|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2014 9:49:31 GMT -5
That's exactly what you said. Scrolling above, we can see where you wrote: "I don't think they were 'The Beatles' for real until Ringo joined them." How can the 4 or 5 guys who started 'The Beatles' not be the real 'Beatles'? How many times and ways can I repeat this and try to explain? As I've said, it's difficult to convey things in writing. I hope by now you may have checked out other posts I've made in response, even where I tried changing the size of the letters to emphasize the different status of both Beatles. There are various incarnations of The Beatles over the years... but only one that emerged as the legendary and big BEATLES> the one with Ringo. If this was truly a "gimmick", then it wouldn't have been the first time The Beatles recorded a gimmicky song. Several times now I have explained that the decision is up to the members themselves, and they decided. You can deny that George Harrison's real name is George Harrison , even though he tells you that's his name. You can disregard whatever you choose, but that does not make it so in reality. You can say that you don't feel that YESTERDAY is a real Beatles song because only Paul is on it. Whatever you like -- but it is still officially a Beatles Song. For the umpteenth time, it's got nothing in the least to do with what I personally think. I have explained that more than once already.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 30, 2014 9:59:30 GMT -5
So, again, you're stating plainly your belief that there is an objective TRUTH to this nuanced issue.
Do you actually not see that the very fact we're having this discussion proves that there isn't an objective truth in the matter?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2014 10:21:21 GMT -5
What discussion are you referring to, FREE AS A BIRD, or the "+ anyone = The Beatles"?
For FREE AS A BIRD -- I am done explaining the facts on this. However, I will pose a new question to you (and FabFour): If FREE AS A BIRD had turned out to be an excellent, fantastic song that had utilized a terrific Lennon demo, and had become a hugely popular #1 smash hit -- would you then consider it to have been done by "The Beatles"? I'd like you to be honest, but I suppose you will be more concerned with saving face rather than admitting a "Yes".
For the "+ anyone = The Beatles". -- I have made it as clear as I can, several times. And this will be the last: In my opinion, The Beatles would never have been as great and legendary as they became without Ringo Starr. All the other incarnations of The Beatles, with Stu and/or Pete, were still a version of "The Beatles", and made big strides at times, but not as much as the mega-successful THE BEATLES which ultimately came to be.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 30, 2014 21:18:06 GMT -5
What discussion are you referring to, FREE AS A BIRD, or the "+ anyone = The Beatles"? I'm referring to your way of thinking in general. It's bizarre how you're obsessed with individual opinions (usually your own or RTP's) on certain issues, and then on certain other issues you declare that 'facts are facts' and there's no point in even having a discussion (even though I started the thread). Not surprisingly, these declarations of "the facts are the facts" usually occur in subject areas when your logic is suspect and you don't want to engage in a discussion. For FREE AS A BIRD -- I am done explaining the facts on this. I'm relieved to hear that you're done explaining, but I'm still in the dark as to what "the facts" were. However, I will pose a new question to you (and FabFour): If FREE AS A BIRD had turned out to be an excellent, fantastic song that had utilized a terrific Lennon demo, and had become a hugely popular #1 smash hit -- would you then consider it to have been done by "The Beatles"?Personally? No way in hell would I consider it to be 'The Beatles'. The Beatles broke up in 1969/70. That was the end. You can't revive a dead thing and pretend it's alive by pasting the label 'Beatles' on a CD of a dead guy's demo that he never intended to be bastardized by his ex-cronies. The only way I would (albeit reluctantly) consider The Beatles to be together again -- and this in a fantasy world where John had lived on into the 80s/90s -- is if all four of them had got together to function as a band again. By "function" I mean (1) write new music together, (2) play that new music live together, and (3) record newly written music (not 20-year-old solo demos) together in a project that (4) had nothing to do with archival material. Given the reality of John's death, I suppose if Paul, George, and Ringo had done exactly as above -- been "The Beatles" in name as a threesome -- I would then understand some fans acceptance of it as The Beatles, although I personally wouldn't without Lennon (and I suspect 90% of fans wouldn't either). However, what the 'Threetles' did actually do in 1993-94 is nothing at all like what I describe above (fails on each of my 4 categories) and was in no way, shape, or form, "The Beatles". The fact that the resulting record was crap is besides the point. And this will be the last... All the other incarnations of The Beatles, with Stu and/or Pete, were still a version of "The Beatles", and made big strides at times, but not as much as the mega-successful THE BEATLES which ultimately came to be. Well, thanks for that enlightening conclusion. After three pages of arguing back-and-forth, you've now stated your case that The Beatles -- wait for it! -- became much more successful after Ringo joined than before! Wow!! I think I speak for Beatledom in general when I say 'thanks' for pointing this out. Now I don't have to do the research myself...
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 30, 2014 21:49:51 GMT -5
There's fuc* all wrong with 'Free As A Bird' and 'Real Love'!
They were good songs.
They also came enveloped in a package marked 'The Beatles'.
That's emotional product for ya!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 30, 2014 22:25:58 GMT -5
Beatles with an asterisk.
Free as a Bird is kind of boring to me but a think Real Love is as good as any Beatle song. The fact that the vocals were from a 15 year old cassette from the back of some closet proves the Beatles, albeit three of them twenty five years older and one shot dead, still had magic.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 30, 2014 23:57:51 GMT -5
(Just to point out that the artistic merits of 'Free as a Bird' and 'Real Love' are not the topic of this thread. That could be an interesting thread if someone wants to start one.)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 31, 2014 5:51:23 GMT -5
I'm referring to your way of thinking in general. It's bizarre how you're obsessed with individual opinions (usually your own or RTP's) on certain issues, and then on certain other issues you declare that 'facts are facts' and there's no point in even having a discussion (even though I started the thread). Not surprisingly, these declarations of "the facts are the facts" usually occur in subject areas when your logic is suspect and you don't want to engage in a discussion. I love engaging in discussions. But there is absolutely NOTHING that is "suspect" in my logic when it comes to the matter of FREE AS A BIRD. Since you persist at being a wise-ass with your hand-clapping, I am continuing. The only "facts are facts" I have done here is as in explaining the factual circumstances regarding PGR (and Y/J) deciding to reunite as THE BEATLES for just these recordings. And you are unable to prove otherwise . Never mind just the ANTHOLOGY ALBUM; the songs were released even as separate vinyl 45's as THE BEATLES. Go ahead - explain how new songs featuring all 4 Beatles, with new music parts and new words, and with the decision by the four legal parties to be THE BEATLES just for that project - is "not The Beatles, and only Joe's opinion". Like I've said, I hate the FAAB song and personally wish they never decided to be Beatles again for the recording; so there is no "personal bias" on my part. To the contrary, I am being objective against my own aesthetics. I just explained it again above, after having done so several times already. So now I'll be as much of a wise-ass as you by asking you: How Dense Are You? Unfortunately, yeah - you kinda can. It's what they did. What they decided. John decided it too, via Yoko's representation. (Which is legally the way such things get determined). Now, if you want to talk about whether the song is "Beatles-worthy", that's another matter. Even if you want to debate whether John would have approved of using that rough demo himself, that is another matter. And yet, you've been arguing that J,P,G, and Stu or Pete are still "The Beatles". But now you say Ringo MUST be in the band for it to count? 1) They did write new music together (there are some new vocals, and the guitar solo). 2) "Play that music live together" -- so you are under a delusion that only when a band plays "live", are they truly that group? 3) There was some new music written within FREE AS A BIRD. 4) "Had nothing to do with Archival material" -- if that's the case, what about when The Beatles went back and issued older archived stuff (such as 1967's YOU KNOW MY NAME in 1970?). Also, is the archived LEAVE MY KITTEN ALONE older archived stuff? How about the various previously unpublished demos? Are they also not The Beatles? 5) Even if the FAAB record failed to meet your requirements, the simple fact is it doesn't matter in the least what your requirements are when it comes to what the four voices decided. I think that would remain to be seen, if the resulting song had been amazing and one of their best, topping the charts. I believe you would have been singing a completely different tune. Hey, you're the one who kept asking. The only reason this went on and on for three pages of arguing is because you failed to comprehend what I was saying from the very start. I had been telling you the same thing all along, you were just too dense to pay attention to it. I had never said that The Beatles were not The Beatles when they had Pete or Stu; merely that they were not the same incarnation nor as great as they were with Ringo. I also will add that I don't understand how you seem to be the one arguing that any incarnation of The Beatles is still The Beatles on one hand, yet above you mandate your criteria that The Beatles must have the four members (JPGR) to be so.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 31, 2014 6:08:28 GMT -5
I started this thread, and I said at the outset that this thread is entirely about what each of us personally chooses to accept. That's exactly what I'm interested in -- how each fan feels about what constitutes 'The Beatles'. I couldn't care less what the surviving Beatles think (and much less than that what Yoko thinks). Okay. I do not accept YESTERDAY as a Beatles song. Doesn't matter to me that a single went out for it as THE BEATLES, or that the others okayed it as such. I do not accept DEAR PRUDENCE as a Beatles song without Ringo. I do not accept THE BALLAD OF JOHN AND YOKO as a Beatles song because it's only John and Paul one day (without the other two even knowing about it). You're ridiculous. 1) "Gimmick Single" is your (and other frustrated fans') opinion. 2) Even if it is a 'gimmick', so too were some other songs The Beatles had done in the '60s. 3) It has nothing at all to do with my own line of thinking. It's just the facts - morally and legally.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 31, 2014 7:26:02 GMT -5
And yet, you've been arguing that J,P,G, and Stu or Pete are still "The Beatles". But now you say Ringo MUST be in the band for it to count? You know, as I typed that (above), I thought to myself that, knowing Joltin' Joe, he'll probably quote this sentence and pretend I said that only John, Paul, George, Ringo -- an nobody else! -- are The Beatles. Of course, I didn't say that. Okay, Joe. I'll clarify this for you: Stuart is dead, so he can't rejoin the band now. But yes, Pete Best is alive. So -- in the entirely credible idea of Paul and George having suddenly phoning Pete in 1993 and asking him to re-start The Beatles, and if my 4 criteria above were met -- then yes, I would have understood some fans' acceptance of Paul, George, and Pete as The Beatles (although I personally wouldn't accept it unless John were there). So, there ya go.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 31, 2014 8:47:08 GMT -5
And yet, you've been arguing that J,P,G, and Stu or Pete are still "The Beatles". But now you say Ringo MUST be in the band for it to count? You know, as I typed that (above), I thought to myself that, knowing Joltin' Joe, he'll probably quote this sentence and pretend I said that only John, Paul, George, Ringo -- an nobody else! -- are The Beatles. Of course, I didn't say that. Okay, Joe. I'll clarify this for you: Stuart is dead, so he can't rejoin the band now. But yes, Pete Best is alive. So -- in the entirely credible idea of Paul and George having suddenly phoning Pete in 1993 and asking him to re-start The Beatles, and if my 4 criteria above were met -- then yes, I would have understood some fans' acceptance of Paul, George, and Pete as The Beatles (although I personally wouldn't accept it unless John were there). So, there ya go. But, Ringo can play some piano and guitar, what if they brought Pete in as the drummer for Anthology? I joke, but I have made comments previously that Peter Best never honed his craft to full professional proportions. Otherwise other UK groups would have scooped him up. But, what if he did?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 31, 2014 14:13:45 GMT -5
Mike, since Ringo now never drums alone live, he always has a second drummer, why not invite Pete Best along next time Paul and Ringo play together. In fact, Ringo rarely drums during his concerts. Let Ringo be the frontman singing and Pete be sole drummer when Ringo sings! When Paul sings, Ringo and Pete behind their respective kits.
Put Ringo and Pete next to each other and let the world decide who is better! Many on this Board have stated that they would like to see Paul and Ringo reach out to Pete. That is what they do, Paul, Ringo and Pete with Pete anchored at his drum set while Ringo goes from his drums to being the singing frontman on his songs. Sorry Pete fans, no vocals for Pete. He ought to just count his blessings under my scenario!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 31, 2014 16:13:15 GMT -5
Okay, Joe. I'll clarify this for you: Stuart is dead, so he can't rejoin the band now. But yes, Pete Best is alive. So -- in the entirely credible idea of Paul and George having suddenly phoning Pete in 1993 and asking him to re-start The Beatles, and if my 4 criteria above were met -- then yes, I would have understood some fans' acceptance of Paul, George, and Pete as The Beatles (although I personally wouldn't accept it unless John were there). So, there ya go. This would never be 'credible', though. Because the four Beatles (meaning the J.P.G.R "lineup") had made it clear that "if any of the four members were not in it, the Beatles would not exist*". *(Yet at the same time they did consider FAAB with John's vocal as him participating, but only having gone away for a time, which they said happened in the studio with any of them back in the '60s). So I do not think - based on what the Ex-Beatles had always maintained - that they ever would have had any form of The Beatles without John's participation (as they feel he did via the demo), or any one of the other three's participation. But if we pretend that we had P,G. Pete, and X as The Beatles --- I wouldn't accept them as "THE BEATLES" (using caps again to try and show the difference)... though they would be "a" different, new, lesser version as 'the beatles'. Like The Supremes -- there was a version WITH Diana Ross, and one WITHOUT Ross. Technically, they're both still "The Supremes", but there are the so-called 'real' Supremes (with Diana) and then another lineup. Same thing with The Beatles -- there were various 'Beatles" -- but only one true BEATLES. Same example with different incarnations of FLEETWOOD MAC. For me, it just isn't the "true" Fleetwood Mac without Stevie Nicks and Lindesy Buckingham.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 31, 2014 17:26:27 GMT -5
Okay, Joe. I'll clarify this for you: Stuart is dead, so he can't rejoin the band now. But yes, Pete Best is alive. So -- in the entirely credible idea of Paul and George having suddenly phoning Pete in 1993 and asking him to re-start The Beatles, and if my 4 criteria above were met -- then yes, I would have understood some fans' acceptance of Paul, George, and Pete as The Beatles (although I personally wouldn't accept it unless John were there). So, there ya go. This would never be 'credible', though. Because the four Beatles (meaning the J.P.G.R "lineup") had made it clear that "if any of the four members were not in it, the Beatles would not exist*". *(Yet at the same time they did consider FAAB with John's vocal as him participating, but only having gone away for a time, which they said happened in the studio with any of them back in the '60s). So I do not think - based on what the Ex-Beatles had always maintained - that they ever would have had any form of The Beatles without John's participation (as they feel he did via the demo), or any one of the other three's participation. To me, the trueBut if we pretend that we had P,G. Pete, and X as The Beatles --- I wouldn't accept them as "THE BEATLES" (using caps again to try and show the difference)... though they would be "a" different, new, lesser version as 'the beatles'. Like The Supremes -- there was a version WITH Diana Ross, and one WITHOUT Ross. Technically, they're both still "The Supremes", but there are the so-called 'real' Supremes (with Diana) and then another lineup. Same thing with The Beatles -- there were various 'Beatles" -- but only one true BEATLES. Same example with different incarnations of FLEETWOOD MAC. For me, it just isn't the "true" Fleetwood Mac without Stevie Nicks and Lindesy Buckingham. To me the true Fleetwood Mac has Peter Green in it.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on May 31, 2014 17:37:55 GMT -5
. . . Same example with different incarnations of FLEETWOOD MAC. For me, it just isn't the "true" Fleetwood Mac without Stevie Nicks and Lindesy Buckingham. I know it's an opinion, and I know you put the word "true" in quotes, but I don't think the quotes remove the flaw backing the opinion. If you had said, "For me, the best version of Fleetwood Mac and the only version I care about and the only one I will spend money on is the one with Stevie Nicks and Lindsay Buckingham," I could accept that. But, for anyone to consider only ONE version to be the "true" one really negates the history of the band. Although earlier versions of Fleetwood Mac did not sell as many records and did not have as many hits, they were a very respected band, especially with Peter Green.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 1, 2014 5:27:04 GMT -5
. . . Same example with different incarnations of FLEETWOOD MAC. For me, it just isn't the "true" Fleetwood Mac without Stevie Nicks and Lindesy Buckingham. I know it's an opinion, and I know you put the word "true" in quotes, but I don't think the quotes remove the flaw backing the opinion. If you had said, "For me, the best version of Fleetwood Mac and the only version I care about and the only one I will spend money on is the one with Stevie Nicks and Lindsay Buckingham," I could accept that. But, for anyone to consider only ONE version to be the "true" one really negates the history of the band. Although earlier versions of Fleetwood Mac did not sell as many records and did not have as many hits, they were a very respected band, especially with Peter Green. Sayne, I know you've got this problem with precisely now people's opinions are stated, unless they word it just the way you like it. But it's obvious you knew exactly what I meant. Jeez, writing "For Me" should have been more than enough. I'm also not going by the amount of hits forFleetwood Mac, I like the sound with Stevie and Lindsey - hits or not. For that matter, I refused to see Fleetwood Mac live without Christine McVie too , even though Stevie and Lindesy were present. So for me, those three together are crucial.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 1, 2014 5:34:21 GMT -5
So now that we've shared views about the "true" Fleetwood Mac ...
... are there any fans here who feel the "true Beatles" are the ones with Pete Best and without Ringo?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 2, 2014 21:02:43 GMT -5
So now that we've shared views about the "true" Fleetwood Mac ... ... are there any fans here who feel the "true Beatles" are the ones with Pete Best and without Ringo? How about this: Who's the "true" Wings"?
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 3, 2014 17:03:02 GMT -5
So now that we've shared views about the "true" Fleetwood Mac ... ... are there any fans here who feel the "true Beatles" are the ones with Pete Best and without Ringo? There is an argument for it. The the Beatles supposedly played their first gig as "The Beatles" in my home town at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Wallasey in the old county of Cheshire (it's now part of Wirral, Merseyside due to various boundary re-organisations since the Beatles days). I never knew it was such a violent place to visit . In fact although I have passed it many times I have still never been inside. Anyway here's what the local paper's website says :
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 3, 2014 17:08:14 GMT -5
So now that we've shared views about the "true" Fleetwood Mac ... ... are there any fans here who feel the "true Beatles" are the ones with Pete Best and without Ringo? How about this: Who's the "true" Wings"? Aaaargh another agonising question Sayne. When I was but a young kid in the 1970s it always seemed that Paul, Linda and Denny were the mainstay of that band. That trio were Wings to me. I never really paid attention to the others members of Wings in the 1970s. As I have got A LOT older I am thinking this is a much more difficult question. Although ultimately the only members of that band that were ever present whilst they were a recording/live band were the trio I've already mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jun 3, 2014 21:26:11 GMT -5
So now that we've shared views about the "true" Fleetwood Mac ... ... are there any fans here who feel the "true Beatles" are the ones with Pete Best and without Ringo? How about this: Who's the "true" Wings"? For me it is Paul, Linda, Denny Laine, Jimmy McCullough, and Joe English
|
|
|
Post by RockoRoll on Jun 5, 2014 6:31:42 GMT -5
So now that we've shared views about the "true" Fleetwood Mac ... ... are there any fans here who feel the "true Beatles" are the ones with Pete Best and without Ringo? How about this: Who's the "true" Wings"? Step 1....Look at my Profile Picture Step 2....Watch / listen Video's below Step 3.....Jimmy McCulloch.......An amazing guitarist (and sadly a bit unknown). He was a perfect fit to the band and made the band more of a *Rock Band*. When he left, Wings stopped really being a *Rock Band*........ You don't need to be rocket scientist to figure that out Sayne, even Paul said it himself on *Wingspan* (best line up... )........Saying that Geoff Britton was similar to Pete Best (got fired), and when Joe (English) joined alia's Ringo, the band took off...... Ohhhh....Step 4......*Happy Birthday* to Jimmy (June 4th... )
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 5, 2014 8:12:03 GMT -5
I actually prefer the Wings line-up during the Era of The JSD Postulate with Paul, Denny Laine, Henry McCullough, Denny Seiwell and Linda.
That was bluesier, funkier, and more free-spirited.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 5, 2014 9:58:31 GMT -5
. . . You don't need to be rocket scientist to figure that out Sayne, even Paul said it himself on *Wingspan* . . . Ah, that's part of the point in asking. There are people who believe that the Wings over America era Wings was THE REAL Wings. Okay, fine. But, some of these people say that JPGL were the REAL Beatles and any formation other than them would not be real. They have even gone on to say that they would not consider any 3-person Beatles combination enough to go out and buy their records. Some even have said that if the Beatles had continued without, say Paul, but with other musicians, they would not consider that to be the Beatles, either. But, these people did buy Wings albums without Joe and Jimmy. I don't think one can reconcile the two actions. If one thinks only JPGR are the Beatles and would or did not support anything less or more, that's cool. I won't argue that. However, if you thought that, but supported post-1976 Wings, then that is inconsistent. By the way, I posted this a while back. I read that the James Gang tried to get Jimmy to join after Joe Walsh left. I guess that's good rockin' cred.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 5, 2014 10:02:51 GMT -5
. . . You don't need to be rocket scientist to figure that out Sayne, even Paul said it himself on *Wingspan* . . . Ah, that's part of the point in asking. There are people who believe that the Wings over America era Wings was THE REAL Wings. Okay, fine. But, some of these people say that JPGL were the REAL Beatles and any formation other than them would not be real. They have even gone on to say that they would not consider any 3-person Beatles combination enough to go out and buy their records. Some even have said that if the Beatles had continued without, say Paul, but with other musicians, they would not consider that to be the Beatles, either. But, these people did buy Wings albums without Joe and Jimmy. I don't think one can reconcile the two actions. If one thinks only JPGR are the Beatles and would or did not support anything less or more, that's cool. I won't argue that. However, if you thought that, but supported post-1976 Wings, then that is inconsistent. By the way, I posted this a while back. I read that the James Gang tried to get Jimmy to join after Joe Walsh left. I guess that's good rockin' cred. And got the late Tommy Bolin instead?
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 5, 2014 10:21:27 GMT -5
But, some of these people say that JPGL were the REAL Beatles and any formation other than them would not be real Who is this L you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 5, 2014 10:26:58 GMT -5
Ah, that's part of the point in asking. There are people who believe that the Wings over America era Wings was THE REAL Wings. Okay, fine. But, some of these people say that JPGL were the REAL Beatles and any formation other than them would not be real. They have even gone on to say that they would not consider any 3-person Beatles combination enough to go out and buy their records. Some even have said that if the Beatles had continued without, say Paul, but with other musicians, they would not consider that to be the Beatles, either. But, these people did buy Wings albums without Joe and Jimmy. I don't think one can reconcile the two actions. If one thinks only JPGR are the Beatles and would or did not support anything less or more, that's cool. I won't argue that. However, if you thought that, but supported post-1976 Wings, then that is inconsistent. . It is not inconsistent, not unless one actually feels that Wings (in ANY form) is the iconic equal of The Beatles, with the same resonance. I certainly do not. They could have had Fred Flintstone in Wings for all I cared, at any time.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 5, 2014 12:43:23 GMT -5
But, some of these people say that JPGL were the REAL Beatles and any formation other than them would not be real Who is this L you speak of? Substitute drummer for the Japanese gigs, Lingo.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 5, 2014 13:51:24 GMT -5
Ah, that's part of the point in asking. There are people who believe that the Wings over America era Wings was THE REAL Wings. Okay, fine. But, some of these people say that JPGL were the REAL Beatles and any formation other than them would not be real. They have even gone on to say that they would not consider any 3-person Beatles combination enough to go out and buy their records. Some even have said that if the Beatles had continued without, say Paul, but with other musicians, they would not consider that to be the Beatles, either. But, these people did buy Wings albums without Joe and Jimmy. I don't think one can reconcile the two actions. If one thinks only JPGR are the Beatles and would or did not support anything less or more, that's cool. I won't argue that. However, if you thought that, but supported post-1976 Wings, then that is inconsistent. . It is not inconsistent, not unless one actually feels that Wings (in ANY form) is the iconic equal of The Beatles, with the same resonance. I certainly do not. They could have had Fred Flintstone in Wings for all I cared, at any time. Everyone knows Fred and Barney were the Stones!!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 5, 2014 15:27:09 GMT -5
Everyone knows Fred and Barney were the Stones!! The thing is that everyone now thinks that but say Wilma had divorced Fred for his brother? If Fred left would you accept "Frankie Flintstone"?
|
|