|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 25, 2012 19:03:14 GMT -5
In defense of Paul, he did spend a lot of the early years denying what wasn't about John. He never did say "preaching ..." wasn't about John. There's always a lot of "in defense of Paul..." 'round here. 'Bout time people started defending John too (and HDYS in particular). Look, whatever -- but... John felt he was being wronged by Paul during the last days of The Beatles, and how Paul treated John's girlfriend. Paul screwed John over by being the one to announce "I'm Leaving The Beatles" after John was the one who truly wanted to leave first but then conceded to keeping it hush-hush for the time being for the sake of business (thus giving Paul the opportunity to turn around and knife him in the back). Then Paul concocted that silly self-serving interview name-dropping John. So Paul was no angel in any of this, and John felt betrayed and hurt and thus responded in the RS interview. Then Paul jabbed at John with RAM, and John jabbed back with HDYS. They both forgot about it while John was still alive, and they lived through it and got past it. Why can't some of the fans? Even the most loving married couples fight now and then, so I think it's a neat sideline to the Lennon/McCartney relationship, their whole "Feuding Period". I think the RAM songs, HDYS, and the pig/ram pics are a fascinating moment in time where two former partners sneered at each other but then eventually got over it. I'm fine with the bare knuckle back and forth, I just think the song sucks. Too bad he couldn't get Paul and Ringo in to help rock it up a little.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 26, 2012 3:46:06 GMT -5
Paul screwed John over by being the one to announce "I'm Leaving The Beatles" after John was the one who truly wanted to leave first but then conceded to keeping it hush-hush for the time being for the sake of business (thus giving Paul the opportunity to turn around and knife him in the back). Then Paul concocted that silly self-serving interview name-dropping John. Sorry, Joe, but Paul did NOT announce "I'm leaving The Beatles. NOBODY announced "I'm leaving The Beatles." Saying that there were no current plans for The Beatles to record together is NOT the same as saying that anyone has left the group. And while I concede that's how it was interpreted, it was NOT done prior to the self-interview, it was within the interview. It's hardly any wonder the worlld at large believes Paul announced he was leaving when people who know the truth perpetuate the falsehood among people who also know the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 26, 2012 5:47:43 GMT -5
Sorry, Joe, but Paul did NOT announce "I'm leaving The Beatles. NOBODY announced "I'm leaving The Beatles." Saying that there were no current plans for The Beatles to record together is NOT the same as saying that anyone has left the group. And while I concede that's how it was interpreted, it was NOT done prior to the self-interview, it was within the interview. I consider that semantics. Whatever the case, it was John who returned from Toronto and decided there and then that HE wanted out. It should have been John who said he was leaving, or at least release a solo LP of his own with a statement: "there are no current plans for The Beatles to record together". Whatever you want to call it, Paul and the others begged John not to tell, and then Paul turned 'round and stole John's thunder. THAT is the 'core issue' here, not the semantics of whether Paul really "quit" or not. So if Paul wasn't the key Beatle who pulled the plug -- who was it?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 26, 2012 5:51:28 GMT -5
I'm fine with the bare knuckle back and forth, I just think the song sucks. Too bad he couldn't get Paul and Ringo in to help rock it up a little. I don't think the song sucks, though the released version is not as edgy and cutting as so many of the outtakes sound. And John already had George [who also felt pissed at Paul] helping out, which was good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 26, 2012 13:49:04 GMT -5
I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. I praised the song "Imagine" to the high heavens(heavens that I imagine are not there) but The ROLLING STONE Top 500 Songs list "Imagine" 3rd to Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone"(#1) and The Rolling Stones' "(I Can't Get No)Satisfaction"(#2). Gee third place only means something at the horsetrack if you bet to show or at the Olympics it is a lowly Bronze. Notice the top 2 either have RS in the name of the song or name of the band. John did fare better than The Beatles who had a #8 with "Hey Jude." I guess that does support my opinion that "Imagine" is better loved than all of Paul's Beatles' songs combined. ;D
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 26, 2012 14:03:38 GMT -5
So if Paul wasn't the key Beatle who pulled the plug -- who was it? No-one pulled the plug. The other 3 outvoted Paul and he sued them - that, more than anything, prevented them recording again.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 26, 2012 15:05:01 GMT -5
I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. I praised the song "Imagine" to the high heavens(heavens that I imagine are not there) but The ROLLING STONE Top 500 Songs list "Imagine" 3rd to Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone"(#1) and The Rolling Stones' "(I Can't Get No)Satisfaction"(#2). Gee third place only means something at the horsetrack if you bet to show or at the Olympics it is a lowly Bronze. Notice the top 2 either have RS in the name of the song or name of the band. John did fare better than The Beatles who had a #8 with "Hey Jude." I guess that does support my opinion that "Imagine" is better loved than all of Paul's Beatles' songs combined. ;D Don't get me started. Are you trying to make me lose my lunch? First of all, its funny that a song that could only reach #3 during a week in October, 1971, with only the competetion that was available in that week (Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves and Theme from Shaft) suddenly becomes #3 against the competition from all of modern music time. Can you say "overrated"? Two things about this song make it perfect for this type of nonsense. First, the first line of the song (imagine there's no heaven) and the general communist message soothes the hearts of this ever more secular and Godless Marxist society we have developed into. Secondly, the artist himself having been murdered in this country, has become a reason for self loathing of our nation due to its attitudes about allowing guns. Perfect storm. NY Mayor Bloomberg wants the police to go on strike until everyone turns in their guns and at that point the police will be safe. The trouble is everyone will comply except the criminals. If you do what he suggests, you leave the law abiding citizens vulnerable to criminals, not to mention tyranny. The gun issue is like Pandora's box. There is no going back once it is opened. I can't see how this intellectually impoverished dope could have been elected mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, let alone New York. All of this shows how important a lyric is. Not how good it is but how it fits a certain world view. #1 pick Like a Rolling Stone is another song lauded beyond its station. No one even knows what the f#@& the song is about. That plays into the artsy crowd perfectly. And lets face it, if it wasn't by Dylan, it wouldn't be anywhere near the top. It makes No. 1 of all time but couldn't make No. 1 in one week in 1965? Again, editorializing and politicking with their lists is beyond control in this magazine. Can we say "agenda"? These songs aren't picked for their artistic merit. The tops ones are picked for political and or sociological conformance to the editors world view. In short, Rolling Stone's canonized dictate isn't worth crap.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jul 26, 2012 15:24:56 GMT -5
First, the first line of the song (imagine there's no heaven) and the general communist message soothes the hearts of this ever more secular and Godless Marxist society we have developed into. Secondly, the artist himself having been murdered in this country, has become a reason for self loathing of our nation due to its attitudes about allowing guns. Perfect storm. God Bless you my son! We've talked about this before. Now go back and listen to the song again and this time really listen. Do you think Jesus is going to come back "packing heat". Peace and f**king Love.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jul 26, 2012 15:52:01 GMT -5
I agree with RTP that "Like A Rolling Stone" by Bob Dylan is one of the most overrated songs of all time. First of all I like it much better by the Remains and the Rascals. Secondly, Dylan has many better songs himself. To JSD, Imagine at #3 and "Hey Jude" at #8 hardly supports Imagine being better loved than all of Paul's songs combined. What kind of logic are you using? Does that mean since Dylan has the #1 song and The Stones have #2 that those songs are better loved than all of John and Paul's (or the Beatles for that matter) songs combined? I would dare say a combination of John or Paul's songs would trounce those songs. "Imagine" ranking #3 does support calling it the "best loved" song by Lennon and/or McCartney, but hardly supports being rated ahead of all McCartney songs combined!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 26, 2012 16:22:22 GMT -5
Like a Rolling Stone is another song lauded beyond its station. No one even knows what the f#@& the song is about. . For years I thought when Dylan was singing "How does it fe-e-e-l to be on your own" he was singing about roaming free and easy in this big, wild world of ours. Years later I read Dylan saying something about how it was a nasty song about revenge as in "How does it feel to have my boot on your neck and your homeless with no direction." Dylan played in Berkeley about 10 years ago and I listened for awhile from outside the arena as he played that song (Dylan was playing keyboards on that tour for some reason). It was a weird experience. After all these years of hearing thousands of bad cover versions of that song (its sort of the unofficial national anthem of the Berkeley street scene) it was weird to hear Dylan himself doing a bad cover version of himself.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 26, 2012 16:23:58 GMT -5
I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. I praised the song "Imagine" to the high heavens(heavens that I imagine are not there) but The ROLLING STONE Top 500 Songs list "Imagine" 3rd to Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone"(#1) and The Rolling Stones' "(I Can't Get No)Satisfaction"(#2). Gee third place only means something at the horsetrack if you bet to show or at the Olympics it is a lowly Bronze. Notice the top 2 either have RS in the name of the song or name of the band. Ha ha. Maybe if John had changed the lyrics to "Imagine no Rolling Stones" it would've ranked number one.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 26, 2012 16:26:02 GMT -5
LOL, that post of mine on RS's Top 500 songs was sarcasm but I am afraid that I sent poor RTP into fits! It is weird about #1 and #2 either having the words "Rolling Stone" in the title or band name. I am surprised The Beatles "Dig It" wasn't #3!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 26, 2012 16:29:11 GMT -5
I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. I praised the song "Imagine" to the high heavens(heavens that I imagine are not there) but The ROLLING STONE Top 500 Songs list "Imagine" 3rd to Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone"(#1) and The Rolling Stones' "(I Can't Get No)Satisfaction"(#2). Gee third place only means something at the horsetrack if you bet to show or at the Olympics it is a lowly Bronze. Notice the top 2 either have RS in the name of the song or name of the band. Ha ha. Maybe if John had changed the lyrics to "Imagine no Rolling Stones" it would've ranked number one. ;D That infamous deleted verse. Nicky Hopkins talked John out of it; didn't need more band wars in 1971!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 26, 2012 17:00:07 GMT -5
Don't get me started. Are you trying to make me lose my lunch? First of all, its funny that a song that could only reach #3 during a week in October, 1971, with only the competetion that was available in that week (Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves and Theme from Shaft) suddenly becomes #3 against the competition from all of modern music time. Can you say "overrated"? I believe the song IMAGINE was underrated in its time. It took John's murder, sadly, to really make it kick in as the classic it deserves to be. (And by the way, Cher's GYPSIES, TRAMPS and THIEVES is one of my all-time favorite songs [well, I was 9 at the time and it brings back happy memories], and if a song from '71 had to beat John's I'm glad it was that one). LIKE A ROLLING STONE is an excellent song, a classic... and you can only wish that Paul McCartney could write something like it (or like IMAGINE). Bob Dylan's lyrics are ALWAYS up for debate and open to interpretation.... I though when it came to Paulie you felt that was a good thing about a song ...? In short, you feel that way because Paulie doesn't write material like that. I'm so sick and tired of your sycophantic McCartney crapola... of course you'd be singing an entirely different tune if Paul was rated as highly, for WHATEVER their agenda(s) were.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 26, 2012 17:01:29 GMT -5
So if Paul wasn't the key Beatle who pulled the plug -- who was it? No-one pulled the plug. The other 3 outvoted Paul and he sued them - that, more than anything, prevented them recording again. Semantics aside, for all intents and purposes it was Paul who ended the band as it turned out.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 26, 2012 17:12:06 GMT -5
No-one pulled the plug. The other 3 outvoted Paul and he sued them - that, more than anything, prevented them recording again. Semantics aside, for all intents and purposes it was Paul who ended the band as it turned out. Well, George has always said that "the Beatles thing had gotten so stifling it had to self-destruct." So maybe nobody did it. It self-destructed on its own. That said, John was always "the great jumper-off-of-cliffs." I think Paul is right when he says it was just like John, once he jumped into the Yoko thing to want to dump the Beatles thing. John, of course, was the first to announce he was quitting, wanted a "divorce." It was only on Klein's advice that he kept it a secret for a year. When Paul finally made the announcement the Beatles were already long dead. Wasn't Paul the one who most desparately wanted to keep the Beatles together?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 26, 2012 18:12:50 GMT -5
What was the reason that the Beatles didn't record Cold Turkey? I don't believe I've heard the reason, only John saying he offered it to the Beatles. Was it too controversial? It's funny how Lennon announced only a month later that he was leaving the Beatles.
Didn't John say later at some point he didn't think people would take his activism seriously coming from the mop tops, or something to that affect.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 26, 2012 19:33:57 GMT -5
No-one pulled the plug. The other 3 outvoted Paul and he sued them - that, more than anything, prevented them recording again. Semantics aside, for all intents and purposes it was Paul who ended the band as it turned out. Semantics aside, wasn't it John who ended it, I thought you said?
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 26, 2012 20:38:26 GMT -5
What was the reason that the Beatles didn't record Cold Turkey? I don't believe I've heard the reason, only John saying he offered it to the Beatles. Was it too controversial? It's funny how Lennon announced only a month later that he was leaving the Beatles. Didn't John say later at some point he didn't think people would take his activism seriously coming from the mop tops, or something to that affect. I've always thought it was mostly Paul that rejected it. I think it might have had some success as a Beatle single, but let's face it...not feel good song. Also features future POBers Clapton, Klaus and Starr.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 26, 2012 21:50:10 GMT -5
What was the reason that the Beatles didn't record Cold Turkey? I don't believe I've heard the reason, only John saying he offered it to the Beatles. Was it too controversial? It's funny how Lennon announced only a month later that he was leaving the Beatles. Didn't John say later at some point he didn't think people would take his activism seriously coming from the mop tops, or something to that affect. I've always thought it was mostly Paul that rejected it. I think it might have had some success as a Beatle single, but let's face it...not feel good song. Also features future POBers Clapton, Klaus and Starr. Yer Blues wasn't feel good either. It's hard to argue with the way it turned out. It might have been a little smoother from the Beatles. a little less harsh, not improved, just different. Paul was usually pretty good about letting John be John. I would hate to think Paul thought it was too out there for a Beatles' track.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jul 26, 2012 23:23:11 GMT -5
I've always thought it was mostly Paul that rejected it. I think it might have had some success as a Beatle single, but let's face it...not feel good song. Also features future POBers Clapton, Klaus and Starr. Yer Blues wasn't feel good either. It's hard to argue with the way it turned out. It might have been a little smoother from the Beatles. a little less harsh, not improved, just different. Paul was usually pretty good about letting John be John. I would hate to think Paul thought it was too out there for a Beatles' track. From what I've read Paul (and possibly George and Ringo too) had more objections to having Cold Turkey as the next single as opposed to simply recording the song. I don't see it as a good Beatles single. Maybe an album or B side though.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 27, 2012 3:27:19 GMT -5
The fact that it was rejected but they allowed Rev 9 on the white album speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 27, 2012 6:14:04 GMT -5
re: COLD TURKEY -- I have an audio clip of John somewhere where he said: "I offered COLD TURKEY to The Beatles but they weren't ready to record a single. So I did it as 'Plastic Ono'. I don't care what it goes out as, as long as it goes out..."
Could this mean the song was only passed over because of the timing, and not necessarily for the quality of the song itself?
I like COLD TURKEY and think it would have been a feather in the cap of The Beatles to have a rough and edgy song like that released as an A-side single, to toughen them up (sort of like what REVOLUTION did, though it was a B-side). The only thing that gets to be too much with the song is the endless yelling and ranting that goes on at the end. I understand the meaning of it (the singer going through drug withdrawal), but whenever I play the song myself it's the only time I start to get antsy and feel that the people around me who are listening to it may be thinking "shut that crap off!!!"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 27, 2012 6:16:23 GMT -5
Semantics aside, for all intents and purposes it was Paul who ended the band as it turned out. Semantics aside, wasn't it John who ended it, I thought you said? No, because The Beatles went on and kept up their routine for months after John said he wanted out. (Obvious, I would have thought).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 27, 2012 6:18:06 GMT -5
When Paul finally made the announcement the Beatles were already long dead. Wasn't Paul the one who most desparately wanted to keep the Beatles together? Yeah, the phony.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 27, 2012 8:36:03 GMT -5
Yer Blues wasn't feel good either. It's hard to argue with the way it turned out. It might have been a little smoother from the Beatles. a little less harsh, not improved, just different. Paul was usually pretty good about letting John be John. I would hate to think Paul thought it was too out there for a Beatles' track. From what I've read Paul (and possibly George and Ringo too) had more objections to having Cold Turkey as the next single as opposed to simply recording the song. I don't see it as a good Beatles single. Maybe an album or B side though. Yer Blues is at least...blues. Usually not "feel good" songs in general. I don't dislike Cold Turkey. I can see Paul on it- thumping bass and harmony on Cold Turkey. Maybe rocking it up a little quicker. Pushing it to the edge like Helter Skelter. In 1969- 1970 John had a run of songs he considered releasing as POB including You Know My Name and Mary Jane, which for the most part had at least 3 Beatles on them. Hmm- what if Paul added vocals to the song...would it still have been POB? If I had to pick between John's first 3 solo singles- I would have loved to see Instant Karma as a Beatle single.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 27, 2012 17:20:00 GMT -5
Cold Turkey would have been a great Beatle song. I guess my question is, did the Beatles not recording the song make John feel more like the Beatles were not going to be an outlet for him.
They passed on the song, then he passed on them.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 28, 2012 6:42:34 GMT -5
Can I just straighten out a few things in this near train-wreck of a thread?
1) The fact that one disagrees with Rolling Stone's list of the top 100 songs does not necessarily mean one has to make a post to tell us. Obviously, there is no human on earth (including the RS editors) who completely agree with the list.
Like every publication, Rolling Stone (which passed its peak in about 1974, hit rock-bottom in about 2001, and has settled into corporate stability in the digital age) is produced from a certain editorial perspective and philosophical place. There are certain things it likes (Brit bands of white guys from the 60s, Americans, black-Americans who don't impeded on white guys' territory -- i.e., soul and rap artists -- and certain things it doesn't like (strong and gifted women like Joni Mitchell, black guys who cross into white guys' territory, 80s pop stars, Brit-bands since the late 80s). Its choices are from a critical perspective within this home territory.
Nothing worth bothering with, really. (Let's pause to remember that, during its golden-years' crisis of circa 2000, Rolling Stone editors picked a Backstreet Boys' song as one of the top ten singles of all time. Yes, I'm serious.)
Rolling Stone has ridiculous publication influence in the US simply because its the only US-based music mag that's consistently been focused on music (by contrast, there are always several in the UK, usually of a much higher quality than RS). Taking RS seriously in 2012 is just as laughable as, say, an intense web-forum in 2012 about a band that broke up 42 years ago! (har, har)
2) "Cold Turkey" wasn't recorded by The Beatles. This doesn't mean it was "rejected". My own guess is that if John had presented it for The White Album or Abbey Road, it would have been recorded with fair enthusiasm by the others. It failed to appear as a Beatles track because John wanted to issue it on a single. For quite understandable reasons, the others didn't think it was a good idea (which it wasn't).
3) As someone mentioned above, Paul did not announce that he was leaving The Beatles, ever. He did announce, with his rather self-serving "interview", that he was frustrated by the others and doing some stuff on his own. That is NOT the same as saying one is leaving The Beatles.
4) I also don't believe that John announced he was leaving The Beatles. There seems to be enough half-remembered "evidence" from enough people that I accept his telling the others -- or at least Paul -- at the autumn '69 meeting that he wanted out. But this, to me, does not equate with leaving the Beatles.
Why? Because all of them said and did such things (esp. John) with regularity, with no particular consequence. John also announced he was Christ, after all -- the others didn't take that too seriously, and no reason Paul would have taken him too seriously in autumn '69 either.
(At least when George and Ringo said they'd had it, they actually got up and left during a session -- John simply said it to Paul during a rest period, which doesn't have a lot of weight.)
I think all of the 4 Beatles well understood the rather enormous difference between (a) private Beatle bickering and business, and (b) public Beatle business. By keeping his comment (probably to Paul alone) in the realm of (a), John clearly was holding his cards close to his chest.
The fact is, none of the The Beatles ever made an announcement of quitting The Beatles, publically. All of them did talk about being ex-Beatles, publically, after the media and public had assumed they were over.
(On a separate note, I don't think "Instant Karma!" would have been nearly as good if The Beatles had cut it.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2012 7:00:49 GMT -5
Instant Karma is John's best solo song by a big margin......
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 28, 2012 11:09:54 GMT -5
2) "Cold Turkey" wasn't recorded by The Beatles. This doesn't mean it was "rejected". My own guess is that if John had presented it for The White Album or Abbey Road, it would have been recorded with fair enthusiasm by the others. It failed to appear as a Beatles track because John wanted to issue it on a single. For quite understandable reasons, the others didn't think it was a good idea (which it wasn't). So three out of four Beatles rejected "Cold Turkey" as a single then, right? I think the word "rejected" is still apt as to "Cold Turkey" and The Beatles. I feel the whole "Cold Turkey" incident challenges the CW that Paul wanted to desperately keep the band together and John would have none of it. John offered a great song for a post-AR single and Paul and the others said "No."
|
|