The biggest part of Queen is dead, however. That's sans one ego
I wouldn't buy a ticket. It's not Queen without Freddie, but they're are gonna give it a shot.
The Beach Boys are a trip. Brian is a genius. I'm so glad Smile was well recieved. They've had a lot of quarrels, but they didn't break up. Just an observation... I DIG The Beach Boys! Awsesome sound.
The Stones are Keith and Mick. Wyman has said he gave up suggesting anything musically. The other band members rode the 'gravy train.' Beach Boys didn't write, except Brian. The Beatles were all song writers with creative ideas. Too much energy. It imploded.
The Stones are Keith and Mick. Wyman has said he gave up suggesting anything musically. The other band members rode the 'gravy train.' Beach Boys didn't write, except Brian. The Beatles were all song writers with creative ideas. Too much energy. It imploded.
thats not entirely true about the beach boys carl has a solo album as does dennis.....
Lennon agrees with these posts, as he said, "There just wasn't enough room on one album for 4 huge egos."
Makes sense to me. Look at Waters and Gilmour, and so many other bands that broke up over false pride. Human nature at it's worse.
It's just sometimes a shame that The Beatles, of all people, couldn't rise above such pettiness. They were the embodiment of love and peace, and they couldn't even maintain their friendship. That was my thinking at the time they broke up.
I also have a problem with John's pain at his father for not being there, then doing the samething to Julian.
Human beings. As much as I love them, and at times worship them, they were human beings. The difference is John wrote about it, his songs were more autobiographical. Paul stayed stuck in pop and bubble gum. And I'm off topic, so I'm shutting up.
This is one of the better boards I've been to. GH.com is a great place. And of course my favorite is my own forum. But you guys are really cool.
The difference is John wrote about it, his songs were more autobiographical. Paul stayed stuck in pop and bubble gum. And I'm off topic, so I'm shutting up.
I'm going to pretend I didn't see that "pop and bubble gum" remark and just correct you by saying that Paul's songs were also autobiographical. They were about the love of his life, Linda. But like you said, this is off topic. So let that be an end to it.
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.
I think George had most to gain from the breakup because they were routinely passing over great songs (like "All Things Must Pass") for dreck like Maxwell's Silver Hammer or I Dig a Pony.
John and Paul had most to lose, because even though they weren't writing together at the end of the Beatles they still operated as a check/competitor. Neither John nor Paul's 70s stuff has the spark that the Beatles stuff did--maybe it's just a question of knowing that the other guy would be in the recording studio, who knows.
Ringo, oddly enough, sold a helluva lot of records after the split.
What would the The Beatles be without Ringo? A Beginning
Posts
160
Gender
Male
Posts Per Day
0.10
The sad fact is that the breakup was mutual and The Beatles just grew apart both musically and as friends. No one was to blame but unfortunatly it was just the way things had to be. Sometimes we should be thankful that they broke up becuse if they stayed together now they probablly would have just been has beens like "The Who" or "The Rolling Stones".
Mr. Kite
-Mr. Kite! 'ving been some days in preparation a splendid time is guaranteed for all!