Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tkitna]

I always found it unbelievable that he recorded Yesterday, I've Just Seen Her Face and I'm Down on the same day.

I did not know that or never paid any attention. That is impressive.

[eroz0]

I always found it unbelievable that he recorded Yesterday, I've Just Seen Her Face and I'm Down on the same day.

Yes, that always amazed me, especially since he recorded Yesterday last, after I'm Down.

[eroz0]

...

Do this test... I've done it over and over...

Ask the person sitting next to you to name a Beatles solo album as fast as they can...
there ya go.... they said 'Imagine'....  well, at least 8 or 9 out of 10 did...

Now... try this second test... (it works best outside of the UK)

Ask a young person (15 to 17) to name a famous John Lennon song... most will know of 'Imagine'.
Now ask them to name a solo McCartney song... most of them can't.

Make of that whatever you wish. 

That Imagine is a very commercialised album and song?

Do this test, I've done it over and over.

Ask a young person (15 to 22) who their favourite Beatle is. 7 out of 10 will answer John Lennon.

Now try the second test. Ask those 7 which is their favourite Beatles song by Lennon. 7 out of 10 will answer something like "Hey Jude", "Let It Be", "Yesterday", "Helter Skelter" ...

Make of that whatever you wish.

[Penny Lane]

Now... try this second test... (it works best outside of the UK)

Ask a young person (15 to 17) to name a famous John Lennon song... most will know of 'Imagine'.
Now ask them to name a solo McCartney song... most of them can't.

Make of that whatever you wish. 


easy...  Justin

When I was in that age range (my teen years were in the 90's), I knew of at least "Band on the Run," "Silly Love Songs," "Live and Let Die," "Mull of Kintyre," "With A Little Luck," "My Love," not to mention others. Plus, I grew up in America, not the UK.

This was way BEFORE I became a serious solo McCartney fan. Kids are probably not as ignorant and stupid as you'd imagine.

BTW, I think Paul is formidably talented when you look at his musical skills as a whole--singing, song-writing, instrument playing, etc. I think all the Beatles were talented but Paul was the most musically well-rounded.

[nyfan(41)]

for those of you in major cities . . . . . don't approach strangers and ask questions about the beatles.
it's really not safe

[BlueMeanie]

...

Do this test... I've done it over and over...

Ask the person sitting next to you to name a Beatles solo album as fast as they can...
there ya go.... they said 'Imagine'....  well, at least 8 or 9 out of 10 did...

Now... try this second test... (it works best outside of the UK)

Ask a young person (15 to 17) to name a famous John Lennon song... most will know of 'Imagine'.
Now ask them to name a solo McCartney song... most of them can't.

Make of that whatever you wish. 


easy...  Justin

Justin, I enjoy reading your posts, and this has become a very interesting thread, but these have a ring of statistics pulled out of thin air just to back up your argument. Do you have a link to some stats for 15 - 17 year olds? Personally I wouldn't be surprised if most of them struggled to name a song by either John or Paul. After all, I would struggle to name any song by anyone currently popular amongst teenagers. It proves nothing whatsoever.

[Joost]

I always found it unbelievable that he recorded Yesterday, I've Just Seen Her Face and I'm Down on the same day.

And didn't he write Let It Be and The Long And Winding Road on the same day? Very impressive, I doubt if anyone else ever wrote two #1 hits in one day.

[BlueMeanie]

That just proves my point. The stat means nothing. Why would a teenager know anything about any of them? Those answering Imagine probably heard it on Mums car CD player.

And Rolling Stone lists are notoriousley dodgy and unrepresentative.

[Bobber]

Excuse me to pop in, but what does the poll say about Musical Talent?

[An Apple Beatle]

More than that... it might be the most well known of all the Beatles songs, probably the most influential...
do you know of anyone who's never heard of it... or doesn't know who wrote it... or doesn't know who sang it?


easy... 

Have I missed something? Imagine was solo Lennon? (Even though many might think it was a Beatles song by now  ) Your into May Pang Justin and therefore obviously into later Lennon. That's cool but your not going to convince me with your slant, eloquent as it reads. As BM just wrote, Rolling Stone is not a lot to go on...Maybe digest some more reliable form of fact to throw at us all.  

I imagine many people under a certain age would not know or give a monkeys who wrote Imagine.

[eroz0]

More than that... it might be the most well known of all the Beatles songs, probably the most influential...
do you know of anyone who's never heard of it... or doesn't know who wrote it... or doesn't know who sang it?


easy...  

Imagine is not a Beatles song.
I'm not denying how well known or popular it is, but that doesn't prove anything, does it? In this thread you've been dismissing McCarntey's catalogue because it's popular and commercial.

Anyway, most of its popularity among the younger generation has to do with its commercial use by Yoko. There have been countless products (t-shirts, mugs, baby clothes, key chains, sneakers, even ice-cream) that have either used Imagine as a brand name or have been advertised with the song.

[BlueMeanie]

I guess if a song lacked musical talent, Bobber...
then Rolling Stone wouldn't rate it #3 (or anywhere) on The List of the Greatest Songs of all Time.



easy... 

Rolling Stone would rate The Birdie Song at #3 if they thought it would please their readers.

[nyfan(41)]

The song "Imagine" achieved its super elevated status because John died

[BlueMeanie]

I'd bet my life if Rolling Stone had rated 'Maybe I'm Amazed' at #3
and had 'Imagine' at a pitiful #338... then yeah...
this thread would have rapidly grown by 50 pages with everyone thumbing their nose at me.  lol 

easy... 

No it wouldn't coz we all know RS's opinion isn't worth a sack of sh*t. The same with Q and Mojo et al. They make up their lists based on their readers' taste. After all, why p*ss of your fan base?  Which in my opinion makes them worthless. As are nearly all polls and 'Top 500's'

[An Apple Beatle]

You know....there is only one man to ask about this.......Simon Cowell!  

Definition of talent is a curious thing.

[BlueMeanie]

Btw Justin, you're not 'Maccafan's' evil twin brother by any chance, are you? 

[eroz0]

Of course I know Imagine is not a technically a Beatles song, eroz0...  lets not drag this debate down to this sorta stuff. I'm obviously including all Beatles work in that statement, as a band and as solo artists.


And, your comment:  "Rolling Stone is not a lot to go on"...
and BlueMeanie's comment too:  "Rolling Stone lists are notoriously dodgy and unrepresentative".

I'd bet my life if Rolling Stone had rated 'Maybe I'm Amazed' at #3
and had 'Imagine' at a pitiful #338... then yeah...
this thread would have rapidly grown by 50 pages with everyone thumbing their nose at me.  lol 

The post you quoted was from An Apple Beatle, not me.

Anyway, as I said in my last comment, you are the one that's insisting that the commercial appeal of a song doesn't matter. Furthermore Rolling Stone is totally unreliable and I wouldn't use it as proof even if all the top ten was filled with McCartney's songs.

And this discussion still doesn't have much to do with the thread topic. Nobody said that Imagine isn't a great song (although it doesn't even make my solol John top ten), but one song is not enough evidence to rate someone as a musician.

To get back on topic, I rate the Beatles as musicians:
- Instrument playing: 1) Paul 2/3) George/Ringo 4) John
- Vocals: 1) Paul 2) John 3) George 4) Ringo
- Songwriting: 1/2) Paul/John 3) George 4) Ringo

Overall: 1) Paul 2) John 3) George 4) Ringo

[eroz0]

Ooops sorry eroz0...
the board is very lively right now, its hard to keep up with everybody shouting at me at once... 

I'll edit the post right now with the correct member's ID. 

No problem 
I agreed 100% with that post, anyway.

[eroz0]

I'm not sure which post/quote you mean... can you point it out.

This one:

Have I missed something? Imagine was solo Lennon? (Even though many might think it was a Beatles song by now  ) Your into May Pang Justin and therefore obviously into later Lennon. That's cool but your not going to convince me with your slant, eloquent as it reads. As BM just wrote, Rolling Stone is not a lot to go on...Maybe digest some more reliable form of fact to throw at us all.  

I imagine many people under a certain age would not know or give a monkeys who wrote Imagine.

[cassNJ]

Do this test... I've done it over and over...

Ask the person sitting next to you to name a Beatles solo album as fast as they can...
there ya go.... they said 'Imagine'....  well, at least 8 or 9 out of 10 did...

Now... try this second test... (it works best outside of the UK)

Ask a young person (15 to 17) to name a famous John Lennon song... most will know of 'Imagine'.
Now ask them to name a solo McCartney song... most of them can't.

Make of that whatever you wish.  

easy...  Justin

Oh, so this is a popularity contest?  I thought we were talking about musical talent!

Justin, I don't know how old you are, or if you were around in the 60's.  But I really don't think it's true that it has always been "Lennon vs McCartney".  At least not with the public.  Lennon and McCartney were generally seen as a united force back then, especially when it came to songwriting.  Nobody knew or cared who wrote what, and the boys themselves emphasized the partnership as well.  Oh there were distinctions made between them.  John was the primary vocalist (he did an overwhelming number of the lead vocals in the early years, even on the songs that he didn't write) and Paul was The Cute One.  In 1965 their different talents and strengths started to become apparent, but I don't think it was seen as a rivalry between them, more like 2 good flavors we could enjoy.  The rivalry we see now is largely due to John's angry words about Paul after the breakup, accusing him of trying to take control of the group and even sabotaging John's songs.  A lot of what he said about Paul he later took back.  

I think the reason that many people have a low opinion of Rolling Stone is that they were anything but objective in this battle.  Jan Wenner  (the editor) was a good friend of Yoko's and for years Rolling Stone pretty much showed only John & Yoko's versions of events, without even questioning whether there were any other valid viewpoints.  Just not good journalism!  Even now, they let their writers say things like "...John is inarguably the only musical genius in the group..." when I think a lot of people would argue with that!  So no, it's not just sour grapes that makes many of us Beatles fans disregard Rolling Stone's editorial opinions.