|
Post by John S. Damm on May 29, 2012 9:23:58 GMT -5
Maybe the object is not to change minds, simply to open them a bit. It's probably more like court than poitics - there is a mountain of evidence pointing in one direction, and the prosecution goes "Ah, but look at this one bit which points in the other direction..." Oh please. I think some fans need to open their eyes about the true nature of a certain ex-Fab! I really need to stop reading Howard Sounes' Fab as I am getting more and more turned off with the turn of every page. At least John admitted that The Beatles were bastards. The real "maneuvering swine"(another one of Paul's off-the-record phrases on how he really felt about John) was/is Paul in my opinion. If a guy is as ruthless, insincere and career posturing as Macca has apparently been, then how can I believe that his music(the only thing about Paul I really respect and admire)is sincere and heartfelt and not just posturing like the man who created it? I feel some fans have also pushed me to this point of current discontent as to our kid Macca. My goodness, I am the creator of The JSD Postulate* and am the person who nearly worships Paul's first four albums when even many of the MMHs don't. I didn't come here with a chip on my shoulder about Macca but soon formed one with all the talk of the canonization of Sir Paul at the clear expense of the others. We are on the brink of Beatles Civil War! * Several posters have pointed out to me that many new published reviews of the re-issued Ram sound amazingly like The JSD Postulate so I don't want to be accused of not opening my mind to Paul's music at least! And I dig EA too.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 29, 2012 9:26:13 GMT -5
No one ever need apologize for their opinions on these topics. I don't understand your point? Was JoeK(or I for that matter) to say, "Oh wow nicole, your post has completely, unequivocally, positively won me over and changed my mind forever." Really? I respect nicole and her tenacity and she is an adult who can defend herself. But some here sound like we should be bowled over by her really long post above and if we show any response to it other than undue deference then we are being rude. I don't buy that. This is like politics: if one is a Macca Mad Hatter then they will love it. If they are in the Lennon Defense League(LDL), then they will disagree(or belch). The John vs. Paul thing is as old as the Cavern days(and has always been just as intense) and was spurred on by John and Paul themselves in their ridiculous public and musical spats of 1970-1972. We will never change each other's minds on these things. Remember John Lennon in a John Lennon Thread!Actually I wasn't thinking of either you or JoeK when I printed that. I was thinking of the people who just want to make the snide and demeaning comments. You guys have shown her respect. But she has nothing to apologize for. That's the main point. (and I can tell you agree with that) For sure, nicole rocks! And so do you CoachBK and we have had our differences on Paul but hashed them out man to man(damn, you have a mean left hook!). ;D
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 29, 2012 9:47:38 GMT -5
JSD.
What's the story in the Souness book about Paul and Glyn Johns?
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 29, 2012 10:09:35 GMT -5
Oh please. I think some fans need to open their eyes about the true nature of a certain ex-Fab! I really need to stop reading Howard Sounes' Fab as I am getting more and more turned off with the turn of every page. At least John admitted that The Beatles were bastards. Hee. Do you have extra insight into this 'true nature' that some of us are apparently blind to, do you? Might be a good idea. Seriously, I don't hate Sounes' biography but nor do I think it's the best biography of Paul. Just because he doesn't hesitate to expose loads of Paul's flaws doesn't mean it's a more accurate reflection than something else. I don't know - I can list loads of Paul's flaws, no problem, but Sounes' tone (maybe? or writing style?) gets under my skin. Maybe Paul's of the view that he has enough people calling him a bastard that he doesn't need to add fuel to the fire by cataloging his own faults for the public to dissect? Can we keep that maneuvering swine thing in context, actually? BECAUSE it says "he could be a maneuvering swine". COULD. Now, you've admitted you like that John could admit The Beatles COULD be bastards so is there an issue with Paul saying John COULD be a maneuvering swine (esp. considering the certainties Paul usually deals with in terms of the greatness and genius of John)? Also, that quote is just as off-record as these, so are these quotes also a more accurate reflection of how Paul felt than we usually read? (just at this moment in time, mind you, we must remember - high emotional state and all): In the beginning he was a sort of fairground hero. He was the big lad riding the dodgems and we thought he was great. We were younger, me and George, and that mattered. It was teenage hero worship. I idolized John. He was the big guy in the chip shop. I was the little guy. As I matured and grew up, I started sharing in things with him. I didn't hate John. People said to me when he said those things on his record about me, you must hate him, but I didn't. I don't. We were once having a right slagging session and I remember how he took off his granny glasses. I can still see him. He put them down and said, 'It's only me, Paul.' Then he put them back on again, and we continued slagging...That phrase keeps coming back to me all the time. 'It's only me.' It's became a mantra in my mind. I have some juicy stuff I could tell about John. But I wouldn't. Not when Yoko's alive, or Cynthia. John would. He would grab, go for the action, say the first thing in his head. We admired him for that. It was honesty; but it could hurt. And it wasn't really all THAT honest. He KNEW he could hurt. Until I was about thirty, I thought the world was an exact place. Now I know that life just splutters along. John knew that. He was the great debunker. So, do you honestly think that these off the record quotes, extreme bossiness and coldness in business/music and Sounes' description of Paul is enough to make you doubt any reality and honesty in his music, music which Paul says is half storytelling and half therapy for himself? Out of interest, his music is really the only thing you admire about him? You don't see anything in his personality, commitment to family/others or attitude to life that's admirable? At all? I find that quite impressive in an odd way! Ha, my apologies!!! Shall I write a nice long essay comparing the many faults of Paul with the many positives of John to even the score and assuage these feelings of yours then? Honestly, I don't seek to canonise Paul at all - sometimes (all the time?) I feel the need to correct what I think are unfair judgments etc My judgments are often probably just as unfair or incorrect but heigh ho. Civil War, you say? I do like a nice uniform... PS. thanks any and all for respect and kind comments. appreciate it. a lot. love this place more than it probably appears given I spend all my time arguing in ridiculous length...
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 29, 2012 10:33:51 GMT -5
No, don't!
That'll be another 3 hours of my life I can't get back. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on May 29, 2012 11:10:20 GMT -5
Oh please. I think some fans need to open their eyes about the true nature of a certain ex-Fab! I really need to stop reading Howard Sounes' Fab as I am getting more and more turned off with the turn of every page. At least John admitted that The Beatles were bastards. The real "maneuvering swine"(another one of Paul's off-the-record phrases on how he really felt about John) was/is Paul in my opinion. If a guy is as ruthless, insincere and career posturing as Macca has apparently been, then how can I believe that his music(the only thing about Paul I really respect and admire)is sincere and heartfelt and not just posturing like the man who created it? I have Sounes book but haven't read it. I really don't want to after reading this. Not that I don't want to read negative stuff, but if an author searches for that to tell his story, he really isn't looking for the true person.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 29, 2012 11:12:03 GMT -5
JSD. What's the story in the Souness book about Paul and Glyn Johns? I haven't gotten that far but Glyn Johns has been quoted about the friendship of the Beatles and the Stones and the book says they were closer then people think because as the two biggest pop bands in the world, they could relate to each other when few could. But as equals by 1964 or so. Johns says, "Mick Jagger didn't sit with Paul just because he was Paul McCartney" but rather because both were major power players in the Pop scene. It is November 1963 where I am at. Sounes was just writing that the British press gushed at how Paul was a dreaming idealist, just concerned with playing music and not focusing on Paul's large ego and personal ambitions even then. He charges Paul with manipulating the press(not a new claim at all) but even perhaps at the expense of the other Beatles(new claim to me!) and fairly early on. Oh well. I am not naive. Still, this is bumming me out and I realize that it is not the only book ever written about Paul. Once I start a book though I finish it. That's why I am grump(ier)! ;D
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 29, 2012 11:23:33 GMT -5
JSD. What's the story in the Souness book about Paul and Glyn Johns? I haven't gotten that far but Glyn Johns has been quoted about the friendship of the Beatles and the Stones and the book says they were closer then people think because as the two biggest pop bands in the world, they could relate to each other when few could. But as equals by 1964 or so. Johns says, "Mick Jagger didn't sit with Paul just because he was Paul McCartney" but rather because both were major power players in the Pop scene. It is November 1963 where I am at. Sounes was just writing that the British press gushed at how Paul was a dreaming idealist, just concerned with playing music and not focusing on Paul's large ego and personal ambitions even then. He charges Paul with manipulating the press(not a new claim at all) but even perhaps at the expense of the other Beatles(new claim to me!) and fairly early on. Oh well. I am not naive. Still, this is bumming me out and I realize that it is not the only book ever written about Paul. Once I start a book though I finish it. That's why I am grump(ier)! ;D Ok. Don't forget me when you get to that section.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 29, 2012 12:39:03 GMT -5
Yes, that was my thought, too! Isn't it possible that she was a fan of both, rather than implying that "Paul was the Beatles"? Well, I wasn't there so I don't know what her tone was. At least it's good to hear of another young person into the Beatles. She meant Paul as a Beatle. She knows nothing about Chaos, EA, MAF, Kiss My Bottom, or any solo before. Well, maybe the songs BOTR and Live and Let Die, the ones all the subway fans love. The only Paul quotes on John I am interested in are those made by Paul pre-Dec. 8, 1980. That is when Paul knew John would challenge any B.S. or unduly sentimental crap out of Paul's mouth or historical inaccuracies. Any Paul quote after that is Paul having full range of artistic liberty to say anything he wants and not be challenged by John. Too little too late as far as I am concerned. The last thing Paul saw of John was John's door being slammed in Paul's face! Remember John Lennon!And John regretted doing it too. Go back to the 1980 interviews and he talks about how he didn't mean it that way and he was just tired and frustrated because of little Sean and he was sorry Paul took it that way. Besides they had many friendly conversations by phone after that. And this quote by you: "The only Paul quotes on John I am interested in are those made by Paul pre-Dec. 8, 1980. That is when Paul knew John would challenge any B.S. or unduly sentimental crap out of Paul's mouth or historical inaccuracies." This is really over the top. The assumptions within that quote are incredible. First of all, why do you assume that John couldn't have made comments about Paul that were BS and weren't true that Paul just let lay there? Secondly, why do you assume that John is the only one who could correct Paul if Paul said something that wasn't true? There were many other witnesses of everything they did and I haven't heard Paul contradicted about anything. And finally, what is this idea that Paul lies about everything. This whole idea that John was the beacon of truth and Paul lies is revisionism of the first order. And you are so against such things. "Unduly sentimental crap"? His friend was shot down in the middle of his life! And you are implying Paul's words regarding his grief over John were artificial. That is the height of cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 29, 2012 14:00:17 GMT -5
I am a cynical guy. Nowhere did I say John never stretched the truth(see my reply to nicole in the Ram Remaster Thread).
Heck yeah John was a credibility check to Paul during John's lifetime but Paul was to John too! It was a Beatles' version of M.A.D.(Mutually Assured Destruction) like between the U.S.A. and the former U.S.S.R.
It was a tug of war! ;D
That is gone and Paul has an unchallenged forum or pulpit on all things Lennon/McCartney and as to other Beatles aspects with George gone too.
Yeah I admit it, I do not trust the majority of statements out of Paul's mouth when it comes to the Beatles' history and that is only increasing for me. But that is my own opinion. I ask no one else to share it.
Remember John Lennon In A John Lennon Thread!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 30, 2012 9:35:45 GMT -5
I am a cynical guy. Nowhere did I say John never stretched the truth(see my reply to nicole in the Ram Remaster Thread). Heck yeah John was a credibility check to Paul during John's lifetime but Paul was to John too! It was a Beatles' version of M.A.D.(Mutually Assured Destruction) like between the U.S.A. and the former U.S.S.R. It was a tug of war! ;D That is gone and Paul has an unchallenged forum or pulpit on all things Lennon/McCartney and as to other Beatles aspects with George gone too. Yeah I admit it, I do not trust the majority of statements out of Paul's mouth when it comes to the Beatles' history and that is only increasing for me. But that is my own opinion. I ask no one else to share it. Remember John Lennon In A John Lennon Thread!I know you are a cynical guy. But I don't know why Paul is assumed to be lying about everything. I think he comes off very honest in his interviews. Sometimes more guarded that other times yes, but when he lets go, its the real thing. I get annoyed when people think John was the only one who was the real deal. Its just not the case. John even admitted to misleading is some interviews. I am not one of those people who get all excited when someone admits they lied to me. Its a wash. Thanks for admitting it, but when have you lied before and when will you lie again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 8:20:37 GMT -5
I am a cynical guy. Nowhere did I say John never stretched the truth(see my reply to nicole in the Ram Remaster Thread). Heck yeah John was a credibility check to Paul during John's lifetime but Paul was to John too! It was a Beatles' version of M.A.D.(Mutually Assured Destruction) like between the U.S.A. and the former U.S.S.R. It was a tug of war! ;D That is gone and Paul has an unchallenged forum or pulpit on all things Lennon/McCartney and as to other Beatles aspects with George gone too. Yeah I admit it, I do not trust the majority of statements out of Paul's mouth when it comes to the Beatles' history and that is only increasing for me. I am also wary of the great revisionist's take on events....
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jun 4, 2012 8:37:16 GMT -5
I am a cynical guy. Nowhere did I say John never stretched the truth(see my reply to nicole in the Ram Remaster Thread). Heck yeah John was a credibility check to Paul during John's lifetime but Paul was to John too! It was a Beatles' version of M.A.D.(Mutually Assured Destruction) like between the U.S.A. and the former U.S.S.R. It was a tug of war! ;D That is gone and Paul has an unchallenged forum or pulpit on all things Lennon/McCartney and as to other Beatles aspects with George gone too. Yeah I admit it, I do not trust the majority of statements out of Paul's mouth when it comes to the Beatles' history and that is only increasing for me. I am also wary of the great revisionist's take on events.... That's nice to say, but you don't have any evidence to back up your wariness. When Paul gives additional details about songwriting--after all they wrote and/or recorded over 200 songs--that doesn't fit your view of what you think happened, it becomes revisionism. In truth, you are the revisionist for not believing something right from the source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 9:00:20 GMT -5
I am also wary of the great revisionist's take on events.... That's nice to say, but you don't have any evidence to back up your wariness. When Paul gives additional details about songwriting--after all they wrote and/or recorded over 200 songs--that doesn't fit your view of what you think happened, it becomes revisionism. In truth, you are the revisionist for not believing something right from the source. Are you trying to tell us that Paul has the best recall on Beatle history and if his recall differs from the others then that is only because "they" got it wrong . We are fortunate he has that gift...
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 4, 2012 12:40:30 GMT -5
Perhaps he got an advance copy.....
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jun 4, 2012 12:50:47 GMT -5
Are you trying to tell us that Paul has the best recall on Beatle history and if his recall differs from the others then that is only because "they" got it wrong . We are fortunate he has that gift... I haven't heard it yet, but I've found out that supposedly on the 2012 supplemental interview for the new RAM Deluxe Set, Paul says that he did TOO MANY PEOPLE in response to John's HOW DO YOU SLEEP?...(!!!?) If this is a true statement from Paul, then we can accuse fim of being either a revisionost, a liar, or - at the very least - approaching senility. I don't think what you heard is true. Here is a description of the relevant part of the Ramming video from one of the reviews: The album also contained the song “Too Many People” which McCartney admits was a jab at former bandmate John Lennon. “I did feel he [John] was preaching a little bit about what everyone should do, how they should live their lives,” Paul explains on the ‘Ramming’ video segment. “I felt some of it was a bit hypocritical.” Reacting to John’s musical response of “How Do You Sleep” released on the Imagine album five months later, McCartney replies, “I nearly did a song ‘Quite Well, Thank You.’” RTP: Too Many People and the preaching practices line was answer to the snipes John took at Paul on POB: "I seen through junkies, I been through it all. I seen religion from Jesus to Paul" and the preachiness of the lyrics "Children don't do what I have done" and "There ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky" etc. Paul released Dear Friend in response to How Do You Sleep?
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jun 4, 2012 14:32:47 GMT -5
RTP: Too Many People and the preaching practices line was answer to the snipes John took at Paul on POB: "I seen through junkies, I been through it all. I seen religion from Jesus to Paul" and the preachiness of the lyrics "Children don't do what I have done" and "There ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky" etc. Yeah. Perhaps John should have written lines like: "Mama don't worry, Teddy Boy's here, taking good care of you" or "Bip Bop" or "Candlesticks, building bricks...." Unbelievable! How long will the mods put up with this. What's the ratio of posters who are joining verus the ones who are being driven away? Off to CRF2.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 4, 2012 15:11:51 GMT -5
Folks, this thread looks to me like it's turning into an anti-RTP campaign, which doesn't sit well with me. I don't like threads targeted at members. If you want to have a John vs. Paul discussion, do it, but I don't want anyone in a bullseye.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 4, 2012 15:15:20 GMT -5
Yeah. Perhaps John should have written lines like: "Mama don't worry, Teddy Boy's here, taking good care of you" or "Bip Bop" or "Candlesticks, building bricks...." Unbelievable! How long will the mods put up with this. What's the ratio of posters who are joining verus the ones who are being driven away? Off to CRF2. snookeroo, I've posted a note here and sent a couple of messages out. For now, this thread stays as long as the talk gets back to John vs. Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 4, 2012 16:52:08 GMT -5
Folks, this thread looks to me like it's turning into an anti-RTP campaign, which doesn't sit well with me. I don't like threads targeted at members. If you want to have a John vs. Paul discussion, do it, but I don't want anyone in a bullseye. Steve - I began this thread to honestly observe something I have clarified several times here now already. Simply that Paul McCartney has now appeared to re-gain his popularity and clout with newer Beatles Fans of recent generations. As we know, when John died he was always in the spotlight and considered "The #1 Beatle". This attitude got Paul McCartney upset, and it also concerned RTP. Well, I offered up this topic to demonstrate that it's no longer "only all about John Lennon" in 2012. Now -- what always occurs is, in ANY thread -- RTP inevitably goes in to "correct" people about Paul, or to show them where they are wrong, and how Paul can do no wrong. This even occurs in the "Song Of The Day" threads, where RTP cannot resist comparing, say, poor George Harrison lyrics with "things that people always claim against Paul". Sometimes in these cases a reply is warranted. And apparently not just from me. John and I are watching this thread. I will lock it if it gets out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 4, 2012 18:53:33 GMT -5
Are you trying to tell us that Paul has the best recall on Beatle history and if his recall differs from the others then that is only because "they" got it wrong . We are fortunate he has that gift... I haven't heard it yet, but I've found out that supposedly on the 2012 supplemental interview for the new RAM Deluxe Set, Paul says that he did TOO MANY PEOPLE in response to John's HOW DO YOU SLEEP?...(!!!?) If this is a true statement from Paul, then we can accuse fim of being either a revisionost, a liar, or - at the very least - approaching senility. That blows RTP' theory of Too Many People being in response to John's 1970 interview out of the water. But he will find an excuse or an angle for it ...
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 4, 2012 19:04:05 GMT -5
I haven't heard it yet, but I've found out that supposedly on the 2012 supplemental interview for the new RAM Deluxe Set, Paul says that he did TOO MANY PEOPLE in response to John's HOW DO YOU SLEEP?...(!!!?) If this is a true statement from Paul, then we can accuse fim of being either a revisionost, a liar, or - at the very least - approaching senility. I don't think what you heard is true. Here is a description of the relevant part of the Ramming video from one of the reviews: The album also contained the song “Too Many People” which McCartney admits was a jab at former bandmate John Lennon. “I did feel he [John] was preaching a little bit about what everyone should do, how they should live their lives,” Paul explains on the ‘Ramming’ video segment. “I felt some of it was a bit hypocritical.” Reacting to John’s musical response of “How Do You Sleep” released on the Imagine album five months later, McCartney replies, “I nearly did a song ‘Quite Well, Thank You.’” RTP: Too Many People and the preaching practices line was answer to the snipes John took at Paul on POB: "I seen through junkies, I been through it all. I seen religion from Jesus to Paul" and the preachiness of the lyrics "Children don't do what I have done" and "There ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky" etc. Paul released Dear Friend in response to How Do You Sleep? In the other thread you said it was John's 1970 interview that triggered Paul to write digs at John on Too Many People and now you are pointing to his lyrics on POB. Doesn't add up. Paul would have mentioned the 1970 interview by now if that was the case. Why you can't just accept that he was ticked off by John going off with Yoko and doing their antics which either embarassed him or hurt him ? Like I said before, nothing wrong with Paul having his little digs but he has to accept the consequences of his actions when did HDYS.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 4, 2012 19:27:03 GMT -5
I think Paul thought the McCartney release and the inclosed interview that went out in all the newspapers would shake John up and bring him back to his senses.
When it didn't, Paul got mad.
At the time, John George and Ringo were playing it off, saying the Beatles weren't split, they were just taking a break, they would probably be back in the studio after all the solo albums went out.... RAM was paul saying, no. That was your last mistake. You broke it in two. My love's waiting for me.
John apparently liked RAM before he got paranoid about it. I can't remember for sure, but didn't he compare it to McCartney, saying at least it has some songs on it, or do I have that backwords. He say's "I can't stand the second song from side ...", but doesn't finish it (Monkberry Moon Delight?).
And early on, right after Imagine was released, didn't he do an interview, going on about how How Do You Sleep was just how he felt that day, he didn't feel like Paul wasn't any good. It's almost like Paul called him up and fussed at him. "John, everything on RAM wasn't about you. Dear Boy was Linda's ex. You're splitting our fans up."
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 4, 2012 19:29:54 GMT -5
I haven't heard it yet, but I've found out that supposedly on the 2012 supplemental interview for the new RAM Deluxe Set, Paul says that he did TOO MANY PEOPLE in response to John's HOW DO YOU SLEEP?...(!!!?) If this is a true statement from Paul, then we can accuse fim of being either a revisionost, a liar, or - at the very least - approaching senility. That blows RTP' theory of Too Many People being in response to John's 1970 interview out of the water. But he will find an excuse or an angle for it ... You didn't need to make the last comment, ursa. Let's keep it to the topic and avoid the personal stuff, ok?
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jun 4, 2012 19:52:44 GMT -5
That blows RTP' theory of Too Many People being in response to John's 1970 interview out of the water. But he will find an excuse or an angle for it ... You didn't need to make the last comment, ursa. Let's keep it to the topic and avoid the personal stuff, ok? I actually wasn't being personal, just messing with RTP because I know he can get all worked up .. which is why a put the little smiley on there:)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 4, 2012 23:07:55 GMT -5
The best way to remember John Lennon is to play his music(besides just the song "Imagine") and I am playing his most recent remastered albums from 2010 in their proper order.
It was great hearing POB remastered but with the original John Lennon approved mix. I do love the remixed POB that came out about 10 years earlier but the original mix is what I grew up with.
Next is 2010 remastered Imagine. I actually look forward to the 2010 remastered STINYC as it is the original mix and faithful to the album. The remixed version of about 8 years ago had bizarre edits in it.
I do think that when Paul plays at things like tonight's Queen Jubilee Concert it keeps adding to the perception with the young folks that Paul was the Beatles. That is not correct and I am not saying Paul is fostering that although I do think that he doesn't mind that perception.
I agree with Joe's original premise that it is John Lennon's(and George Harrison's) legacy in danger anymore and Paul has won that battle by still standing and releasing a billion solo albums.
Still, we must all remain civil even in heated arguments and I have to remind myself of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2012 3:59:38 GMT -5
The best way to remember John Lennon is to play his music(besides just the song "Imagine") and I am playing his most recent remastered albums from 2010 in their proper order. It was great hearing POB remastered but with the original John Lennon approved mix. I do love the remixed POB that came out about 10 years earlier but the original mix is what I grew up with. Next is 2010 remastered Imagine. I actually look forward to the 2010 remastered STINYC as it is the original mix and faithful to the album. The remixed version of about 8 years ago had bizarre edits in it. I do think that when Paul plays at things like tonight's Queen Jubilee Concert it keeps adding to the perception with the young folks that Paul was the Beatles. That is not correct and I am not saying Paul is fostering that although I do think that he doesn't mind that perception. I agree with Joe's original premise that it is John Lennon's(and George Harrison's) legacy in danger anymore and Paul has won that battle by still standing and releasing a billion solo albums. Still, we must all remain civil even in heated arguments and I have to remind myself of that. I agree about keeping things civil but if someone doesn't like the way the discussion is going, is whining the correct way to go about things,what does it really achieve, is that the way of the future, whine and the discussion will get shut down, now we have the man with the big stick standing on the stage ready to give a certain type of free speech a whack... Maybe we should create threads like..... What's your favourite style of Beatle suit... ;D I wonder if Paul wore the best suits....maybe we could ask him...
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jun 5, 2012 7:52:39 GMT -5
I agree about keeping things civil but if someone doesn't like the way the discussion is going, is whining the correct way to go about things,what does it really achieve, is that the way of the future, whine and the discussion will get shut down, now we have the man with the big stick standing on the stage ready to give a certain type of free speech a whack... It's kinda like the rat in school who's always tattling on the other students. I would agree also that trying to keep it non-personal and civil is the main goal to strive for. However, the post that got Snookie all in a dither wasn't even anyone being personal ..... it was my just presenting some silly Paul lyrics in response to RTP's pointing out some of John's "preachy lyrics". Bullshit Joe! Your post, which made me post a response, was like watching a child pick a fight in a school yard. I was waiting for you to pull RTP's hair and run away laughing. I did not run and tell the teacher. I posted an honest reaction right here in the forum. I didn't post lightly either. It was more of a built-up reaction after actually coming here and just going away disenchanted to another couple of music forums a number of times. I won't add another thought to this off-topic crap in this thread. I apologize to the masses for this little rant. Thanks Steve for acknowledging my concerns. So many threads feature mean, personal comments and I think that sucks.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 5, 2012 9:32:02 GMT -5
Gentlemen, let's have some fun although sometimes fun means healthy debating of Beatles related issues. I think Steve is just asking that we not personalize our discussions and put down fellow posters but no one is saying that we must all sing "Kumbaya" and agree on every issue or stay away from controversial ones.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 5, 2012 10:46:50 GMT -5
Let's all shake hands now and I thought I heard Beatleboy(original poster from Steve's first Board) say "Word!"
;D
I wonder how Beatleboy, known here as Geoff, is doing? Hello Geoff!
|
|