DM's Beatles forums

Solo forums => Paul McCartney => Topic started by: Wayne L. on April 19, 2004, 03:09:01 PM

Title: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Wayne L. on April 19, 2004, 03:09:01 PM
I think Paul thinks of himself as too much of a famous star these days INSTEAD of the rock legend that he is because I have seen him more in the last 12 years or so on television(excluding concert specials) than at anytime when I was growing up during the 70's when he didn't abuse his so called celebrity at the time which kind of turns me off even though I will always be a dedicated Beatles fan but McCartney has been on TV almost constantly since the 90's. 
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: perowave7 on April 19, 2004, 08:52:33 PM
Maybe thats because of an increase in TV in our modern society...
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 20, 2004, 02:56:51 AM
He's a famous star and a rock legend. Yes, I think sometimes he can be egotistical, but he's a Beatle. He's put his time in, he deserves the attention that he gets.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Wayne L. on April 20, 2004, 05:05:15 PM
I'm not knocking him for being a famous star as well as a rock legend at all if that was the impression, but being a famous star seems to be the focus these days in the media more than Paul himself, I thought it was ridiculous the way the media was treating the wedding of Paul & Heather like it was 69 all over again, except with more glitz. 
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Bruno on April 20, 2004, 08:39:44 PM
I think he's both a star and a rock legend. He might look more of a famous star nowadays because he's not very involved in music like he used to.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Ssarah on April 20, 2004, 09:07:10 PM
wow, Bruno, TK, and pero.... You all hit it right on the nose. I could not say it any better.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 20, 2004, 10:39:46 PM
Since the Beatles, Paul McCartney hasn't played enough "Rock" music to be classed as a "Rock Legend". Even in the Beatles, it sometimes seemed as if  he was a long way from "rock".

The sound you make is muzak to my ears
You must've learned something in all those years!
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Bruno on April 20, 2004, 11:05:25 PM
[quote by=Ssarah link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=5 date=1082495230]wow, Bruno, TK, and pero.... You all hit it right on the nose. I could not say it any better. [/quote]

thank you, it took me a while to come up with that answer  :P
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Ssarah on April 20, 2004, 11:52:42 PM
[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=6 date=1082500786]Since the Beatles, Paul McCartney hasn't played enough "Rock" music to be classed as a "Rock Legend". Even in the Beatles, it sometimes seemed as if
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 21, 2004, 03:08:25 AM
[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=6 date=1082500786]Since the Beatles, Paul McCartney hasn't played enough "Rock" music to be classed as a "Rock Legend". Even in the Beatles, it sometimes seemed as if
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 21, 2004, 06:34:08 AM
[quote by=tkitna link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=9 date=1082516905]What do you consider him ---[/quote]

As you ask, I'll tell you. I think Paul McCartney "took his lucky break and broke it in two". In other words, he has wasted all his phenomenal gifts on largely superficial work.

I consider him to be ... a man who threw it all away.

Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 21, 2004, 08:15:08 AM
[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=10 date=1082529248]

As you ask, I'll tell you. I think Paul McCartney "took his lucky break and broke it in two". In other words, he has wasted all his phenomenal gifts on largely superficial work.

I consider him to be ... a man who threw it all away.

[/quote]

Wow! I'm practically speechless. Paul McCartney is the biggest rock icon that is alive today, but yet he threw it all away? Odd!

Maria, how would you have liked or changed the way that Paul McCartney used his 'phenomenal gifts' after the Beatles broke up? Please elaborate!  Also, who do you feel, or think, used their ' phenomenal gifts' in the most positive way? (it doesnt have to be one of the Beatles)

Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 21, 2004, 09:55:27 AM
[quote by=tkitna link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=11 date=1082535308]
Wow! I'm practically speechless. Paul McCartney is the biggest rock icon that is alive today, but yet he threw it all away? Odd!

Maria, how would you have liked or changed the way that Paul McCartney used his 'phenomenal gifts' after the Beatles broke up? Please elaborate!
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: pc31 on April 21, 2004, 10:59:38 AM
boulderdash......granites leading
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: John@work on April 21, 2004, 04:11:29 PM
I see Paul as a famous ROCK star/legend.  The beatles didn't create rock and roll but they became the standard by which (dare I say) all rock bands were measured.  As far as Paul "not using his powers" for good.  I say he used it to the best of his abilities.  He's no saint but he gets his message out. 
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 21, 2004, 07:02:54 PM
[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=12 date=1082541327]

First: he's not a "rock" icon. If anything he's a "pop" icon. But he's not even that, for me. I think Paul has been in the business (and I mean bu$ine$$) of being "Beatle Paul" for around 20 years. He didn't start like that: with Wings, he said that was a new band, and there'd be no looking back to Beatle days. That proved unrealistic, and he succumbed to being Beatle Paul. People go to his concerts to hear old Beatle songs, sung by Fab Paul. He cashes in.

First, he is a 'Rock' icon. Michael Jackson and Brittany are 'pop' icons. Big difference. Paul dabbled in the 'pop' genre, but thats not whats hes known or remembered for.

When Paul started Wings, and continued with them through out all of the member changes, he didnt succumb to being Beatle Paul. Are you trying to say that Paul cashed in because he was an ex-beatle, or are you saying that he started to write songs that were beatlesque? If its the song writing aspect,,,,um, he was a Beatle after all. Paul has his style of writing songs and just because the beatles broke up, that doesnt mean he's going to change his style. Regardless, if we're talking about cashing in beacuse he was an ex-beatle, well, they all did. If the beatles never existed, John would have been mentioned in the same breath as Zappa. Say what you want, but the first scent of Yokos bullsh*t with the public = stigma. George was a social recluse anyways, so I can see him being mentioned in the same light as say, Joni Mitchell or Arlo Guthrie. If he wasnt a Beatle, his solo stuff wouldnt be recived very well. Who on the street can name more than 5 George songs as it is now? Besides 'All Things Must Pass' (which Band on the Run could stand up to), what does George bring to the table that Paul couldnt match? Nothing! Ringo's been making a living on playing beatle tunes for 30 years. The bottom line,,,,you dont go to a Jimmy Page concert and not expect to hear a few Zeppelin tunes. Same applies to Paul.

Second: how could he have used his gifts? Look at his solo songs, tkitna. Most are fairly superficial aren't they? Maybe a catchy tune, almost always forgettable words. Listen to the often corny arrangements. And his genius as a tunesmith is often vastly over stated: to hear some people talk, his tunes are instantly catchy. Most are not, in fact. So I think he should have waited till he had something he really wanted to sing about. Work at the words and arrangements. Nuture his muse, respect it! Fewer albums, but good ones. Like I said in another context here, it's quality, not quantity, that counts.

So what we're saying is that Paul writes fodder songs on purpose just to appeal to the public? Come on! Your whole statement is based on the fact that Paul has shown such moments of brillance that you expect a masterpiece everytime out! That would be a nice fantasy world. I'm sure he throws a crapper together every now and then to get the record out. Everyone does. If you cant see through that, your kidding yourself. When Paul puts a new record out, the first listen (probably many more to come) throws up the red flag of,,,,man, he sure has done better in the past! Heres something to ponder, what has George ever done that comes even remotely close to ATMP? Exactley!

To answer your last question: I'll give you a Beatle that used his gifts in a positive way: George Harrison. He matured and improved. And a non-Beatle: Bob Dylan. They are both serious artists, with concern for their music; they take pains.

George did not improve. ATMP was his measuring stick and never even caught a glimpse of it. Dylan took pains? Yeah, everytime I listen to a latter album, it sends a pain right through me. Changing with the times? Paul did this, but the only difference is,,,,people remember it!

And: I like this sort of discussion. It's what a Beatles board should be about ... Beatles. I look forward to your reply, tkitna.

I agree and i'm also looking forward to your next response.
[/quote]

Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Ssarah on April 21, 2004, 07:52:42 PM
When I first saw that you thought Paul was a pop star... I started laughing.  My mind was swirling with bits of his music which were quickly being compared to Justin Timberlake.  I was thinking, no way is Paul a POP star.  But then I actually thought about it a little more.  I see where you are coming from Maria. I decided to do a little reasearch to see if others were as confused as I was on the topic.  here is an article that shows that others are too a little mixed up about the whole idea.


Paul McCartney live: almost pop music heaven

By DAVE FERMAN

STAR-TELEGRAM POP MUSIC CRITIC


DALLAS - I was pretty cynical about this show, one stop on Paul McCartney's first tour of the United States in nine years.

After all, a top price of $250 per seat is pretty steep even for the cute Beatle.


And after seeing McCartney's two-hour hits-filled career summary at a sold-out Reunion Arena on Thursday, the price still feels a little high.


But there is no denying that seeing McCartney live on stage singing such landmarks of rock as Blackbird, We Can Work It Out and All My Loving takes on a tinge of the awe-inspiring.


Without question, he and his four-man band performed with grace, stellar musicianship and an attitude that celebrated the importance of those songs while delivering a good-time rock 'n' roll show.


McCartney, who turns 60 June 18, recently told writer Larry Katz that he has come out of a "tunnel of sadness" since the death of his wife, Linda, in 1998.


One reason for that is his fiancee, Heather Mills, 34, who attended Thursday night's concert. Also, he was a major player in the Concert for New York benefit. Freedom, which he wrote for the benefit, has become an anthem.


Coming on stage at 8:45 p.m. with Hello Goodbye, McCartney moved among bass, acoustic and electric guitars, and piano while leading the band through songs including Coming Up to the heavy blues of Let Me Roll It to a sweet version of Mother Nature's Son.


McCartney dedicated several songs to people close to him, including Mills; Linda McCartney; John Lennon; and, perhaps most movingly, George Harrison. He performed Harrison's Something on ukelele, a favorite instrument of the late Beatles guitarist.


The excellent band was led by burly drummer Abe Laboriel Jr. with Rusty Anderson and Brian Ray on guitar and Paul "Wix" Wickens on keyboards.


Besides the price, the show's only negative was a 15-minute opening segment. Performers clad in what looked like geisha costumes, Indian finery and Elizabethan high fashion walked down the aisles and around the stage. It was pointless and a waste of time.


But when McCartney took the stage, the show started to build. And build. After about 75 minutes, the band soared through a string of classics including Band on the Run, Back in the USSR, Maybe I'm Amazed, My Love, Can't Buy Me Love and Freedom.


He closed the regular set with a big 10-minute Hey Jude singalong.


This concert was a lovely exercise in nostalgia and something you would be proud to tell your grandchildren about. Paul McCartney, live, singing Beatles songs is as close as we can come in 2002 to pop music heaven.



As you see, in the last line it shows he thinks that he is a pop star pretty much. But if you also look at paragraph 5 it says,

Without question, he and his four-man band performed with grace, stellar musicianship and an attitude that celebrated the importance of those songs while delivering a good-time rock 'n' roll show.



I think that this one is totally based on opinion. I think you could come up with facts for both sides. I still lean a little bit more towards the rock but maybe that is because I love the Beatles so much.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 21, 2004, 09:25:49 PM
Just a couple of points, tkitna:

When I say Paul is in the business of being Beatle Paul, I mean as a money-making concern. He now plays an awful lot of Beatle songs at his concerts, many more than he used to. He once said he would not do any!

You and I will have to agree to differ about Paul's and George's merits
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Ssarah on April 21, 2004, 09:55:26 PM
Maria, based on popularity eh?  You know considering I had a pretty nuetral stand point I don't see why you would think that.   Maybe you didn't read everything though.

yeah I like TK about a million times better then you but I can't say I totally agree with it being 100% rock.  Opinions are opinions, they don't define friends.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 21, 2004, 10:58:53 PM
[quote by=Ssarah link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=18 date=1082584526]Maria, based on popularity eh?
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 22, 2004, 02:28:53 AM
Where did this discusssion go? LOL! I may step down and let Ssarah and Maria have the floor!

Quote
When I say Paul is in the business of being Beatle Paul, I mean as a money-making concern. He now plays an awful lot of Beatle songs at his concerts, many more than he used to. He once said he would not do any!

As far as I know,,,,all the ex-beatles played beatle songs at thier concerts. Ok, Paul is a shrewd businessman,,,,so what. As far as I know, he's one of the top (if not the) money makers of any rocker. He's knows his craft and does it well. Whats the point? He maybe once said that he wouldnt do any beatle songs in his concerts (I dont have that info in front of me) so he changed his mind. He probably was the last beatle to incorporate any beatle songs in his set list, but I dont know this for sure. Whatever!

Quote
You and I will have to agree to differ about Paul's and George's merits
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 22, 2004, 05:09:05 AM
[quote by=tkitna link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=20 date=1082600933]Where did this discusssion go? LOL! I may step down and let Ssarah and Maria have the floor!

You have yet to show me the 'quality' on your side. I'm interested in your opinions. Every artist has quantity![/quote]

That girl misses the point so often. LOL indeed!

Anyway, I've been thinking about the "quality" angle. I don't feel like going into a chapter and verse thing with say, George, trying to show how Paul doesn't measure up. It seems a bit petty. Instead, I'll try this angle.

John Lennon and George Harrison, even at low ebbs, always seemed to be trying to say something with their music. George was often accused of preaching, but a closer listen reveals a man simply searching for truth
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 22, 2004, 12:30:12 PM
[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=21 date=1082610545]
John Lennon and George Harrison, even at low ebbs, always seemed to be trying to say something with their music. George was often accused of preaching, but a closer listen reveals a man simply searching for truth
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Ssarah on April 22, 2004, 01:51:41 PM
Ok Tk and Maria=) I will stop posting in this thread, Its all yours.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 22, 2004, 06:45:29 PM
[quote by=Ssarah link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=23 date=1082641901]Ok Tk and Maria=) I will stop posting in this thread, Its all yours. [/quote]

Ssarah, darling,,,,you better not be upset with me! I meant nothing bad. Maria kind of twisted the meaning of my post. You can chime in anytime with one of my posts.

Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 22, 2004, 09:11:14 PM
If I seemed to twist the meaning, maybe that's because it wasn't clear in the first place!

Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 22, 2004, 09:31:55 PM
[quote by=tkitna link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=22 date=1082637012]
Regarding your statement about John and George always attempting to say something with their music (in the big picture but not always) well thats alright. I personally have a problem with this sometimes (as does the general public). I love John and Georges music, but i'm not really interested in their political and religious point of views. They almost seem to push it on you (John especially).
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on April 23, 2004, 04:16:44 PM
[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=26 date=1082669515]

I don't care what the general public thinks: see, there's that popularity angle again. Paul went for the popularity thing, George and John much less so.

I'm not interested in their views per se (I mean, why should a musician's views on Ireland be any more valid then anyone elses?). But, I AM interested in how they express it. Lyrics, certainly. Music, certainly. Two examples: I think that Hear Me Lord, as it is on ATMP is a wonderful prayer, a quite classic plea from George to his God. (I am not a believer of any description, btw.) Next, Gimmee Some Truth, although full of slogans, is arranged quite brilliantly: perfectly done, and lifting what could have been a banal effort to unexpected heights.[/quote]

I see what your saying. I almost broke out the entire McCartney catalog just to post some songs that i thought were meaningful and that had something to say, but I didnt. At this point of the conversation, its pretty clear we have two different views of what music is about. I just watched a video of Jim Croce with a friend and every song told a story. My problem is, I was bored stiff after the second song. Two guitars is nice sometimes. I just dont want a steady dose no matter what the songs saying. My point is, you could be the greatest storyteller in the world and if your music bores me,,,it bores me. I cant help that.

Quote
To answer the last point above: Yes, a song that doesn't say anything is aural wallpaper.

So you dont enjoy any instrumentals? None? You dont enjoy George jamming with Derick & the Dominos on ATMP. Your right,,it must be aural wallpaper.

Quote
Paul never stooped to that level??!!

Remember that question-and-answer press release issued by Macca at the time of McCartney(1) in 1970? He piled a lot of put-downs on Beatles in that document: and it was just a tool to sell a record. Ugh.

Yeah, I remeber it. I suppose your right, but wouldnt you think that McCartney would have put something out better than 'McCartney' if he wanted to show the world how good he was? Honestly, the record was done on a four tracks by him. I'm sure you heard it. Most of the songs sound like they were recorded underwater. Paul knew he didnt have a masterpiece there. (I still think its pretty incredible that got "Maybe i'm Amazed" out of those sessions).

Quote
And Paul in song? Oh yes: check out Too Many People and 3 Legs. Quite nasty in parts, I thought.

Those songs could have been alot nastier if he intended, but i'll agree with you.

Quote
HOWEVER, I don't mind that much. Wherever you get the inspiration from, it doesn't matter
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Wayne L. on April 25, 2004, 07:53:55 PM
Paul is a rock legend in every sense of the word even though as a solo artist for over 30 years he has released some of the greatest pop, rock & schlock ever recorded as well as keeping a high profile as a famous star because he has stayed in the mainstream without going over the edge musically!!!
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on April 25, 2004, 10:53:49 PM
When Paul dies he'll probably be consitered a rock legend.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: SieLiebtDich on October 12, 2004, 12:00:45 AM
[quote by=dr.Robert link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=29 date=1082933629]When Paul dies he'll probably be consitered a rock legend.[/quote]



I don't know but i think he is  ;D
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Mairi on October 12, 2004, 12:18:47 AM
This thread reminds me of how much I do NOT miss that Maria. And I do consider Paul to be a rock legend, John George and Paul were all rock legends.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on October 12, 2004, 12:42:07 AM
Really? I just read it, it was a terrific debate and I'll bet that tk enjoyed it.  Debate like that is good for a forum, and that made for great reading.


To add my 2 cents, I feel Paul has moved away from his rock roots into more pop region.  It often amazes me that the man who wrote and recorded 'Get Back' and "Let it Be" just a few months before turned out such a weak solo effort.  I think Paul lost a lot of confidence going out on his own, but he did and Wings is regarded as succesful.  But back to the point, i agree more with tk, that music that is enjoyable is most important.  Take Bob Dylan for example, one of the few songs of his I enjoy ids Like A Rolling Stone, which is attractive immediately because of its jangling spirit.  Only after a few listens do the lyrics stick.  I think the music is definately most important, but lyrical statements enhance it to the level of classic.  Unfortunately solo McCartney often lacked that, but he is doubtless a rock legend.  I dont see how that can be disputed.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Mairi on October 12, 2004, 12:49:02 AM
I think it's true that he needed John to push him to make a good record. They always had a rivalry among each other, and when the band broke up it was strengthed. They were always trying to outdo each other.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Herecomesyoursun on October 12, 2004, 12:58:54 AM
Well Paul did alright for himself during the 'Lost Weekend', nothing motivating him there...and i think if the motivation to outdo each other was as stroung in the solo years as it had been with the Beatles there would be better solo music.  However it is the rare solo work that compares t Beatles.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Indica on October 12, 2004, 02:33:58 PM
We have to be realistic and say that although the Solo Careers might be viewed as successful, they were never going to carry the wealth of talent that 'The Beatles' generated.
 This said, I think Mccartney is often viewed as part of the elite* godfathers of Popular Music. The Famous star tag will obviously be attatched, I think you cant have one and not the other..its a simple formula..after all..its the commercial appeal which makes you famous* (in the Beatles sense)

People with a clue, will see him as a Music Legend :)
I dont like using the term rock* because it seems too narrow in the music-sense.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Sondra on October 13, 2004, 03:32:51 AM
How on earth could Paul NOT be considered a legend?? He was part of the Beatles for Gods sake! He helped changed the face of music as we know it. This is unquestionable.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: tkitna on October 13, 2004, 02:11:52 PM
I just reread the whole thread and have to admit that it was enjoyable. I wish there were more of those debates around here.

I had to laugh about my ignorance during some of it though. I thought 'Harrisong' was an actual song back then. Too funny.

I'll also go out and admit that I enjoyed Maria being around. She had loads of knowledge to share, but unfortunately she kind of went overboard there at the end with the Kolarski and Frightwolf ordeal. Oh well.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: on October 14, 2004, 02:17:17 AM
Yes, she did.




Of course Paul is a legend.  The Beatles were a legend then and now.  He and Ringo are living legends.  No amount of tepid solo success will ever erase the decade of brilliance with the Beatles.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Sondra on October 14, 2004, 02:38:54 AM
EXACTLY!!!
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Indica on October 14, 2004, 03:30:23 PM
From the count in to I Saw Her Standing there .. to the ending magic of Her Majesty ..

A slice of time, a creation of ideals, a pure state of music..




Have you heard the word is Love?
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 14, 2004, 06:13:28 PM
His contribution to music is unsurpassed! Hi all, I'm back. Been a while. Good to see some of the old names and hello to all the new.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: number14 on October 18, 2004, 01:33:25 AM
hes an infamous famous rock legend person
hes on of the beatles!
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Sadie4 on October 18, 2004, 11:05:33 AM
All four Beatles aer already legends.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Wayne L. on November 05, 2004, 05:24:37 PM
I think Paul is more of a famous star these days since he's on TV way too much which has nothing to do with more channels or even more entertainment shows even though he wil always be a music legend with few equals.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Lucy In The Sky on November 05, 2004, 09:03:34 PM
I consider him to be a rock legend.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Sondra on November 06, 2004, 04:34:59 AM
I think the best answer to this question would be 'DUH!" I mean, come on already.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Lucy In The Sky on November 06, 2004, 09:41:44 PM
Haha, never would of guessed you felt that way.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Sondra on November 06, 2004, 11:56:40 PM
Yeah, I know! It's so unlike me! ;D
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Lucy In The Sky on November 07, 2004, 11:09:30 AM
Very, thought you were anti-paul, man did you prove me wrong. :P
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: strawb3rryfi3ldsfor3ver on December 23, 2004, 03:41:17 AM
Paul is pretty poppy, but he's in no way the trashy and for the most part, severely untalented pop that we typically have. Sure, he wasn't the big hardcore rock 'n' roller, but he's no slutty pop princess or commercially packaged, choreographed teenager-in-a-box. He's...Paul McCartney. Beatle Paul. I'd concider him a rock legend -- if not for his songwriting, his BASS PLAYING. He's pretty underrated for that, but with the Beatles, he was one of the best! :o

I mean, yeah, he seems to be a lot into the "Beatle!Paul" thing, but...hell, I dunno. I'd go into some sort of sentence about "If you were a Beatle..." then again, if you were a Beatle, i'd be in mad crazy awe and have SO many questions. XD But yeah.

And post-Beatles, he did write Maybe I'm Amazed and that's OMGWTFBBQ amazing. <3 But y'know, it's...just that thing with Paul, I guess. He'll either write a beautiful, wonderful song or something sorta boring and lightweight. *shrug*

But blah. They were all ex-Beatles, they all took different roads, it got them places or didn't. It's just how life is, and you're not going to get a perfect - spectacular - great album all the time, and not so much if you're trying to please commercially. *shrug* I'm just going to stick with "I like the Beatles, Paul was poppier solo than the others, I loved "Maybe I'm Amazed", so ... YAYE!" because I wanna. XD;;;;

Quote from: Herecomesyoursun
.  Take Bob Dylan for example, one of the few songs of his I enjoy ids Like A Rolling Stone, which is attractive immediately because of its jangling spirit.  Only after a few listens do the lyrics stick.     

Exactly. o_____o I couldn't say it better about Like A Rolling Stone. At first, it's really hard to get what he's saying at all -- basically all you can get is "How does it FEEEEEEEEL?!" and then, "Like a rooooooooling stoooooone..." until you play it again and listen for the rest. But what makes it so likeable is that...y'know, you can't understand hardly a word he's saying, but the song's just got that jinglejangly spirit and the whole feeling of, "Hey, it's the sixties, let's go twirl around a field to this song!" in a way. Yeah. ...I, er, hope you get what I mean here. XD;;; Sorry. But the Beatles, Paul...there's nothing really deep in "She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah!" or "Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs! I look around me and I see it isn't so!", right? Just fun. Teehee.


...and landmines are bad...'member that. Badbadbad!
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: number14 on January 11, 2005, 01:16:57 AM
i still think hes both
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Wayne L. on January 15, 2005, 03:03:38 PM
[quote by=Lucy_In_The_Sky link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1082387341,s=45 date=1099688614]I consider him to be a rock legend.[/quote]

I consider Paul to be a rock legend as well but he has become too much of a celebrity these days that it's sickening. 
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Kevin on January 18, 2005, 12:48:12 PM
Hi all.
Paul's reputation took a real kicking early on, 'specially after John's death (I remember truly horrible things said about him). But lately he's had a huge renaissance (since Britpop?) and I don't think anyone can blame him for enjoying it a little.
The guy helped change the face of popular music. What more do you want from him?

Cheers
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Lenny Pane on January 18, 2005, 01:38:12 PM
at the end of the day, they guy is just a Legend !
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 30, 2005, 02:27:59 PM
Quote from: Wayne_L.

I consider Paul to be a rock legend as well but he has become too much of a celebrity these days that it's sickening.
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 30, 2005, 02:39:20 PM
I mean, was'nt he a celebrity back then? Sickening is a bit harsh..Cheesy maybe sometimes but sickening?
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: TurnMeOnDeadman on January 30, 2005, 02:54:36 PM
Have you seen his incredibly wrinkly neck fat?
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Lenny Pane on January 30, 2005, 02:59:07 PM
well the same thing will catch us all up in the end lol :)
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: TurnMeOnDeadman on January 30, 2005, 03:06:27 PM
LOL
Title: Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
Post by: Mairi on January 30, 2005, 05:38:40 PM
Quote
But the Beatles, Paul...there's nothing really deep in "She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah!" or "Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs! I look around me and I see it isn't so!", right? Just fun. Teehee.

Baby's In Black. Written by John.

Oh dear what can I do,
baby's in black and I'm feelin' blue.
Tell me oh, what can I do?

She thinks of him
and so she dresses in black
and though he'll never come back
she's dressed in black.

Oh dear what can I do,
baby's in black and I'm feelin' blue.
Tell me oh, what can I do?

I think of her
but she thinks only of him
and though it's only a whim
she thinks of him.

Oh how long will it take
till she sees the mistake she has made?

Dear what can I do,
baby's in black and I'm feelin blue.
Tell me oh, what can I do?

Oh how long will it take
till she sees the mistake she has made?

Dear what can I do,
baby's in black and I'm feelin blue.
Tell me oh, what can I do?

She thinks of him
and so she dresses in black
and though he'll never come back
she's dressed in black.

Oh dear what can I do,
baby's in black and I'm feelin' blue
Tell me oh, what can I do


Yep. Some real profound lyrics there.