul the Funk Brothers who were just a backing group did nothing as complicated as the Beatles. The Jackson Five were just a vocal group be it a great vocal group but the Beatles were brilliant vocalists. Listen to the Beatles harmonizing on "Because".

I would say the Beatles were much more influential than Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson if we include how pop/rock musicians in terms of songwriting, record production, how albums are digested and programmed. Heck even music videos were more influenced by the Beatles than Elvis or Michael Jackson as they were one of the first to use it as forum in music.

Alan W. Pollack is a musicologist. He is best known for having musically analysed every Beatles song released. He started the task in 1989 and finished in 2000, with 187 original songs and 25 cover songs. The analyses have come to be known as the "Notes on..." Series, as each is entitled "Notes on Love Me Do", "Notes on Help!" and so on. The notes were released weekly, usually on Wednesdays, on the rec.music.beatles usenet group.

http://www.learningmusician.com/features/0207/AlanPollack/

Pollack holds a B.A. in Music from Brooklyn College and both an M.A. and PhD from University of Pennsylvania in Music Theory and Composition. He was an instructor of music theory and composition at Yale University from 1975 - 1977. Since 1979 he has pursued a career in software engineering.

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml

Extract :

"The band itself had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing."
(Nick Stone born in Wiesbaden, Germany is currently an independent scholar and musician)

 Ger Tillekens , Born In 1949 Studied Sociology At Leiden University, And Is Now
Working At Groningen University In The Netherlands :

"In the Beatles' songs we find more than just the occasional trick chord of rock 'n' roll and rhythm and blues.(But) It's not the chords themselves, but the chord sequences that are at the core of the sound of the Beatles. Every typical Beatles' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression. Often there are more and sometimes the chord sequences even come close to endangering the songs' musical comprehensibility. There is, however, some kind of harmonic structure beneath these remarkable chord progressions, preventing this to happen. The Beatles always seemed to enjoy importing some unusual notes into their melodies. These special notes clearly are related to their harmonies. Many Beatles' experts have pointed at these chord sequences as the key to the group's musical innovations. Often the successful harmonic ventures of the Beatles are treated as isolated feats and features which can be traced back to their European roots.

As Kramarz (1983) observes, "the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves"

 Like wrote Nick Stone, "Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking"

Yea and I'm sure all those great lyrics were lifted as well...LOL  What a crock of s---

Read the book. Avoid the Americanism about a foul matter hitting the fan.

From the Amazon description:

Based on the recollections of the Beatles and the group?s constant insiders, past & present musicologists and pop culture historians, authoritative sources such as Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, Rolling Stone, NME, Playboy, and the author?s own unique probing on the subject, here's the Beatles naked!

...uhmm, OK.

Where are this author's credentials? Amazon? Nope. This article? Nope. This thread even? Nope.

Well I guess it was worth it for DMN for the hits right?

I really don't think this should be taken seriously.

Let's move on. Nothing to see here.

This is a fantastically gross over simplification in order to sell books to a generation that is not familiar with the Beatles, especially the later works.  

The term 'Rocking And Rolling' was originally used by sailors at least as early as the 17th century to describe the combined movement 'forward and back' and 'on the sides', the movement of a ship on the ocean.

The hymn "Rocked In The Cradle Of The Deep" written in 1830 by Emma Willard on a melody by Joseph Philip Knight, has been recorded several times, eg by Original Bison City Quartet in 1894

Emma Willard http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2002/51/1106_1014292110.jpg

http://nla.gov.au/nla.mus-an7375565-s1-v.jpg

The first known recording of the phrase "Rocking And Rolling 'was in 1904 by The Haydn Quartet

http://victor.library.ucsb.edu/photos/haydn_quartet.jpg

We can already hear expression "Rocking And Rolling ' on this old recording

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPbcKW7gok0

Haydn Quartet recorded another version in 1916

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp1qU-_qPok

Does Mr. Cruz indicate which African song Lennon stole "Help" from? 

Nice thread.

BigBoy99, The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists never states that John Lennon "stole" 'Help!' from an "African song." You probaly mean African-American song as the book never states the Beatles copied from an African song. What are you asking now please?

Lost in translation...

Your marketing approach has overshadowed any possible point you are trying to make about the Beatle's music. 

There is no "two bar rule" for copyright infringement, that's pretty much a myth...it's usually far more complicated than that.

Visitor, read the book. The discussion of the Beatles plagiarism style as stated therein is complicated. Your comments are based on the preview, a rather naive way of doing it for the intelligent person you are projecting yourself.

Additional comments from Edgar O. Cruz and his Amazon reviewers. With their pics.

http://www.todoentertainment.com/the_beatles__extraordinary_plagiarists_by_edgar_o__cruz_l_author_ws91240.wsbl#!idb=15992166&idpnl=&pg1=0&arch=

Try this one.

http://www.todoentertainment.com/the_beatles__extraordinary_plagiarists_by_edgar_o__cruz_l_author_ws91240.wsbl#!idb=15992166&idpnl=&pg1=0&arch=

Ok, it's long.

Put all together.

http://www.todoentertainment.com/the_beatles__extraordinary_plagiarists _by_edgar_o__cruz_l_author_ws91240.wsbl?wsajx=1&idb=15992166&idpnl=&pg1=0&arch=

Visitor, thanks for promoting the website, www.todoentertainment.com.

You may also want to google the full-page article entitled "Beatles: Are they or are they not?" published by the broadsheet The Daily Tribune dated August 15, 2012.

BTW, the book reviewers of my book in Amazon.com are my high school classmates who are now in medical, law, engineering and Information Techlnology practice in different US states. They volunteered to take their photos with my book to show they bought and had read it. They know what they are talking about unlike many comments here which were based on the book's preview which is a simplification of its content.

Expect more such photos,

The Beatles certainly didn't commit any sins that John Sebastian never committed, nevermind Elvis or any of the black artists that provided the blueprints for rock & roll (anyone with a cursory knowledge of the blues should find this kind of scrutiny absurd). Without this type of "inspired" songwriting, there would be no narrative throughout the history of music. And Lennon & McCartney were never afraid to discuss their influences.

In spite of all that, it's always interesting how the scrutiny stops with the Beatles, & never extends to their influences.

Perhaps the world is indebted to eccentrics, on the whole, but what would possess someone to pursue something so trivial is beyond me. I can only imagine that the topic would appeal to the most contrary of music fans.

JW,  read the book before making another comment. You, like many commenters here, are making big errors in judgment.

If my understanding of the book's premise is wrong, please correct me. No one ought to be able to defend the book better than you, right?

Perhaps you've made some errors in judgment in terms of your packaging & marketing, because my understanding doesn't appear to be a one-off. Why do you refuse to defend your premise? This may come as a surprise, but no one is obligated to read your book; the burden is on you. And your arrogant dismissals are pretty off putting. They say you catch more flies with honey.

If there's some kind of plot twist & you'd really like for me to read it, e-mail me a copy & point me to the page where it becomes something other than a tedius witch hunt, & I'll be glad to read. Or you could just go ahead & explain what I've misunderstood.

Otherwise, there's no shortage of legitimate Beatles literature out there to read.

Above read Alan W. Pollack, he's competent. He is  a musicologist.

And he is not a thief. You can read it without paying.

About music, only the opinion of the musicians is important because it is the only one left in history.

Veteran pianist-composer-arranger John Beasley gained invaluable bandstand experience on the road with such revered jazz elders as Freddie Hubbard and Miles Davis while also recording with the likes of Chick Corea, Hubert Laws, and Dianne Reeves along with serving as musical director for Queen Latifah and Steely Dan. He said about The Beatles:

"When I heard 'Revolution,''A Long and Winding Road,' and 'Let it Be' I realized THEY WERE THE FIRST EXAMPLES OF POP-FUSION MUSIC. The Beatles fused melodicism and harmony with the spirit of rock and roll. I was writing songs at an early age, so I incorporated this 'fusion' in my compositions. They paved the way for experimentation in the studio-whether it's Lennon doing a vocal track lying on the floor to create a
different sound, they just let it be. When I'm in the studio, I keep that spirit of experimentation. Whatever goes! I see their body of work mirror the arc of great jazz musicians. Their music changed from song to song and record to record. The Fab Four has inspired me to keep high standards of creativity with every project that I undertake."

Jack Wilkins Guitarist has been a part of the international jazz scene for more than four decades. His flawless technique and imaginative chordal approach have inspired collaborations with Chet Baker, Sarah Vaughan, Bob Brookmeyer, Buddy Rich and many others. He said about The Beatles:

" With Sgt. Pepper's, everything changed about The Beatles. I was amazed how they had grown as a band
and individually. The musicianship and compositions were stunning. They had elements of all types of music which made me think they were truly a 'FUSION' band."

Steve Khan : In a special issue of Japan's "JAZZ LIFE" magazine, they selected the 22 All-Time Greatest Jazz Guitarists. Of course, legends like Charlie Christian, Django Reinhardt, Wes Montgomery, Kenny Burrell, and Jim Hall were included alongside more recent giants George Benson, Pat Martino, Larry Coryell,
and John McLaughlin. But right there amongst contemporaries John Abercrombie, Pat Metheny, John
Scofield, Mike Stern and Bill Frisell was Steve Khan! Testament to a large body of work which now spans more than 30 years. Hard to believe this dream began at a rather late age with Wes Montgomery held as the model to which to aspire). He said about The Beatles:

" Of course, The Beatles, in their way, opened the doors to breaking down the rigid boundaries that then existed between all forms of popular music, and, even at the time,'WORLD MUSIC'."

Clay Ross Brooklyn based guitarist and composeris carving a unique niche for himself on the international music scene. He said about The Beatles:

"I was discovering The Beatles in college around the time I first heard Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and many 'jazz' artists
for the first time. I was amazed at how they could use influences of ragtime on something like 'When I'm 64,' WORLD MUSIC' influences from India on 'Within You, Without You,' then do something totally avant-garde like 'No. 9,' and have it all work. The Beatles taught me that being a great artist, jazz or otherwise, has more to do with concept than technique."

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=34064#.UDTBmqAm8dU

innagadda da vida- drum break at the end of abbey road

Mr. Cruz, you are misrepresenting yourself. Here is the publication info for your book, as it appears on the Amazon U.S. Web site:

<Publisher: Exom Publishing House (July 31, 2012)>
And here's a Google link to information about your publisher:

http://www.philippinecompanies.com/companyprofile/250186/exom-publishing-house

Why lie, sir, when the information is a mouse click away?

Sorry to learn you couldn't find a reputable publisher for your nonsense. You should thank Digital Music News for inexplicably lending credence to this weak excuse for musicology. Now go away.

And what's your point? The book was written in the Philippines and published there. But for US/Europe distribution, the work is PRINTED by Amazon. The author did not say it was published by nor did he say his publisher is Amazon. Of course you could query Amazon if you so desire.

Bad Artists copy; great Artists steal! Picasso

There are only 12 notes and you ain't coming up with 13! Wille Mitchell and dozens of other genius producers.

Be true to yourself, be true to your art form and if all else fails, plagerize Bob Dylan. Charley Burch

Paul,

Why are you giving space to a vanity press title 'published' by Amazon.com?  Further proof that Digital Music News is more interested in attracting advertisers and commenters through sensationalism than in actually practicing quality music journalism.

That the author himself appears to be duking it out with commenters says to me that he's an amateur.

Not sure I'm following?  There's a link to Amazon, where you can purchase the book if you'd like, though I'm sure there are other ways to buy the title as well.  It is not published by Amazon.

On the other point, the title is actually what attracted me to this in the first place.  It dives into a very controversial aspect of popular music history, namely theft from African-American musicians.  I'm not sure I agree completely will all the accusations, and perhaps Cruz juiced up the title a bit, though it is widely acknowledged that singers like Elvis Presley represented a 'friendly face' for white audiences.  And yes, a lot of material was flat-out stolen from Black authors, along with their money.  

I'll say this: without the African-American influence, music would probably be impressively boring today.  

So, I applaud Edgar for taking on a topic that challenges hagiography to some extent, and I'm doubly impressed that he's willing to duke it out in our comments section. 

/paul

Paul: Author Cruz wrote the following to me yesterday, when I noted that his book is a vanity project published in the Philippines, as a glance at the Amazon US page will prove:

<You guessed wrong, HmBoy, even maliciously. The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists is printed exclusively by Amazob.com USA and Amazon.com Europe. Amazon.com is not a reputable American company? Or you are confused about your continents?>

Why you're lending credibility to this writer, whose revelations RE rock borrowings from black music date back to the 50s, is beyond me. And the guy is prone to combat -- he's personally disputed nearly everyone who has seen fit to critique his enterprise.

"he's personally disputed nearly everyone who has seen fit to critique his enterprise."

Almost all except for my earlier comment:

"Where are this author's credentials? Amazon? Nope. This article? Nope. This thread even? Nope."

Anybody can write anything about any subject and get it published without editorial review in this self-publishing world. That does not make it legitimate or worthwhile. The fact that you (as editor of this digital publication) chose to publish this post without easily searchable and obviously dubious author credentials is troubling and hints at sensationalism. That's what a few of us commentors are trying to bring to light.

Who in the world doesn't understand the relationship between early English invasion rock/pop and the music of Black America???

Give me a break.

"Twist and Shout" was originally recorded by the Top Notes and later covered by The Isley Brothers and then recorded by the Beatles! What a revelation! This is groundbreaking! I think I'll write a book!

And what's your's? A big mouth and a bloated ego know-it-all ain't gonna cut it!

Hi Edgar,

It's time to move on now. Nothing to see here.

Awesome!

Revisionnism. 'Twist and shout' is a plagiarism of 'La Bamba' by Ritchie Valens.

"Theft" is a pretty loaded term, Paul. Led Zeppelin committed theft... if this article were about them, I'm sure it would've been received differently because there's an actual story there. And that's not about race, Jimmy Page is a jerk who's screwed over white musicians just the same.

Elvis, in my eyes, was doing the same thing that Ray Charles was at the time... just because Elvis was white, it's controversial? There's a clear "affirmative action" bias here. I mean Green Day represented a friendly face of punk rock, & I'm sure were heavily influenced by a lot of SoCal punk bands that never got any recognition or royalties. Is that controversial? Green Day certainly didn't invent what they were doing.

I just think there's a much more objective approach, & I don't think the Beatles are the band to use to make the point.

Being a musician for over 50 years...the so called ...using other peoples melodies and chords has always been around... mostly unintentionally. Many songs are changed by the timing and beat to create a new song.

Could name a dozen well known songs that with a little tweeting is new material.

Cipher, the book qoutes Lennon saying something similar as you have pointed out. It goes to the extent of giving all sides about the issue of plagiarism.

I've decided to stop reading and remarking about the comments to my book, "The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists.".

Most of them are T H R A S H. Using assumed names and with dubious credentials, the comments are mostly based on the preview which is just an overlook of the book's complex exposition of subject AND not based on a full or even partial reading.

Who cares for your outright illogic and bias then?  

To those who have contributed to the objective discussion about musical plagiarism and to Digital Music News especially to Paul Resnikoff, THANK YOU!

Gee, Paul, full marks for promoting Edgar to the tail gunner position here on DMN, left vacant by Jeff Price.

We can only hope Edgar will come back for seconds by writing a weekly post that always manages to reference his unique (among millions of others) book on Amazon.   We need more experts like him.

He (with pseudonym), or someone like him will always be around.

The formula is pretty simple, write a book with the name of an extremely popular pop figure in the title and include something that is hard if not impossible to disprove then get free publicity then cash out never to be seen again. e.g.

"I had a ten year affair with Marilyn Monroe" or

"I sold drugs to Elvis" or

"Jim Morrison is alive in basement"

Love The Beatles, love the subject matter of pop culture origins and race relations, but not a fan of the titular ploy to sell books. "Plagiarist" is too heavy-handed a term to attempt to creatively redefine for literary argument. You're just trying to irritate Beatles' fans and hope that it translates to curiosity. I, for one, don't think it will, as it comes off as cheap rather than clever.

We share the same enthusiasm for the Beatles but I am open to other people's take on the Beatles legacy. Whether I get convinced or not is entirely up to me and no one else's. As one of Edgar's reviewer wrote, the book is going to "unsettle" many because they will see it as an affront to their long held view about the Beatles' work. That is very obvious here on this thread. Very insular views, I would say. At the end of the day, no one is asking anyone to change their minds. Each to his own conclusion!

....Plagiarist" is too heavy-handed...

Indeed.

Instead of 'Extraodinary Plagiarists', what if the title was 'Extraordinaly Assimilators'?
Who couldn't live with that?

Maybe a calmer view from the start.  Attention to the content.

The steak, not the sizzle.

The hard copy of my book, "The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists," from Amazon.com USA with the mark "Printed in the USA Charleston SC 03 August 2012" arrived in Manila, Philippines this morning.

It was supposed to be delivered on September 10, 2012 but iarrived on August 23, 2012, 19 days earlier.

I'm proud that my book is printed in the USA unlike many new books on the Beatles and many other items sold in the American mainland and purchased by Americans which are made in China.

I'm happy to be dealing with a prestigious American company!

Wait, so, if the Beatles plagiarized, then what about the rest of white blues and rock-n-roll musicians?

"Maybellene" is a song recorded by Chuck Berry, adapted from the traditional fiddle tune "Ida Red" that tells the story of a hot rod race and a broken romance.

According to Berry, his favorite song to sing at integrated clubs (“salt and pepper clubs”, as he called them) was the traditional country song "Ida Red", an uptempo dance number made popular by Bob Wills & The Texas Playboys with their 1938 recording. With encouragement from Muddy Waters, Berry in 1955 brought to Chess Records a tape of his cover of Bob Wills' version of the tune which he had renamed “Ida May” and a blues song he wrote “Wee Wee Hours”, which he stated was inspired by Joe Turner’s “Wee Baby Blue”. To Berry’s surprise, Leonard Chess showed little interest in the blues material but was enthusiastic about the commercial possibilities in a “hillbilly song sung by a black man”. Chess wanted a bigger beat for the song and added a bass and maracas player to the trio at the recording session. He also felt the titles “Ida Red” and “Ida May” were “too rural”. Spotting a mascara box on the floor of the studio, according to Berry’s partner Johnnie Johnson, Chess said, “Well, hell, let’s name the damn thing Maybellene” altering the spelling to avoid a suit by the cosmetic company. The lyrics were rewritten at the direction of Chess as well. “The kids wanted the big beat, cars, and young love,” Chess recalled. “It was the trend and we jumped on it.” It has been claimed that taking old recordings and modifying them, by changing the instrumentals and the lyrics was a common practice in the 1950s. With these changes the original songs were often not detectable particularly if the melody was slightly modified. This practice took place because copyright laws on older recordings were rarely enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybellene

"The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists" traces the roots of the Beatles to the White Negroes -- among them Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry. "Maybellene" was an early template for Lennon-McCartney.

About The Beatles their first musical influences comes from Ireland. (their families were immigrants from Ireland). Irish influence is obviously omnipresent in their music and lyrics. Music and Irish songs already existed several centuries before American music. In fact, Irish music already existed 6th century BC.  

Ok, Leonard Chess and Chuck Berry stole the traditional Country song "Ida Red", but you can be sure that "Ida Red" comes from another song, influenced by another song. And perhaps it's a plagiarim (intentionally or unintentionally)  

(I don't know who is this Cruz,  but his comments showed that he was incompetent to talk about music, incompetent to talk about the history of music, and it seems awfully racist)

Beatles as plagiarists: meh. Them & every other artist in history, and they generally cited & praised their influences.

Here is a proof that Edgar O. Cruz is incompetent or a crook.

If I want to sale a book, for example: "Justin Bieber : Extraordinary Plagiarists", and if i use song "Maybellene" for proving that Justin Bieber is a extraordinary plagiarist, people who buy  tabloids will be interested with my book. Do not forget that the people who buy tabloids love the sensational.

But obviously intelligent people, quickly they will realize that I am  incompetent or a crook. Indeed, they will quickly realize that song "Maybellene" has not been written by Justin Bieber. So, it's morally and legally impossible to say that Justin Bieber is a extraordinary plagiarist by using a song he has never written. (Officially, "Maybellene" is a song written by Chuck Berry)

If I want to sale a book, for example: "Chuck Berry  Extraordinary Plagiarists", and if i use song "Mistletoe", people who buy tabloids will be interested with my book. But obviously intelligent people will quickly realize that I am incompetent or a crook. Indeed, they will quickly realize that song "Mistletoe" has not been written by Chuck Berry. ("Mistletoe" is a song written by Justin Bieber, Adam Messinger and Nasri)

So, If I want to sale a book, for example: "The Beatles : Extraordinary Plagiarists" I must use their songs.

This is the only way, musically and morally. If I want to sale a book, for example: "The Beatles :Extraordinary Plagiarists" I can't use songs written by Justin Bieber or Chuck Berry.

So, I must analyze their songs. Hundred eighty seven songs. 187 songs. Officially songs released in Great Britain. Their official discography.

Edgar O.Cruz wrote he analyzed 213 songs. This figure corresponds to 187 Beatles songs but also 24 or 25 covers . A serious guy, a competent guy, for example a musicologist will never write a book entitled "The Beatles : extraordinary plagiarists" by analysing 24 or 25 covers which didn't write by The Beatles. This is nonsense.

When i talked about this nonsense with Edgar O. Cruz, he replied with great seriousness:"Read the book, LOL. It clearly states the book is based on the Beatles' officially released songs in Great Britain"(see above)

Incredible, apparently he does not know the definition of plagiarism.

 Who is this Edgar O. Cruz? Perhaps a clown who worked for the benefit of Mr. Kite!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix2HPSQcvHk

I finished going over the hard copy of "The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists" as printed through Amazon.com USA. It exceeded my expectations!

THANKS TO A PRESTIGIOUS AMERICAN COMPANY!

For oversimplifying the content of my book "The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists" without the benefit of full or even partial reading resulting to gross misinterpretations, foul matter will hit the fan when I denote the source of the term "Extraordinary Plagiarists!"