|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 19, 2014 21:30:06 GMT -5
Like I said, an extended track or something. They took a lot of songs and added a disco beat and made them play out for a whole side of an LP. I guess that Beatles disco track made all the original versions disco too? The Beatles were always checking out other bands and other music styles. It wasn't to stay relevant. It was for inspiration. Dylan's poetic style, The Stone raunchiness/R and B style, The Who's loud hard rock...etc. Oh, oh, I left out Elvis, Buddy Holley, Little Richard, Chuck Berry.... Boy they were really trying to stay relevant when they started out. I wouldn't begin to make apologies for the most successful entertainer of all time. But Goodnight Tonight was a disco song. That's what it was. The Beatles took in a number if influences and made them their own, created something new. Can't say that for McCartney solo, sorry. where did solo Paul ever break new ground? I'm not sure the Beatles were the most successful entertainers of all time, let alone Paul. take his Beatle years away, and Paul is a successful performer but one of many in the pop music genre of its time. As successful as Springsteen? Stevie Wonder? Not likely. Elvis? Michael Jackson? No. The BEATLES were. Paul McCartney with and without Wings, no. how they compare to movie stars, sports stars, the man juggling the pins, who can judge? Wait a minute. Bruce Springsteen? You forgot to factor in Clarence Clemmons, Steven Van Zandt, Niles Lofgren, Max Weinberg.... How do you factor in the success of a group he was but a part of? Elvis had Bill Black and Scotty Moore, and later plenty others. Not to mention Bill Monroe, Big Mama Thorton and all those people writing songs for him. Where did I build up Paul and put down the other three? They were equally successful through those years. (And it was Say Say Say that made Michael Jackson's career start to soar.)
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 19, 2014 21:41:33 GMT -5
But Goodnight Tonight was a disco song. That's what it was. The Beatles took in a number if influences and made them their own, created something new. Can't say that for McCartney solo, sorry. where did solo Paul ever break new ground? I'm not sure the Beatles were the most successful entertainers of all time, let alone Paul. take his Beatle years away, and Paul is a successful performer but one of many in the pop music genre of its time. As successful as Springsteen? Stevie Wonder? Not likely. Elvis? Michael Jackson? No. The BEATLES were. Paul McCartney with and without Wings, no. how they compare to movie stars, sports stars, the man juggling the pins, who can judge? Wait a minute. Bruce Springsteen? You forgot to factor in Clarence Clemmons, Steven Van Zandt, Niles Lofgren, Max Weinberg.... How do you factor in the success of a group he was but a part of? Elvis had Bill Black and Scotty Moore, and later plenty others. Not to mention Bill Monroe, Big Mama Thorton and all those people writing songs for him. Where did I build up Paul and put down the other three? They were equally successful through those years. (And it was Say Say Say that made Michael Jackson's career start to soar.) So that's how you see John, George and Ringo? Equivalent to the E Street Bsnd? Elvis's backing group? Are you really saying that there's an equivalency here? Paul McCartney and his beatleboys?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 19, 2014 21:51:17 GMT -5
So that's how you see John, George and Ringo? Equivalent to the E Street Bsnd? Elvis's backing group? Are you really saying that there's an equivalency here? Paul McCartney and his beatleboys? So, are you really saying that's all you see Bill Black and Scotty Moore as, a backing band to Elvis? I'd say they are nearly as important in creating that early sound. I'm saying nobody does anything solo. Paul had a hell of a career with the Beatles. Only solo artist can be successful? Paul Simon didn't have any success in the '60s?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 19, 2014 21:55:01 GMT -5
But Goodnight Tonight was a disco song. That's what it was. The Beatles took in a number if influences and made them their own, created something new. Can't say that for McCartney solo, sorry. where did solo Paul ever break new ground? I'm not sure the Beatles were the most successful entertainers of all time, let alone Paul. take his Beatle years away, and Paul is a successful performer but one of many in the pop music genre of its time. As successful as Springsteen? Stevie Wonder? Not likely. Elvis? Michael Jackson? No. The BEATLES were. Paul McCartney with and without Wings, no. how they compare to movie stars, sports stars, the man juggling the pins, who can judge? Wait a minute. Bruce Springsteen? You forgot to factor in Clarence Clemmons, Steven Van Zandt, Niles Lofgren, Max Weinberg.... How do you factor in the success of a group he was but a part of? Elvis had Bill Black and Scotty Moore, and later plenty others. Not to mention Bill Monroe, Big Mama Thorton and all those people writing songs for him. Where did I build up Paul and put down the other three? They were equally successful through those years. (And it was Say Say Say that made Michael Jackson's career start to soar.) You didn't put down the other three, I wasn't referring to you. But as to the most successful songwriter, rock musician, etc. the Beatles were such a a Beast, that those Beatle years propelled that band member to the individual award provided they were more successful as a solo act even if all of their solo acts paled in comparison with the groups success. Paul and wings had the most commercial success of all the ex-beatles. Does that mean he was the most successful individual? I maintain that he was a member of the most successful band, and more solo hits after that monster band broke up.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 19, 2014 21:58:13 GMT -5
So that's how you see John, George and Ringo? Equivalent to the E Street Bsnd? Elvis's backing group? Are you really saying that there's an equivalency here? Paul McCartney and his beatleboys? So, are you really saying that's all you see Bill Black and Scotty Moore as, a backing band to Elvis? I'd say they are nearly as important in creating that early sound. I'm saying nobody does anything solo. Paul had a hell of a career with the Beatles. Only solo artist can be successful? Paul Simon didn't have any success in the '60s? Yes I'm saying Elvis was it, he would have been huge without Scotty Moore and Bill Black. Springsteen would be huge with or without Danny Federici. wings would have been big without Jimmy McCollugh. Paul huge without John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr? Far more questionable IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 19, 2014 22:14:56 GMT -5
Yes I'm saying Elvis was it, he would have been huge without Scotty Moore and Bill Black. Well Elvis did like to eat. But without Scotty, Bill and Sun Records he'd be eating sandwiches from the back of a truck. I don't know a lot about Springsteen to really say but I'd bet that big sound behind him had a lot to do with his success. Would he have gotten other players to play behind him, would they have meshed as well with the songs he was writing? I don't know. But I thought I was the one arguing that the individual artist can claim success regardless of the band he's in.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 19, 2014 22:33:08 GMT -5
Yes I'm saying Elvis was it, he would have been huge without Scotty Moore and Bill Black. Well Elvis did like to eat. But without Scotty, Bill and Sun Records he'd be eating sandwiches from the back of a truck. I don't know a lot about Springsteen to really say but I'd bet that big sound behind him had a lot to do with his success. Would he have gotten other players to play behind him, would they have meshed as well with the songs he was writing? I don't know. But I thought I was the one arguing that the individual artist can claim success regardless of the band he's in. Twisting this into a pretzel? Let's unwind this. An individual can take credit if he's solely or mostly responsible for it. In the case of Elvis or Bruce, and many others the backing players are interchangeable, easily substitutability so we can say they are responsible for their own success, good so far? In the case of Paul, his first group wasn't a collection of hand picked backing musicians. They were John Lennon, George a Harrison and Ringo Starr. Not interchangeable with anyone else. Paul wasn't even the leader of this band, sang lead on a small minority of songs on their first several albums and his instrument was the least distinctive part of the band's sound, at least on those first albums. Still ok? So to give Paul his due, he was a key component of that band, but there us no way if knowing if he'd have any success with Tom, Dick and Harry as his backing group. Given the Paucity of solo written Paul songs until the Beatles fifth album, I have my doubts, how big would those later songs be without John lending writing assistance and harmonies? We'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 19, 2014 23:24:30 GMT -5
Well Elvis did like to eat. But without Scotty, Bill and Sun Records he'd be eating sandwiches from the back of a truck. I don't know a lot about Springsteen to really say but I'd bet that big sound behind him had a lot to do with his success. Would he have gotten other players to play behind him, would they have meshed as well with the songs he was writing? I don't know. But I thought I was the one arguing that the individual artist can claim success regardless of the band he's in. Twisting this into a pretzel? Let's unwind this. An individual can take credit if he's solely or mostly responsible for it. In the case of Elvis or Bruce, and many others the backing players are interchangeable, easily substitutability so we can say they are responsible for their own success, good so far? How could you possibly think we would be good so far? Elvis can take credit for his success on Sun Records because he was a component of the success. Had he not lucked into meeting up with Scotty and Bill he would still be driving a truck during the period of his success. We are in complete disagreement with this point yet you thought we'd be good so far? Once again, not okay. Well, I agree up to the part that minimizes Paul's contribution to the band. I thought it was the Paul applauders who put down the other Beatles to make their Beatle look better. That sounds like what you are doing here. Paul's songs rocked. They were the better songs. It wasn't until I Should Had Known Better when John matched Paul's excitement level. How good would John's songs had been without Paul showing John where to put his fingers?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 0:11:35 GMT -5
Just checked. Guinness book lists Michael Jackson, not Paul McCartney. . So they've changed Guiness? Or maybe Paul was in there as "most successful SONGWRITER"...? Anyway, then Guiness should be discarded all together as any kind of evidence if it's Michael Jackson who is #1 ... that is just a joke. He was #1 freak, that's about it, who got big off one amazon THRILLER album. And that is just not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 0:14:58 GMT -5
As were John George and Ringo. If we're talking about how successful a Paul was, how do you factor in the success if a group he was but a quarter of? Because it was not John, George, or Ringo who went on to accomplish so much from 1970 through 2014 -- it was Paul McCartney. That's why. I hope you see the light as I have. And talking about "180 degree change of everything he's said before", that's what John Lennon did. What's wrong with changing one's point of view? I've come to see it much differently than I had before. It's called growth. It's stubborn to just rigidly sit there and refuse to consider anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 0:25:06 GMT -5
In the case of Paul, his first group wasn't a collection of hand picked backing musicians. They were John Lennon, George a Harrison and Ringo Starr. Not interchangeable with anyone else. Paul wasn't even the leader of this band, sang lead on a small minority of songs on their first several albums and his instrument was the least distinctive part of the band's sound, at least on those first albums. Still ok? Not okay. I have always been so infatuated with John Lennon that I did not want to consider that Paul was actually the most gifted musician and songwriter here. John would have went nowhere without Paul (IMO), but Paul was plenty talented enough and professional-minded and workman-like and a perfectionist to the point where I feel he could have made it without the others. But of course, we can never prove this. I am now more of the mind that John was not the "leader," but only gets that rep in the sense that The Quarrymen were John's band to begin with. But once Paul and John hooked up together, Paul was clearly the more polished of the two who knew his stuff and impressed John and influenced John. I think it was more a matter of Paul merely allowing John to think he was some kind of leader, just because Lennon was always more fragile, even though he tried to act like the tough guy. John needed that trip more than Paul did. We agree that we'll never know. All we can do is make an educated guess, and mine is based on all Paul has accomplished even going beyond The Beatles and into today.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 0:30:36 GMT -5
Well Elvis did like to eat. But without Scotty, Bill and Sun Records he'd be eating sandwiches from the back of a truck. Nonsense. Elvis had the voice and the charisma. As for making fun of Elvis' weight, please keep in mind that this was only a fraction of his life (say 4 years out of 42). It was the end and it cost him -- but when you need to fall back on the "Fat Elvis" thing, you don't have anything else to go on. LOL! That's exactly the kind of realization I'm waking up to.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 0:37:02 GMT -5
Paul and wings had the most commercial success of all the ex-beatles. Does that mean he was the most successful individual? Well .. yeah. How else does one determine success?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 20, 2014 0:50:37 GMT -5
Well Elvis did like to eat. But without Scotty, Bill and Sun Records he'd be eating sandwiches from the back of a truck. Nonsense. Elvis had the voice and the charisma. As for making fun of Elvis' weight, please keep in mind that this was only a fraction of his life (say 4 years out of 42). It was the end and it cost him -- but when you need to fall back on the "Fat Elvis" thing, you don't have anything else to go on. LOL! That's exactly the kind of realization I'm waking up to. I pick on Elvis. I'm a big fan. I like his whole career. Of course Elvis in the '50s was the greatest but I might put the later Elvis above the movie years. At least he was recording music as his main focus. And I'd say he was really only seriously overweight the last few months of his life. On Paul's success without John, I'm a little leery to push that point. Paul is such a pragmatist. I'm afraid he might have made a wise decision and quit music as a profession. It was seeing John so sure of himself pushing forward that kept Paul going. Now John came back from Hamburg at one point and withdrew from the band. I'm drawing a blank as to what went threw Paul's head at this time.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 20, 2014 1:12:28 GMT -5
But back on Elvis, I'm not sure that anybody but Sam Phillips would have taken a chance on him. Elvis sounded pretty strange on those old ballads (My Happiness). Sun Records was the only place in Memphis that would have picked Elvis up. Nashville never wanted anything to do with Elvis even after he hit it big.
I can't imagine Elvis walking into a studio in New York and not being laughed at.
Elvis wasn't in a band playing music. Nobody would have heard his genius.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 11:35:33 GMT -5
Twisting this into a pretzel? Let's unwind this. An individual can take credit if he's solely or mostly responsible for it. In the case of Elvis or Bruce, and many others the backing players are interchangeable, easily substitutability so we can say they are responsible for their own success, good so far? How could you possibly think we would be good so far? Elvis can take credit for his success on Sun Records because he was a component of the success. Had he not lucked into meeting up with Scotty and Bill he would still be driving a truck during the period of his success. We are in complete disagreement with this point yet you thought we'd be good so far? Once again, not okay. Well, I agree up to the part that minimizes Paul's contribution to the band. I thought it was the Paul applauders who put down the other Beatles to make their Beatle look better. That sounds like what you are doing here. Paul's songs rocked. They were the better songs. It wasn't until I Should Had Known Better when John matched Paul's excitement level. How good would John's songs had been without Paul showing John where to put his fingers? So the beatles can't take credit for their success, because no way they get where they're going without Epstein and Martin? Come on you know what I'm saying here. Yeah, Plase Please Me, It Won't Be Long, Little Child and Not a Second a Time just can't match the excitement level of PS I Love you...in your mind. I respect your right to think Paul's early songs were better than John's, but I have the opposite opinion. And I never said John would have made it without Paul. But Paul likely would have dropped a brief infatuation with music if not for John. They're only the Beatles because of all four of them.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 11:37:58 GMT -5
Just checked. Guinness book lists Michael Jackson, not Paul McCartney. . So they've changed Guiness? Or maybe Paul was in there as "most successful SONGWRITER"...? Anyway, then Guiness should be discarded all together as any kind of evidence if it's Michael Jackson who is #1 ... that is just a joke. He was #1 freak, that's about it, who got big off one amazon THRILLER album. And that is just not good enough. Yes Joe, in 1978 or 1979 Paul was deemed most successful songwriter. Your welcome, says John. But you can't accept that accolade without accepting the one Jackson received, even though I didn't like him any more than you did.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 11:42:45 GMT -5
As were John George and Ringo. If we're talking about how successful a Paul was, how do you factor in the success if a group he was but a quarter of? Because it was not John, George, or Ringo who went on to accomplish so much from 1970 through 2014 -- it was Paul McCartney. That's why. I hope you see the light as I have. And talking about "180 degree change of everything he's said before", that's what John Lennon did. What's wrong with changing one's point of view? I've come to see it much differently than I had before. It's called growth. It's stubborn to just rigidly sit there and refuse to consider anything else. Your first point doesn't follow. John lost his desire to crank pop hits for the meat market at the waning days of the Beatles. You know this. you can't extrapolate the years 1773 to 1976 back to the sixties to determine which one had a greater impact on the Beatles. Sorry, I'm not drinking the koolaid. 50 years of conventional wisdom is fine with me. even Paul says he looked up to John and he was happy to be second in the Beatles. You have videos showing the others calling Johnthe leader. do you really, no I mean really, think John or George or Ringo would be led by Paul? be honest.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 11:43:34 GMT -5
Paul and wings had the most commercial success of all the ex-beatles. Does that mean he was the most successful individual? Well .. yeah. How else does one determine success? I mean most successful individual entertainer of all, not just the exBeatles
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 20, 2014 12:41:18 GMT -5
How could you possibly think we would be good so far? Elvis can take credit for his success on Sun Records because he was a component of the success. Had he not lucked into meeting up with Scotty and Bill he would still be driving a truck during the period of his success. We are in complete disagreement with this point yet you thought we'd be good so far? Once again, not okay. Well, I agree up to the part that minimizes Paul's contribution to the band. I thought it was the Paul applauders who put down the other Beatles to make their Beatle look better. That sounds like what you are doing here. Paul's songs rocked. They were the better songs. It wasn't until I Should Had Known Better when John matched Paul's excitement level. How good would John's songs had been without Paul showing John where to put his fingers? So the beatles can't take credit for their success, because no way they get where they're going without Epstein and Martin? Come on you know what I'm saying here.. No, I'm not sure what you're saying. Your argument is that Paul can't take credit for his work in the Beatles because he had help. How deep does that go? My argument is that each of the Beatles can take credit for their success while in the Beatles, as could Martin and Epstein. I always say Paul is my favorite artist of all time. I certainly include his work in the Beatles as part of that. I'm not much a fan of any of those songs. They sound terribly old fashioned to me. PS I Love You is the best song in that group. I agree Paul may had quit had he not met John.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 13:18:53 GMT -5
I'm not much a fan of any of those songs. They sound terribly old fashioned to me. PS I Love You is the best song in that group. PLEASE PLEASE ME made #1. Anyway, I am always a staunch defender of PS I LOVE YOU, and I think it was a better "A Side" song than LOVE ME DO, However, I can't believe you don't think PS sounds terribly old fashioned! If anything, PS is the most corny and old fashioned of the lot named, even though I do love it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 13:23:47 GMT -5
Yes Joe, in 1978 or 1979 Paul was deemed most successful songwriter. Your welcome, says John. Even Lennonites must concede that Paul was way more successful as a solo artist than John was. If not, why wasn't John the one given such an award? You have not told me what exactly is the title of Jackson's accolade? "Most Successful Artist"? If so, what are they basing this on? The mega-sales of THRILLER alone? Or also OFF THE WALL? Well, that's not enough.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 13:25:56 GMT -5
Well .. yeah. How else does one determine success? I mean most successful individual entertainer of all, not just the exBeatles It's either Paul or Elvis. It's ain't MJ or the others you've named.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 13:38:39 GMT -5
Your first point doesn't follow. John lost his desire to crank pop hits for the meat market at the waning days of the Beatles. You know this. you can't extrapolate the years 1773 to 1976 back to the sixties to determine which one had a greater impact on the Beatles. And because John decided not to just crank out hits for the meat market, he wound up not being as successful as Paul was. Whether it was John's choice or not. But I honestly don't think John had the commercial ear that Paul does, and I think Paul was better at making "hit product". Even "Starting Over" and DOUBLE FANTASY didn't do as well as expected until after John's murder. I have said that I think Paul was happy to appease John, because Paul was more self-assured and confident than John was (Paul has often said in interviews: "I let John have his way").. And technically, John WAS "the leader", in the sense that it all started first with John's original band, The Quarrymen - and it was Lennon who asked McCartney to join his group. ... That was kind of the accepted default as they got Ringo and hit the Big Time. But I see Paul as being the one who was the leader MUSICALLY, no doubt about that. Not sure what you mean by your end question. Do you mean at the start of the early years with Ringo? No, by that time I wouldn't expect that Paul would formally lead The Beatles and the other three would just fall into line. However, the funny thing is that Paul did not have to do so formally --- just naturally, he was the #1 talent and media person within the group, right under the others' noses, if you will. Paul did lead The Beatles at the end, after Brian died. This was mainly because John couldn't have cared less anymore, but still...
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 20, 2014 13:44:00 GMT -5
I'm not much a fan of any of those songs. They sound terribly old fashioned to me. PS I Love You is the best song in that group. PLEASE PLEASE ME made #1. Anyway, I am always a staunch defender of PS I LOVE YOU, and I think it was a better "A Side" song than LOVE ME DO, However, I can't believe you don't think PS sounds terribly old fashioned! If anything, PS is the most corny and old fashioned of the lot named, even though I do love it. I include it in saying they all sound old fashioned. But I still think it's the best song of the bunch mentioned. I like the way it rocks out on the last verse. All My Loving has old fashion lyrics: "Close your eyes and I'll kiss you, tomorrow I'll miss you, remember I'll always be true." But it's still one of the best early Beatles songs.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:23:02 GMT -5
So the beatles can't take credit for their success, because no way they get where they're going without Epstein and Martin? Come on you know what I'm saying here.. No, I'm not sure what you're saying. Your argument is that Paul can't take credit for his work in the Beatles because he had help. How deep does that go? My argument is that each of the Beatles can take credit for their success while in the Beatles, as could Martin and Epstein. I always say Paul is my favorite artist of all time. I certainly include his work in the Beatles as part of that. I'm not much a fan of any of those songs. They sound terribly old fashioned to me. PS I Love You is the best song in that group. I agree Paul may had quit had he not met John. Regarding the songs, we can agree to disagree. If you think PS I Love You is the best of that lot this discussion has nowhere to go. If you feel hose songs of John lack energy we won't change each other's mind about it.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:25:08 GMT -5
I'm not much a fan of any of those songs. They sound terribly old fashioned to me. PS I Love You is the best song in that group. PLEASE PLEASE ME made #1. Anyway, I am always a staunch defender of PS I LOVE YOU, and I think it was a better "A Side" song than LOVE ME DO, However, I can't believe you don't think PS sounds terribly old fashioned! If anything, PS is the most corny and old fashioned of the lot named, even though I do love it. I agree with you, Joe, I think PS I Love You was a better song than Love Me Do. But Love Me Do had the harmonica, which appealed to George Martin hence the A side.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:27:25 GMT -5
Yes Joe, in 1978 or 1979 Paul was deemed most successful songwriter. Your welcome, says John. Even Lennonites must concede that Paul was way more successful as a solo artist than John was. If not, why wasn't John the one given such an award? You have not told me what exactly is the title of Jackson's accolade? "Most Successful Artist"? If so, what are they basing this on? The mega-sales of THRILLER alone? Or also OFF THE WALL? Well, that's not enough. Yup, Paul had the most successful commercial career, even if you stop counting at 1980. I won't say best, that is subjective. But my favorite solo Paul is the WOA era.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:29:14 GMT -5
Yes Joe, in 1978 or 1979 Paul was deemed most successful songwriter. Your welcome, says John. Even Lennonites must concede that Paul was way more successful as a solo artist than John was. If not, why wasn't John the one given such an award? You have not told me what exactly is the title of Jackson's accolade? "Most Successful Artist"? If so, what are they basing this on? The mega-sales of THRILLER alone? Or also OFF THE WALL? Well, that's not enough. Guinness has him as the most successful entertainer, which someone said was Paul. Others on the board can talk on Jackson's accomplishments better than I can or would- he creeps me out.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:32:39 GMT -5
Yes Joe, in 1978 or 1979 Paul was deemed most successful songwriter. Your welcome, says John. Even Lennonites must concede that Paul was way more successful as a solo artist than John was. If not, why wasn't John the one given such an award? You have not told me what exactly is the title of Jackson's accolade? "Most Successful Artist"? If so, what are they basing this on? The mega-sales of THRILLER alone? Or also OFF THE WALL? Well, that's not enough. Also, maybe I'm a Lennonite, but I've been dubbed a Starr defender and I've been known to defend George. If Paul was the one whose contributions were understated here, I'd be pointing out his good works more often. I have all the solo stuff from all the guys and while I have my favorites I enjoy them all. But you have to admit this board is tilted wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to Paul's side, especially since you converted.
|
|