Topic: "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!!!" (Read 10166 times)

somedude210 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 14, 2005, 01:33:05 AM »

i think its time that all us beatles fans send some massive petition or letter or protest or something and get them to come up with anthology 4.

bed-ins against the man, man!
although i guess it would make it hard to remake songs if both guitarists are dead. kinda dulls it up.

GreenApple · « **Reply #21 on:** September 24, 2005, 12:27:09 PM »

I suspect that they might eventually release an Anthology IV album. Maybe with more unreleased material such as more songs from the Decca auditions and unreleased versions of other songs. Anthology III makes it clear that there are 99 versions of Not Guilty. I always thought the 'blisters on my fingers' shouting was Paul.

pc31 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 25, 2005, 01:52:17 AM »

paul with blisters....now thats funny....lol...lol

tkitna · « **Reply #23 on:** September 25, 2005, 02:16:52 AM »

'Cash Counting' blisters maybe.

pc31 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 25, 2005, 03:41:26 AM »

egg zactley

GreenApple · « **Reply #25 on:** September 29, 2005, 02:34:04 PM »

I've already noticed some anti-Paul sentiment after just a short while of being here. What's all that about? Various possibilities; John blamed him for splitting up The Beatles, his post-Beatles stuff is arguably poor, his songwriting seemed to be declining some in the final days of the Beatles (Teddy Boy, Maxwell's Silver Hammer). But don't forget he wrote more Beatles songs than John, and a lot of them were fantastic.

pc31 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 05, 2005, 02:21:11 AM »

Quote from: GreenApple

I've already noticed some anti-Paul sentiment after just a short while of being here. What's all that about? Various possibilities; John blamed him for splitting up The Beatles, his post-Beatles stuff is arguably poor, his songwriting seemed to be declining some in the final days of the Beatles (Teddy Boy, Maxwell's Silver Hammer). But don't forget he wrote more Beatles songs than John, and a lot of them were fantastic.

do you have a liscense to anal-ize us?

?

« **Reply #27 on:** October 05, 2005, 02:40:19 AM »

I don't think there is an anti-Paul sentiment here, at least not overall. Each one gets their turn in the barrel from time to time, but there certainly isn't as much fault-finding as championing them all.

pc31 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 05, 2005, 03:10:36 AM »

well spake.......

GreenApple · « **Reply #29 on:** October 13, 2005, 11:42:08 AM »

Quote from: pc31

do you have a liscense to anal-ize us??

I just wondered if there are any anti-Paulers, that's all. And wondered why if so. Actually I think there is little scope for denigrating any of the four. But some criticism is bound to come out now and again. No problem!

The End · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2005, 11:50:08 AM »

I'm not anti Paul either - I love his "aaaaahs" in A Day In The Life!!!

Seriously, without Paul, John would only have been half as good - and vice versa.

GreenApple · « **Reply #31 on:** October 15, 2005, 12:41:43 PM »

Quote from: The_End

I'm not anti Paul either - I love his "aaaaahs" in A Day In The Life!!!

Seriously, without Paul, John would only have been half as good - and vice versa.

Surely. Except that Paul needed John more than John needed Paul.

Kevin · « **Reply #32 on:** October 15, 2005, 12:44:48 PM »

Quote from: GreenApple

Surely. Except that Paul needed John more than John needed Paul.

Because.........?

raxo · « **Reply #33 on:** October 15, 2005, 12:58:45 PM »

Yeah, Why?

GreenApple · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2005, 01:12:00 PM »

I think Paul needed John to bounce his ideas off, whereas John was quite confident about his own songs. Some of Paul's songs, like We Can Work It Out, sound even more interesting because of John's contributions. Wihout John's additions, I reckon Paul's songs would have sounded a lot more dum-de-dum, dee-de-daa, without the harder edged parts which John added. Like the way a lot of Paul's songs went after he left The Beatles. I think Paul always missed that. That's my view.

GreenApple · « **Reply #35 on:** October 15, 2005, 01:27:29 PM »

I think that's also what explains Paul's decline after the Beatles split up, whereas John remained consistently inspired.

Kevin · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2005, 01:30:39 PM »

Man, where do you get this.
I'd need a list of Pauls' songs that John made harder.
And John was consistently inspired? What are you basing that on?

An Apple Beatle · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2005, 01:35:24 PM »

Quote from: GreenApple

I think Paul needed John to bounce his ideas off, whereas John was quite confident about his own songs. Some of Paul's songs, like We Can Work It Out, sound even more interesting because of John's contributions. Wihout John's additions, I reckon Paul's songs would have sounded a lot more dum-de-dum, dee-de-daa, without the harder edged parts which John added. Like the way a lot of Paul's songs went after he left The Beatles. I think Paul always missed that. That's my view.

I went through that thought pattern for a while. Now, I totally agree with Al (The End).

GreenApple · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2005, 02:53:36 PM »

Quote from: kevin_b

Man, where do you get this.
I'd need a list of Pauls' songs that John made harder.
And John was consistently inspired? What are you basing that on?

I suppose I'm just basing it on a preference for John over Paul. It's all subjective, at least to a fair extent, but I see John as the first Beatle. I think that became more obvious in the solo career comparisons. John was a more innovative Beatle I think.

On the other hand, I suppose me basing this view largely on a knowledge mostly of solo compilation albums is a bit churlish. Maybe even arrogant. Sorry. I guess a lot of you guys have a better idea of solo careers because you've got a lot more of the albums from each of the guys.

It's a bit like the debate in the Paul's latest album thread. Maybe I need a Macca album or two in my collection!

Well, I've always had the impression that John inserted more input into Paul's songs than vice versa. Maybe that's just a false perception on my part.

Sorry if I narked anyone over it! :-/

raxo · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2005, 07:29:37 PM »

Quote from: GreenApple

I suppose I'm just basing it on a preference for John over Paul. It's all subjective, ... John was a more innovative Beatle I think.

... I guess a lot of you guys have a better idea of solo careers because you've got a lot more of the albums from each of the guys.

Well, I've always had the impression that John inserted more input into Paul's songs than vice versa.

Don't be sorry for explaining your opinion, GreenApple.
I'd like to say:
1) Everyone is subjective (as definition, but more if we're talking about the guys)
2) I've got 100% of the albums from the guys and 95% of their solo careers (except Ringo's) and some days I don't know anything at all and others "I'm a god or a genius" (as John said once), so my advice (for everyone listening out there) is that everything is relative somehow. RELAX AND ENJOY "life is very short..." (you know the rest of the song) and it seems like we all were analizing each bit they did, didn't... everything (John laugh about it in I Am The Walrus).
3) I think that the inputs John inserted (or not) in Paul's songs are well known by everybody because of the publicity people give to them and we don't talk so much about the Paul's ones in John's songs. It's my impression.

P.S. I'm not giving you any invitation for this, tkitna...or am I?

News:

Author Topic: "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!!!" (Read 10166 times)