|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:35:30 GMT -5
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. I doubt that. I bet there's a bunch if individuals with more successful and better regarded careers than post Beatles Paul. Paul's heyday diminished after WOA, the fits dried up by Broad Street, 30 years ago. good luck putting together a post Wingspan greatest hits album.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:39:50 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... He led them to the point that each one wanted to get away. why do you think George and a Ringo sided with John? because they loved Yoko so much? John was the one that pushed the a Beatles away from the pop genre, Paul followed. Pull out your BeTles albums and see which one was cutting edge. Or if it's easier just read your old posts.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 14:42:09 GMT -5
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. So old fashioned is good? A song can be one of the best if it's old fashioned? Or does thT only relate to Paul's songs' not John's?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 14:50:58 GMT -5
He led them to the point that each one wanted to get away. why do you think George and a Ringo sided with John? because they loved Yoko so much? Nah, because I think they wanted Klein and didn't want Lee Eastman running the business. In the end, even John admitted Paul had been right about Klein. You don't have to remind me which Beatle was cutting edge; I know that already, and it's what I like about John. But it's much more even keeled and mature to see all sides and not just the one because you're hung up on one Beatle. Thanks, Anyone, for helping me see how bad it looked for me to be so locked into Lennon Elitism that I could not see the forest for the trees in giving Paul his due. It's not attractive. Of course it can go either way; I'm just gald I've always been able to see shade of grays instead of either all black or all white.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 15:01:35 GMT -5
But you have to admit this board is tilted wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to Paul's side, especially since you converted. I guess it all depends what "side" you're viewing from. When I was defending John endlessly, it seemed like all I heard from were Macca Mad Hatters. Now that I am seeing things from more of a Paul Perspective, where are all the Paul Fans to help out? All I am feeling right at this present moment is Endless Lennon Elitism! So at the moment the board feels more titled to Lennon. And again -- I see the strengths and weaknesses in BOTH men. I like the music created by both of them. With John he will remain my favorite as a personality, and musically he was indeed cutting edge and candid, sharply and refreshingly honest .... but Paul is my favorite as an ordained master of melody and infectious songs. I am also beginning to better appreciate Paul's discipline and perfectionism in the studio, and opposed to the "let's just get it down and get outta here" mentality of Lennon. I have always identified with John more as a human being because he was so openly frail and had so many demons to confront ... but now I more respect Paul's composure and having it always pretty together, professionally. Try as you may, you will never get me to be "All About Paul".
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 15:11:30 GMT -5
He led them to the point that each one wanted to get away. why do you think George and a Ringo sided with John? because they loved Yoko so much? Nah, because I think they wanted Klein and didn't want Lee Eastman running the business. In the end, even John admitted Paul had been right about Klein. You don't have to remind me which Beatle was cutting edge; I know that already, and it's what I like about John. But it's much more even keeled and mature to see all sides and not just the one because you're hung up on one Beatle. Thanks, Anyone, for helping me see how bad it looked for me to be so locked into Lennon Elitism that I could not see the forest for the trees in giving Paul his due. It's not attractive. Of course it can go either way; I'm just gald I've always been able to see shade of grays instead of either all black or all white. You have it backwards Joe. I have always been the one to give each Beatle isi quarter share In their success. You were always the one to ride one side- first John, now Paul- to death. It's all Paul for you, where is the balance? And don't get me started on your distain for a George. You think you are open minded about his contributions? As the man said, See Yourself. For my part, I will pull CDs of John, Paul, a George and a Ringo very equally, ax I find something by each of the gouts to enjoy. I am the last one you should say is locked into any Beatle. JSD was convinced I only liked Ringo. I am trying to lend done balance here because no one else is correcting claims like your that Paul was the shit, the other 3 not so much. Look back at my posts, you'll see I defend all of them where neeeed. I started to get into this post because someone had to respond to Paul's disco song, that John was more into disco (despite him never singing a disco song, but whatever). Typical Paul fanboy behavior, when not happy with something Zpaul did! point out something John did, true or not. You for one know this happens all the time on this board and I'm glad for you it doesn't annoy you anymore but it still annoys me. John talked up disco to atom Snyder in 1980? Really? I would pay to see that rape, but it's fanboy fiction. Goodnight a Tonight is not a disco song? When over the last 35 years did that happen? Why was John brought into this thread in the first place? Because he's always, always got yo be put down by a Paul fan. That's why it looks like I'm always about John, because John gets attacked here, Paul doesn't. when we talk about the Beatles nicking songs, it's always a Paul fanboy listing John's songs instead of the other way around. Never mind that Paul nicked just as many. I don't know why it seems like it's always the Paul fans doing this, I don't see the John fans instigating things, except when I do because I'm p.o.'d.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 15:13:59 GMT -5
It's either Paul or Elvis. It's ain't MJ or the others you've named. I doubt that. I bet there's a bunch if individuals with more successful and better regarded careers than post Beatles Paul. Paul's heyday diminished after WOA, the fits dried up by Broad Street, 30 years ago. good luck putting together a post Wingspan greatest hits album. Oh, and what kind of "hits" album does Michael Jackson have, not counting when he was 10 years old with his brothers? How long did MJ's "solo hit career" flourish? He had OFF THE WALL in 79/80, and then THRILLER is 82/83. Paul had a much more long, fruitful and enduring solo career than that. I have to laugh... Paul has already has WINGS GREATEST, ALL THE BEST, and then WINGSPAN -- what else do you need? Who has as much? Even if I couldn't produce a post-Wingspan Paul "Greatest Hits" album (though I will), his place in history is already insured just by what he did up to Wingspan! (It goes from 1970 to 1984, for crying out loud! That is pretty damn impressive!) ... However -- Paul has produced some really good material post-Wingspan... the only difference is, he's not being heard like he used to be so they were not chart-topper "hits"... Songs like "My Brave Face", "This One", "Put It There", "Hope Of Deliverance", "C'mon People", "Young Boy", "Beautiful Night", "Calico Skies", "Somedays", "The World Tonight", "Jenny Wren", "Dance Tonight", "Ever Present Past", "Sing The Changes", "My Valentine", and the entire CHAOS AND CREATION and NEW albums.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 15:14:14 GMT -5
But you have to admit this board is tilted wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to Paul's side, especially since you converted. I guess it all depends what "side" you're viewing from. When I was defending John endlessly, it seemed like all I heard from were Macca Mad Hatters. Now that I am seeing things from more of a Paul Perspective, where are all the Paul Fans to help out? All I am feeling right at this present moment is Endless Lennon Elitism! So at the moment the board feels more titled to Lennon. And again -- I see the strengths and weaknesses in BOTH men. I like the music created by both of them. With John he will remain my favorite as a personality, and musically he was indeed cutting edge and candid, sharply and refreshingly honest .... but Paul is my favorite as an ordained master of melody and infectious songs. I am also beginning to better appreciate Paul's discipline and perfectionism in the studio, and opposed to the "let's just get it down and get outta here" mentality of Lennon. I have always identified with John more as a human being because he was so openly frail and had so many demons to confront ... but now I more respect Paul's composure and having it always pretty together, professionally. Try as you may, you will never get me to be "All About Paul". Um, where are these lennon elitist so you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 15:20:40 GMT -5
I doubt that. I bet there's a bunch if individuals with more successful and better regarded careers than post Beatles Paul. Paul's heyday diminished after WOA, the fits dried up by Broad Street, 30 years ago. good luck putting together a post Wingspan greatest hits album. Oh, and what kind of "hits" album does Michael Jackson have, not counting when he was 10 years old with his brothers? How long did MJ's "solo hit career" flourish? He had OFF THE WALL in 79/80, and then THRILLER is 82/83. Paul had a much more long, fruitful and enduring solo career than that. I have to laugh... Paul has already has WINGS GREATEST, ALL THE BEST, and then WINGSPAN -- what else do you need? Who has as much? Even if I couldn't produce a post-Wingspan Paul "Greatest Hits" album (though I will), his place in history is already insured just by what he did up to Wingspan! (It goes from 1970 to 1984, for crying out loud! That is pretty damn impressive!) ... However -- Paul has produced some really good material post-Wingspan... the only difference is, he's not being heard like he used to be so they were not chart-topper "hits"... Songs like "My Brave Face", "This One", "Put It There", "Hope Of Deliverance", "C'mon People", "Young Boy", "Beautiful Night", "Calico Skies", "Somedays", "The World Tonight", "Jenny Wren", "Dance Tonight", "Ever Present Past", "Sing The Changes", "My Valentine", and the entire CHAOS AND CREATION and NEW albums. Don't make me defend Jackson, but Bad was huge, lots of hits, and his subsequent albums also big. Those 3 greatest hits albums have the same songs! And Winspan is a double album, but only one was hits, the other history, Paul had a lot if hits with a Wings but others had more. Mariah Carey, Garth Broojs, there must be a half dozen others. Elton amount etc etc Chaos kinda ducks, sorry. I wrote something nice about it back then, but have since realized I appreciated the attempt to do something different more than the execution. c'mon people is not a good song. Young boy, very corny, not good.i like the others, but they are not hits. Not one if the dongs you lusted can be called a greatest hit.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 15:21:09 GMT -5
Oh, and what kind of "hits" album does Michael Jackson have, not counting when he was 10 years old with his brothers? How long did MJ's "solo hit career" flourish? He had OFF THE WALL in 79/80, and then THRILLER is 82/83. Paul had a much more long, fruitful and enduring solo career than that. I have to laugh... Paul has already has WINGS GREATEST, ALL THE BEST, and then WINGSPAN -- what else do you need? Who has as much? Even if I couldn't produce a post-Wingspan Paul "Greatest Hits" album (though I will), his place in history is already insured just by what he did up to Wingspan! (It goes from 1970 to 1984, for crying out loud! That is pretty damn impressive!) ... However -- Paul has produced some really good material post-Wingspan... the only difference is, he's not being heard like he used to be so they were not chart-topper "hits"... Songs like "My Brave Face", "This One", "Put It There", "Hope Of Deliverance", "C'mon People", "Young Boy", "Beautiful Night", "Calico Skies", "Somedays", "The World Tonight", "Jenny Wren", "Dance Tonight", "Ever Present Past", "Sing The Changes", "My Valentine", and the entire CHAOS AND CREATION and NEW albums. Don't make me defend Jackson, but Bad was huge, lots of hits, and his subsequent albums also big. Those 3 greatest hits albums have the same songs! And Winspan is a double album, but only one was hits, the other history, Paul had a lot if hits with a Wings but others had more. Mariah Carey, Garth Broojs, there must be a half dozen others. Elton amount etc etc Chaos kinda ducks, sorry. I wrote something nice about it back then, but have since realized I appreciated the attempt to do something different more than the execution. c'mon people is not a good song. Young boy, very corny, not good.i like the others, but they are not hits. Not one if the dongs you lusted can be called a greatest hit. Except the World Tonight, in England only.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 15:32:27 GMT -5
You have it backwards Joe. I have always been the one to give each Beatle isi quarter share In their success. You were always the one to ride one side- first John, now Paul- to death. It's all Paul for you, where is the balance? It seemed that way because "ReturnToPepperland" (affectionately known as RTP) always built Paul up and never gave anyone else their due. As a result, I was always defending John in discussions with him, and RTP would actually have me belittling Paul, he got so bad! Just as I am now defending Paul to you because you're so far up Lennon's butt and needling Paul. (That reminds me -- THIRTY THREE &1/3 is a great album)... Oh, you're sputtering crazy talk here. Why, because I don't think George was technically a great lead guitar player? I can tell you George songs that I think are superior to Paul or John songs. I can tell you that Paul's DRIVING RAIN is the worst solo album of any Beatles, including all of Ringo's albums (and I am a big Ringo Fan -- witness my current avatar, and how I'm always sticking up for him). I will tell you that George blew Paul out of the water in the 1980s with his CLOUD NINE and WILBURYS projects. I have defended all the Beatles - including George - at various times and situation, where I felt it was needed. I am all about being candid and honest, giving praise where I feel it's warranted, and also issuing knocks too, where needed. Who said this? The Snyder interview was in 1975, and I am the one who suggested that -- while Lennon said he thought the disco music was "great music" -- he did not exactly go "bonkers" over it. I believe it was Sayne who said that Lennon went wild over Donna Summers' "The Wanderer" (1980?), but I'm not sure the source of that one; maybe he will fill us in. Let me try this again. They may well call Goodnight Tonight a "Disco Song", but it sure as hell doesn't sound like a Disco song to me. I will repeat that I feel the song "Daytime Nighttime Suffering" has far more of a disco beat and style. I would agree that GT sounds more like some kind of a Calypso knockoff. And let me be perfectly clear about this one more time: there is no way that I am in some kind of "disco denial" regarding GT, as I WISH that Paul went out and tried one full-blown disco album. I like it... I only can WISH that GT sounded more like Disco to my appreciative ears. Sounds like something I once said.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 15:45:26 GMT -5
]Don't make me defend Jackson, but Bad was huge, lots of hits, and his subsequent albums also big. Name the solo hit songs MJ had, without his brothers. Then we'll name the hits Paul had solo without The Beatles... Funny how Mariah and Garth had more hits, but I'll be damned if I can name even one. I'll go a step further ... consider that the careers of Mariah and Garth were their "first and only careers". With Paul, he'd already blown by them with his success within The Beatles (his comparable first career)... and then he did even more on his own in the solo years (second career). You don't have to like CHAOS, but the reputation of anything goes by the general rulings of the majority rather than the few. I just heard The Beach Boys' PET SOUNDS in its entirety for the very first time and thought it was a polished turd, a real overrated load of filler and nothing -- yet my 'minority opinion' cannot alter nor affect the general reputation and historical perception of PET SOUNDS. I'm ready with my answer because I figured you'd go there. Well, the same can be said about earlier solo songs that WERE considered "good" or "hits". Is UNCLE ALBERT (a song I love - I'm just being objective) any less "corny" than YOUNG BOY? Are SAY SAY SAY, EBONY AND IVORY, or COMING UP any "better" than the songs I've listed, really? Or isn't it more like I said -- Paul was still more in the public awareness, younger, considered more relevant...? Any one of those songs I named could/would have been a hit in the '70s or early '80s.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 15:52:17 GMT -5
Oh, and another thing on topic with the thread title -- I don't think THIS SONG is "disco", either. (It also is a lousy song, IMO).
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 20, 2014 16:01:25 GMT -5
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. So old fashioned is good? A song can be one of the best if it's old fashioned? Or does thT only relate to Paul's songs' not John's? I admit the lyrics for PS I Love You were old fashioned but the song has a misty kind of haunting sound to it and he really sells it at the end. All My Loving has old fashioned lyrics but the song is great, it doesn't quit. It just keeps upping itself. I'd say it's very innovative in that. In the songs you mention by John, it's more the songs them self that sound dated to me. I never liked cared much for Please Please Me with all the "Come on, come on"s over and over again. It Won't Be Long seems a little simple, and Not a Second Time is one of the few real filler tracks the Beatles did. The Beatle had a little bag of tricks and these songs all rely on those tricks. But don't get me wrong, John wrote the best songs by the middle and end of the Beatles. Strawberry Fields, Happiness, I Am the Walrus, Come Together.... While the Beatles were together, looking at them as a whole, I probably give John the nod.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 16:07:57 GMT -5
I admit the lyrics for PS I Love You were old fashioned but the song has a misty kind of haunting sound to it Not a Second Time is one of the few real filler tracks the Beatles did. The Beatle had a little bag of tricks and these songs all rely on those tricks. So you don't think NOT A SECOND TIME is haunting, but you think PS I LOVE YOU is? I have always felt that the piano in John's NAST is really effective and moody/haunting, and makes the song rather gloomy and unworldly. Isn't NAST the song that was said to have "Aeolian Cadences" ? Diffferent strokes for different folks and all that, but I think that NAST is one of the Beatles very different and powerful earlier songs. *Hey, Anyone -- see/ Here I am defending John.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 16:12:31 GMT -5
You have it backwards Joe. I have always been the one to give each Beatle isi quarter share In their success. You were always the one to ride one side- first John, now Paul- to death. It's all Paul for you, where is the balance? It seemed that way because "ReturnToPepperland" (affectionately known as RTP) always built Paul up and never gave anyone else their due. As a result, I was always defending John in discussions with him, and RTP would actually have me belittling Paul, he got so bad! Just as I am now defending Paul to you because you're so far up Lennon's butt and needling Paul. (That reminds me -- THIRTY THREE &1/3 is a great album)... Oh, you're sputtering crazy talk here. Why, because I don't think George was technically a great lead guitar player? I can tell you George songs that I think are superior to Paul or John songs. I can tell you that Paul's DRIVING RAIN is the worst solo album of any Beatles, including all of Ringo's albums (and I am a big Ringo Fan -- witness my current avatar, and how I'm always sticking up for him). I will tell you that George blew Paul out of the water in the 1980s with his CLOUD NINE and WILBURYS projects. I have defended all the Beatles - including George - at various times and situation, where I felt it was needed. I am all about being candid and honest, giving praise where I feel it's warranted, and also issuing knocks too, where needed. Who said this? The Snyder interview was in 1975, and I am the one who suggested that -- while Lennon said he thought the disco music was "great music" -- he did not exactly go "bonkers" over it. I believe it was Sayne who said that Lennon went wild over Donna Summers' "The Wanderer" (1980?), but I'm not sure the source of that one; maybe he will fill us in. Let me try this again. They may well call Goodnight Tonight a "Disco Song", but it sure as hell doesn't sound like a Disco song to me. I will repeat that I feel the song "Daytime Nighttime Suffering" has far more of a disco beat and style. I would agree that GT sounds more like some kind of a Calypso knockoff. And let me be perfectly clear about this one more time: there is no way that I am in some kind of "disco denial" regarding GT, as I WISH that Paul went out and tried one full-blown disco album. I like it... I only can WISH that GT sounded more like Disco to my appreciative ears. Sounds like something I once said. Not everything I'm griping about is from something you said, I'm including other posters comments. And if I'm saying things you once said, it's because you don't tend to say them anymore. I get what you're saying about your belittling Paul when RTP went over the top, what do you think is happening with my comments on this thread? Only it's not RTP lately, it's other madhatters.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 16:16:02 GMT -5
And if I'm saying things you once said, it's because you don't tend to say them anymore. I get what you're saying about your belittling Paul when RTP went over the top, what do you think is happening with my comments on this thread? Only it's not RTP lately, it's other madhatters. I'm sure at some point I'll be right there defending John again -- and maybe even from something Paul himself said or did to marginalize him!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 20, 2014 16:16:15 GMT -5
I admit the lyrics for PS I Love You were old fashioned but the song has a misty kind of haunting sound to it Not a Second Time is one of the few real filler tracks the Beatles did. The Beatle had a little bag of tricks and these songs all rely on those tricks. So you don't think NOT A SECOND TIME is haunting, but you think PS I LOVE YOU is? I have always felt that the piano in John's NAST is really effective and moody/haunting, and makes the song rather gloomy and unworldly. Isn't NAST the song that was said to have "Aeolian Cadences" ? Diffferent strokes for different folks and all that, but I think that NAST is one of the Beatles very different and powerful earlier songs. *Hey, Anyone -- see/ Here I am defending John. To me, it's John lamenting lost love again and rhyming words. But I'm speaking on the Beatles' scale here. If I say "It sucks", well that means "It still pretty good".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 16:20:28 GMT -5
To me, it's John lamenting lost love again and rhyming words. If that's a charge against John, then what does Paul usually do, LOL? But aside from the words in NAST, I'm talking about the powerful music theme. But even going back to the words, John is talking about being made to cry, and being told lies and getting hurt, and refusing to be fooled a second time... to me, that's more than just you're typical June/Moon fluff stuff. Of course.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 16:22:22 GMT -5
]Don't make me defend Jackson, but Bad was huge, lots of hits, and his subsequent albums also big. Name the solo hit songs MJ had, without his brothers. Then we'll name the hits Paul had solo without The Beatles... Funny how Mariah and Garth had more hits, but I'll be damned if I can name even one. I'll go a step further ... consider that the careers of Mariah and Garth were their "first and only careers". With Paul, he'd already blown by them with his success within The Beatles (his comparable first career)... and then he did even more on his own in the solo years (second career). You don't have to like CHAOS, but the reputation of anything goes by the general rulings of the majority rather than the few. I just heard The Beach Boys' PET SOUNDS in its entirety for the very first time and thought it was a polished turd, a real overrated load of filler and nothing -- yet my 'minority opinion' cannot alter nor affect the general reputation and historical perception of PET SOUNDS. I'm ready with my answer because I figured you'd go there. Well, the same can be said about earlier solo songs that WERE considered "good" or "hits". Is UNCLE ALBERT (a song I love - I'm just being objective) any less "corny" than YOUNG BOY? Are SAY SAY SAY, EBONY AND IVORY, or COMING UP any "better" than the songs I've listed, really? Or isn't it more like I said -- Paul was still more in the public awareness, younger, considered more relevant...? Any one of those songs I named could/would have been a hit in the '70s or early '80s. I'm not the one to defend Michael Jackson. Someone else will pick it up. You can't list Maiahs or Garth's hits, and a lot of their fans can't name Paul's doesn't mean Paul's are more legitimate, correct? I think Pet Soynds is good, has a few really great songs. If you're arguing we must follow conventional wisdom, the John was the leader of the Beatles, George Martin, not Paul, produced the Beatles, Paul did a lot of soppy songs, John was the smart one, the first McCartney albums sucked, etc. sometimes we pick our conventional wisdom, but I'm generally good with it. Even when it says Paul had the most commercial success of the ex-Beatles.and is it conventional wisdom that Chaos was good or great? It's Possible young boy could have been a hit in the seventies, Let Em In was. I'm not saying Paul didn't have good songs in the last 30 years, he has, a bunch of them are on New
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 16:23:53 GMT -5
Oh, and another thing on topic with the thread title -- I don't think THIS SONG is "disco", either. (It also is a lousy song, IMO). It's not disco. But it wax a pretty good song
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 16:25:34 GMT -5
I admit the lyrics for PS I Love You were old fashioned but the song has a misty kind of haunting sound to it Not a Second Time is one of the few real filler tracks the Beatles did. The Beatle had a little bag of tricks and these songs all rely on those tricks. So you don't think NOT A SECOND TIME is haunting, but you think PS I LOVE YOU is? I have always felt that the piano in John's NAST is really effective and moody/haunting, and makes the song rather gloomy and unworldly. Isn't NAST the song that was said to have "Aeolian Cadences" ? Diffferent strokes for different folks and all that, but I think that NAST is one of the Beatles very different and powerful earlier songs. *Hey, Anyone -- see/ Here I am defending John. Classic JoeK, my favorite kind!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 16:37:35 GMT -5
You can't list Maiahs or Garth's hits, and a lot of their fans can't name Paul's doesn't mean Paul's are more legitimate, correct? Good point, but I'll bet that in general if we went 'round the world and randomly asked people to name hits by these three, most people would be able to name Paul's. Or at least The Beatles' . I realize this part is getting silly here. I recently saw Katy Perry on some BBC TV show with Paul, and she bragged that she had more hits in the recent years than Paul did, causing Paul to jokingly get up and walk off stage (and then come back, kidding). But here again - who cares, and who will care in 50 years? We can all pretty safely bet that Paul's (and The Beatles') music will out-last other current "fads of the moment". they say that Mariah Carey has as many hits or more than The Beatles...? If so, how many YEARS did it take to happen? So The Beatles have her beat on that score, with the presumption being that had they been active as long as Mariah, they would have logged in even more. I don't see this as "conventional wisdom", not when it comes to overall appreciation and majority review of a record album, or say a movie (for example). The way an album or a movie gets either its great rep or its awful rep is based on what the majority declares. Now, this doesn't mean some of us cannot disagree -- but it's just that it won't dent the overall reputation. Like my (and a relative handful of others') despising of PET SOUNDS won't change a thing for its glowing rep. Yes, from what I've seen all over the Beatle-releated Circle(s), (and critics circles) it's generally considered a Paul Triumph -- like BAND ON THE RUN or TUG OF WAR are, and like how WILD LIFE and MACC II are not. NEW is a whole 'nuther subject. Because I think it's literally in Paul's All-Time Top Five Albums (I mean IMO here) -- and as I was saying elsewhere, it was here today and then forgotten tomorrow, which is sad. But I don't blame the material; I blame the world as it is today with its instant gratification and then onto the next thing -- as nothing resonates anymore, and it's not like it used to be. I think NEW would make a very upbeat and happy Swan Song for Paul's solo career if he was never to make another studio album. I hope he does more and I hope they're as good, but I feel that Paul really put his all into NEW and came up with something that -- if it didn't take everyone by storm and race to #1 -- then nothing else will.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 16:38:57 GMT -5
Oh, and another thing on topic with the thread title -- I don't think THIS SONG is "disco", either. (It also is a lousy song, IMO). It's not disco. But it wax a pretty good song I appreciate the sentiment and wise cracking of THIS SONG, but I can't stand the tune -- if there even is one. Now CRACKERBOX PALACE on the other hand -- that is a great one!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 20, 2014 16:42:17 GMT -5
One other thing about NEW -- I think the title song called "New", with "Everybody Out There", and "I Can Bet" could/would have been hits if issued in the 1970s, early '80s.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 18:12:43 GMT -5
You can't list Maiahs or Garth's hits, and a lot of their fans can't name Paul's doesn't mean Paul's are more legitimate, correct? Good point, but I'll bet that in general if we went 'round the world and randomly asked people to name hits by these three, most people would be able to name Paul's. Or at least The Beatles' . I realize this part is getting silly here. I recently saw Katy Perry on some BBC TV show with Paul, and she bragged that she had more hits in the recent years than Paul did, causing Paul to jokingly get up and walk off stage (and then come back, kidding). But here again - who cares, and who will care in 50 years? We can all pretty safely bet that Paul's (and The Beatles') music will out-last other current "fads of the moment". they say that Mariah Carey has as many hits or more than The Beatles...? If so, how many YEARS did it take to happen? So The Beatles have her beat on that score, with the presumption being that had they been active as long as Mariah, they would have logged in even more. I don't see this as "conventional wisdom", not when it comes to overall appreciation and majority review of a record album, or say a movie (for example). The way an album or a movie gets either its great rep or its awful rep is based on what the majority declares. Now, this doesn't mean some of us cannot disagree -- but it's just that it won't dent the overall reputation. Like my (and a relative handful of others') despising of PET SOUNDS won't change a thing for its glowing rep. Yes, from what I've seen all over the Beatle-releated Circle(s), (and critics circles) it's generally considered a Paul Triumph -- like BAND ON THE RUN or TUG OF WAR are, and like how WILD LIFE and MACC II are not. NEW is a whole 'nuther subject. Because I think it's literally in Paul's All-Time Top Five Albums (I mean IMO here) -- and as I was saying elsewhere, it was here today and then forgotten tomorrow, which is sad. But I don't blame the material; I blame the world as it is today with its instant gratification and then onto the next thing -- as nothing resonates anymore, and it's not like it used to be. I think NEW would make a very upbeat and happy Swan Song for Paul's solo career if he was never to make another studio album. I hope he does more and I hope they're as good, but I feel that Paul really put his all into NEW and came up with something that -- if it didn't take everyone by storm and race to #1 -- then nothing else will. It's not the world today, Joe, it's how it always is. You can't expect an artist to be number 1 in this generation, the next and the next. Paul and the others had a mighty long run. Were you listing to chuck Berry in the 70s? Frank Sinatra at #1? If it happens, it would be a one-off. We shouldn't want the record (ok, music) buying public to put a 70 year old at number one, for the most part they're kids, and kids should have their own music that differentiates their generation. If that's not the case, we never would have gotten the beatles, we would have grown up on swing or big band or done thing ancient. Paul has had a huge run thus far. rolling Stone rated his cd highly. That should be more than enough at this point. I'm not really sure what's of lasting value on New, it's got good pop songs but is it the music of all time?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 18:13:36 GMT -5
One other thing about NEW -- I think the title song called "New", with "Everybody Out There", and "I Can Bet" could/would have been hits if issued in the 1970s, early '80s.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 18:16:21 GMT -5
One other thing about NEW -- I think the title song called "New", with "Everybody Out There", and "I Can Bet" could/would have been hits if issued in the 1970s, early '80s. Agree about the seventies before London Town, not sure about early eighties, maybe. His big hits in the early eighties were duets with Stevie a Wonder and, um, what's his name. Not too many solo hits after Coming Up.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 18:17:18 GMT -5
Double post. Boy I'm sloppy on the iPad.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Apr 20, 2014 18:21:15 GMT -5
Back to the original post, count me in favor of the George perm. Had one like it in that period.
Didn't George look cool with that on Ringo's tv special? Thin as a rail and terrible narration, but so cool.
|
|