Some guy REALLY doesn't like the Beatles...

REALLY? And is that all you have to say or are now doing your own research?

REALLY? Is that all you have to say or are you doing your own research? The book is nothing more than an exposition of what the author believes the Beatles did - nothing more, nothing less. And if you don't agree, then you dont! It is as simple as that.

First of all, settle down. It wasn't a nasty attack, it was just a comment lifted from Twitter. Had I known it landed here, I would have expanded on it.

Second of all, it's sort of like writing a shocking expose. It's kind of pointless and aimed to frustrate and get a rise out of fans. Me, I couldn't care less if he liked or hated the Beatles. It just sounded like he was going out of his way to prove that they're not as great as everyone claims to be. My first thought was that he didn't like them at all to the point that he's proving they're flat-out plagiarists. Expanding on that, I'm thinking he doesn't quite understand how popular music works.

Really, they're not plagiarists. They're borrowers, and they've admitted to doing so even before they got famous. They were huge fans of blues, Elvis, soul, and country. In postwar England, they were suddenly able to purchase all these 45s that were coming from the States, and learned how to play their instruments and write songs by listening to these singles. So of course their songs are going to be similar. It's also why they were so big in the States as well--they were covering songs that people in the US already knew, and were writing songs that were very similar in style to those covers. If anything, their ace in the hole was that they loved to cover or be influenced by the single's b-sides rather than the hit, because it was often more creative and interesting.

And more to the point, pretty much EVERY musician from Bill Haley & His Comets to Lady Gaga has done that at one point or another.

Ultimately, I'm not shaming the writer or dissing the book...I just think it's misguided.

Thank you joncwriter for your clarification. Your point is well taken. Just like you have your thoughts and opinion on the matter, so does the author. It would be foolish to expect that everyone would agree on his premise and one could disagree without being mean and disrespectful in doing so. Tahnk you for being candid...

If you expand the definition of plagiarism to include "similar" works, then yes there is plagiarism.

However, that is not the definition as I understand it.

Also, "The Beatles: Extrordinary Similarities to Pre-Existing Songs That Were Themselves Similar to Other Pre-Existing Songs" is not as sensationalist a title and wouldn't get as much free publicity and sell as many books.

WOW - you have a ready-made title and all! When do we see it published? Oh, I forgot - one has to do research first to support the argument and then be ready for the attacks and the nonsense many commenters will post who by the way, are probably too cheap to buy the book yet find or shall I say pretend that they are  authoritative sources to utter criticisms.

I did not say you are one of them, did I?

Myles, Reading is a skill I can't teach you and other commenters. Learn to read first!

"Two bars threshhold"sic..?

If you are referring to copyright law, please keep in mind there is no "two bar" rule and copyright doesn't protect ideas, only the expression of those ideas.  If The Beatles lifted ideas for songs and sound recordings there is nothing to base a claim of copyright infringement on.

I won't go that far about infringement laws, etc. Simply because something has not been adjudicated in court does not mean it has/has not happened.

And if it did go to court, the court has to issue its ruling.

"Iura novit Curia"

Galo, I am not saying it didn't happen, only that to my knowledge there is no "two bar" rule.  Please explain where the "two bar rule" came from if did not come from a court of law deciding an infringement claim.

I believe every jurisdiction has well estblished methods of determining copyright infringement.  Please cite the case(s) where a court has used the "two bar" rule

Thanks, I look forward to your response.

This is desperately feeble stuff - especially if these are the best examples Cruz can find!

OK, two people write songs with 'Yesterday' as the key word in the lyrics.  Surprise, surprise, they will have other words ending in '-ay'!  And why attribute the influence to the Nat King Cole song, when it could equally be the Billie Holiday song 'Yesterdays' (I forget who wrote that one)?  

As for  'Yesterday' and 'Georgia on my Mind', the only similarity I can see is that both songs have chords progressions starting with I-III, which is unconventional.  This might be a real borrowing, conscious or unconscious, but it might also be mere coincidence.  Apart from this similarity the music does not have much in common.

I could go through the other examples but it isn't really worth the time and effort.  But let's just mention the James Taylor case.  Yes, George Harrison's song 'Something' uses the first line of a James Taylor song.  Taylor was a friend of the Beatles, who helped launch his career (look up his Wiki entry).  I would guess that Harrison's use of the line is a deliberate 'tribute' to a friend's song.  For comparison, David Bowie's song 'Young Americans' quotes the line 'I heard the news today oh boy' from 'A Day in the Life'.  I don't think John Lennon objected - he appears on the same album.

Bowies lyrics in Young American were, "I HEARD the news today oh boy" and the lyrics from A Day In The Life, although similar are different. "I READ the news today oh boy".

This author's arguments really are laughably pathetic. And his email is barely coherent. As is his book. Don't waste your money. 

I mean, really. Everybody knows Paul heard the Ob La Di phrase from that Jamaican guy. But the melody is Paul's alone. And I guess this fool would accuse Lennon of plagiarizing the title of "Tomorrow Never Knows" from Ringo, since it was Ringo's phrase. And "A Hard Day's Night," too.

I can't believe anyone would waste good money on such an empty argument.

"FEEBLE" suits you well. Personally attacking the author is not the way to make your point. When you have something substantial and convincing to say, come back!

Every artist borrows from other artists intentionally and unintentionally. Just the act of watching another band you like will allow that music to creep in and start to influence what you are doing. The word Plagiarism is a little bit hardcore here, as I doubt many of the examples would stand up in court as true plagiarism. This is more like showing the world how even the best bands are influenced by the music that they themselves listen to. This guy can make inferences all he wants but just like any other artist, the beatles were changed by what they liked to listen to and, like any other artist, they both consciously and uncoscously let it affect their music. That is what being an artists is all about. What, does this guy think that the sound and words and ideas just randomly pop into your head?

I'm looking for the hardback version of this book.  The truth is what it is you can't get angry because someone went through the trouble of writing a book detailing the truth about the Beatles.  I still love the music they made.  It's good that at least now acknowledgement can be made of where that music came from. 

 ;)

Saying someone is a plagiarist is a very serious accusation.  The author is attempting to sell his book by making claims that I would not define as the truth.

He could have written 'borrowed ideas from' or 'was influence by' that is the truth.  However, that does not sell books.

Plagiarism does occur in music composition.  Usually those authors have to pay damges to the original authors in court.   Just ask Page and Plant about Willie Dixon and Howlin Wolf or ask the Beach Boys about Chuck Berry or George Harrison about Ronnie Mack

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

The truth is the author above simply wants to sell books at the cost of the truth.

The author is not making any accusations...He has made an ASSERTION supported by his researh and he has the guts to put them in writing unlike many here who just rambles on and on. And you are making suppositions!

"The truth is the author above simply wants to sell books at the cost of the truth." Whose truth - yours? Support your truth then and if you are so convinced that you found it, share it here....

THERE'S NO RELIGION HERE BUT THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE!

I am going to waste one more post in this pointless flame war.

The title of the book is "The Beatles Extraordinary Plagiarists"

If that is not an accusation, I am sorry and I don't know what one is.

In support of the truth, I am not going to waste my time compiling data because you would simple deny the facts the way you can't admit that Cruz is accusing The Beatles of being plagiarists when it is right there in the title.

So you win Galo. Congratulations!

"I'M PROBABLY NOT THE AUTHOR OR ANYTHING"

Great popular music melds the known with the unknown more often than not deconstructing parts of old songs that influence great song writers to turn those parts in combination into unique new songs. The Beatles were no different than most great song writers.  They worked their favorite influences along with passionate emotion into everything they wrote whether it was a serious piece or one that was tongue and cheek. I see Mr. Cruz' opinion as only exposing the deeply rooted influences and affection Lennon and McCartney felt for those who influenced them. There is no need to adjust the bar of excellence the Beatles set for their songwriting.  If anything it shows they may have been a little closer to the pack than we first thought but certainly no less brilliant nor deserving of the genius pop songwriting icon bestowed upon them for the past 50 years. 

Is anyone else bored to tears by this entire thing?

Speak for yourself. If you are that bored, go do something else; one that is constructive. Thank you...

galo, it is YOU who are not adding anything to the discussion.  Why not DEFEND the "author's" position instead of fracking his detractors?

There is nothing to defend Edvado; the author has already set forth his arguments  and has laid out his rationale. The "detractors" are the ones obligated to present something substantial if they really think they have something. Then again, it is all bravado - nothing more... And if they have nothing, just have to move on!

If his best argument is put forth in the article above then his argument is weak at best.

His rationale? for writing the book or deciding to defend his position with the weak examples set forth above?

Why should I buy the book if those are the best examples he has to support his argument?

No one is required or obligated to buy the book. In the same token, no one has the right to opine on something that they have not read themselves. The article you read is a synopsis of a 172 page book. Now, you would not write a movie review based on watching the trailer, or write an opinion about a published work that you yourself have not read, would you? That would not be smart. But hey, each one to his/her decision...

I would not go see a movie if the title and trailer appeared to be something that I didn't want to purchase.

I would not write a review and I haven't done so here.  I pointed out that his argument defending his book was weak and it does not convince me to purchase the book.

If, as you say, people should read the book first, wouldn't it make more sense to convince potential consumers that your arguments are valid and have merit?

Your comments and those of the author have not convinced me that I should spend money on this product.  On the cotrary, you have lowered yourself to diatribes and insults.

It is unfortunate that you have convinced me to spend my time and money on some other book.

It's your money and as I said no one is asking you to buy the book. And since it's yours you can spend it as you please. Did I insult you? Not my intent but "if the shoe fits, wear it". And no moralizing, please. We already have so many of those. Thank you!

Look, here's the point. The book is a work of fiction culled from the mind of a desperate author. No big deal since there are hundreds - if not thousands - of desperate authors out there trying to make ends meet.

The book changes nothing; it has no impact; it's purpose is nil. Perhaps that is the best the author can hope for and he can go back to writing about the other innocuous subjects he's attempted in the past.

This was a marketing ploy more than anything else exhibited by a desperately weak individual who is unable to make a living writing legitimate books.

OUCH

My reply above goes for you as well. Have a nice day!

And what have you accomplished? I would dare say NONE. Personal attack is a sign of weakness - and yes, I am referring to you! What authority gives you the clout to just disrespect the author and his work? He has made his arguments of what he believes the Beatles did...and he does not need your approval. Unless you have something substantial to say, it's best for you to just move on... or shut up!

PAUL IS DEAD

Pete Best, you've been a joke from the very start! That's why your first and last concert in Manila, Philippines was a flop!

Many responses to Edgar O. Cruz and his book were made days earlier.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120820beatles

In that discussion, instead of the title, 'The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists', I suggested a possibly more appropriate title, 'The Beatles: Extraordinary Assimilators'.

A title that would less inflame an intended Beatle/music based audience. Instead possibly drawing attention into the content. Where the concept might be 'sold' through reasonable points. 

But, as is the nature of the marketing game, the writer/publisher use the extreme title.
So as to aim for the larger 'sensational seeking' audience. 

Selling the 'sizzle' for what is, now more obviously, a not so well grilled steak.

Kinda like the music business.  Need a hook, a narrative for the public to latch onto, need to hear the title at least once a minute (if not more).  Make that chorus POP!  Take it to the next level with more dynamic variation sequeing into a p15 sec prechorus and then...

Or the if it bleeds it leads news media. Right, DMN?

Why can't prose writers have some hyperbolic license...

If you are bent on that "assimilator" stuff, why don't you write a Beatles book yourself with the very premise you are spousing with all the facts and figures to support your thesis and then be ready to defend your ideas. As it is, you do not have the right to suggest anything.

And to end my post, you sir, is "full of sizzle for a not so well grilled steak". I thought you said something like that somewhere in your comment, which clearly applies in your case...

On a much more important level this book has got us all thinking and talking about copyright, ideas, plagiarism, rights and credit.  These are defining issues for our time and our business.

What will copyright mean in the future?  Discussing what it has been is a great place to start.  One might argue that the phrase "greatest pop band in history" is, by definition, acknowledgment of /borrowing/tribute/homage. 

Thanks to this author and DMN for making everyone think about this--whether they agree or disagree with this author's premise.

BTW: check out this guy's juxtaposition of Beatle songs and their influences: http://thefab4dozen.blogspot.com/2012/04/beatles-musical-influences.html

Written while listening to Ombre's Believe You Me on vinyl.

Like the Beatles created a borderless mindset as "The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists" states and the net allowed the free flow of information, I see copyright laws falling down as it is slowly taking place now.

Yawn...

I hope the author sells at least a few copies of this non-sense so he can get the professional mental-help he obviously needs.

Agree with you but it's not the author who has to go. Your handle reveals who you are and says many things about you which by the way are not appropriate to be posted here... Think about it or is that too much for you? And since you are yawning, go sleep - it will do you good!

If you take Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" and play it backwards, and speed it up, it's "I Want To Hold Your Hand"

Fantastic! I'll include that fact in my next book... of Beatles jokes! Har-har-har!

wow! too many haters. TRUTH HURTS ISNT IT??? 

CREEK, The hate comments are enough proof that a lot of Beatles fans have not grown up after 50 years!

But I'm bothered. Bias and hatred will not change The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists a bit because it is based on solid evidence and argument.

Thanks for remaining a Beatle admirer and a truth seeker like myself.

Here we go again!

"The BeatlesL Extraordinary Plagiarists" discusses extensively the Beatles' creative cycle (Birth, Growth, Matuiry, Decline and Death) and assigns the albums that falls in each phase.

Nobody among the commenters decided to question on this important and NEW issue about the Beatles' creativity but opted to focus and complain about STALE nformation and hard facts.

This shows they never read the book and exposes them as pretenders. It tells me their information levels about the Beatles. And they  have the bravado to claim they know the quartet but are faking it as do not know what they are talking about.

I had a laugh.

Anybody out there who'd like to challenge me on this issue?

No taker? Come on, you're smart, right?

pssst.  Hey Edgar Cruz.  Tween me and you, uh...at first it was cool that you engaged the commenters.  But after your 7th post you just seem:

1)defensive

2)juvenile

3)petty

4)like you need something to do

Jeez,  you wrote a book.  Congrats.  Hope you sell millions.

Why not pick my challenge LIFER so you can establish your credibilty to comment?

FLAME ON!

Where are the adlibbers? Youre comment are fantastic but based it on a full or even partial reading of "The Beatles: Extraordinary Plagiarists!"

  If you don't have detractors Ed, then you're not writing something RIGHT.  Kudos and love reading your Book, The Beatles Extraordinary Plagiarists, so interesting!