A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: Famous Star or Rock Legend?  (Read 6754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wayne L.

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2187
  • I've got a feeling, a feeling deep inside.
Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« 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. 
Logged
I want you, I want you so bad babe.  I want you, I want you so bad.  It's driving me mad, it's driving me mad.  

perowave7

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2004, 08:52:33 PM »

Maybe thats because of an increase in TV in our modern society...
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6920
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #2 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.

Wayne L.

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2187
  • I've got a feeling, a feeling deep inside.
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #3 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. 
Logged
I want you, I want you so bad babe.  I want you, I want you so bad.  It's driving me mad, it's driving me mad.  

Bruno

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2485
  • The choice is yours, don't be late
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #4 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.
Logged

---powered by Moondogs®---

Ssarah

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #5 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.
Logged
Beatle Ssarah on the forum,
Everyday she posts some more on.
Sometimes triv and sometimes questions,
Chooses tracks and lists the best uns!

  • Guest
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #6 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!
Logged

Bruno

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2485
  • The choice is yours, don't be late
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #7 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
Logged

---powered by Moondogs®---

Ssarah

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #8 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
Logged
Beatle Ssarah on the forum,
Everyday she posts some more on.
Sometimes triv and sometimes questions,
Chooses tracks and lists the best uns!

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6920
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #9 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

  • Guest
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #10 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.

Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6920
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #11 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)

  • Guest
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #12 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!
Logged

pc31

  • Special Member
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11703
  • WE SOUL OUR SOULS FOR ROCK AND ROLL!!!!
    • the moondogs
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2004, 10:59:38 AM »

boulderdash......granites leading

John@work

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #14 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. 
Logged
A working class hero is something to be...

John Lennon

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6920
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #15 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]

Ssarah

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #16 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.
Logged
Beatle Ssarah on the forum,
Everyday she posts some more on.
Sometimes triv and sometimes questions,
Chooses tracks and lists the best uns!

  • Guest
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #17 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
Logged

Ssarah

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #18 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.
Logged
Beatle Ssarah on the forum,
Everyday she posts some more on.
Sometimes triv and sometimes questions,
Chooses tracks and lists the best uns!

  • Guest
Re: Famous Star or Rock Legend?
« Reply #19 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?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 

Page created in 0.375 seconds with 26 queries.