Plus, associating that word with black people isn't exactly a stretch. It comes from the Spanish word negro you know. I think black people acknowledge and accept that there's an association. What people object to is the use of the word itself in any context. But then there's two thoughts on that as well considering that it's sometimes used as a term of endearment among African American friends.
But yeah, if it's gonna be replaced with anything, then it should be replaced with: derogatory term for a black person or something more in keeping with its actual defenition. Cuz it isn't just: a black person.
Also, since when is this site American? That's news to me!
JJ, who cares about "Woman is the black person of the World"? Who cares how it charted? When you listen to music, does the 'chart position' of the song affect your enjoyment of the song? By that logic, "Hello Goodbye" is a far better song than "A Day in the Life" -- because "Hello" happened to be released as a single, and went to #1. "A Day in the Life" wasn't released, so therefore never charted. Does this mean "ADitL" is somehow inferior? Come on, people. You're Beatles fans. You should know better than this.
When you hear "I am the Walrus," do you think, 'I don't like this song, it didn't even break the top 50!' If so, you're not hearing the music correctly.
Who cares what each Beatle's best single was? IT'S NOT ABOUT SINGLES. It's about songs. Whether that song is "A Day in the Life," "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," "In My Life," side 2 of Abbey Road, "God," "Hold On," "Working Class Hero," "#9 Dream," who cares where (or if) they charted? Those chart positions are temporary. The songs are permanent.
It's about the songs? And how does one judge those songs, that "it's" about? Once again, this isn't about "this song is better than that song", because that is only an opinion, and because it is only an opinion, it is irrelevant. This is about the fact that Paul was more successful than John in every conceivable way, and this means he had a "better" career, unless as I said, "better" means something here of which I am unaware.
There are people out there who place no value whatsoever on the works of John Lennon, or the Beatles, or Paul McCartney. The songs, the style of music, the presentation, all of it means nothing to them. Instead, they think that the music of <insert band here> is the end-all of music. And, they're not wrong, because it's their opinion, which is just as valid as yours and mine. The music they like moves them they way they wish to be moved, and it may have just as much value to them as any Beatles music has to us.
When you ask "Who had the best career, The Beatles or <insert band here>, It can't be based on personal preference... it has to based on the comparison of successes and failures in a wide range of areas.
What you are really doing here is trying to assign "value" to one artist's songs over another's, and then using the value you assign as proof in fact of the value itself! And what I'm saying is that no matter how much "value" you perceive, and no matter how much weight you put on the the reasons for the value you assign to those songs, it is all simply opinion. And that opinion is neither fact (no matter how much you've convinced yourself otherwise), nor more valid than someone else's opinion. You're listing songs above as if the value YOU place on them is supposed to mean something to ME, and all I see is songs FEWER PEOPLE LIKED. The artist whose songs FEWER PEOPLE LIKED can not have the "best" career, regardless of how much YOU value those songs.
When i first started getting into music in the early 70's John was very much a Godhead figure , almost mythical . And when i heard the POB album for the first time i thought this is deep stuff . I liked his voice and the way he screamed like a madman on " Well Well Well " . The older i've got the less i like this album , apart from the song " God " i don't really care for this posh lads tale of woe , however heartfelt it is . There's something very "Jerry Springer " about this album ? If your going to do male angst then do it like Dylan's " Blood On The Tracks " . I suppose i don't revere John in the same way now . His solo career could have been so much better , if he'd had the balls to tell the wife too butt out .
I also thought POB was deep stuff when I was about sixteen, but these days I think this sort of thing is basically self-justifying adolescent navel gazing. No doubt the emotions were real, but they're also callow and the targets of John's anger are reduced to mere objects ("Mother") or generalities ("Working Class Hero"). "Look At Me," a confession of self doubt and confusion written back in 1968, is my favorite song on the album: "naked truth" and "honesty" for real, I think.
Plus, associating that word with black people isn't exactly a stretch. It comes from the Spanish word negro you know. I think black people acknowledge and accept that there's an association. What people object to is the use of the word itself in any context. But then there's two thoughts on that as well considering that it's sometimes used as a term of endearment among African American friends.
But yeah, if it's gonna be replaced with anything, then it should be replaced with: derogatory term for a black person or something more in keeping with its actual defenition. Cuz it isn't just: a black person.
Also, since when is this site American? That's news to me!
I'm American, and white ... and as far as I'm concerned, the liberal-lesbian-staffed PC police can go straight to hell. You hear the latest thing? Now our paper money "discriminates" against the blind. Let's inconvenience the whole friggin country to accommodate 7 blind people. And afterwards, guess what? They'll still be just as blind.
Dude, I'm from California where political correctness has run amok. I bite my tongue on a daily basis. Personally, I think it's just another excuse for people not to have to think for themselves. You know how annoying thinking can be.
What I meant about the American thing was that someone stated something that made it seem like this is an American run site or something. I always thought it was European based. But what do I know. Political correctness is everywhere anyway and I don't really think it started over here btw. If anything, we were probably the last on board. I'm talking about the behavior, not the origin of the term.
This is a word of advice to the censors: if someone says the word "n-gg-r" (and I've bleeped the vowels, but you know exactly the word I'm using), in whatever context they use it, if you NEED to censor it, then just call it "A well known racist epithet aimed at black people." Don't call it "Black person." Because it makes the censor look as though they agree that a "n--g-r" is a black person. And John Lennon wasn't using that word against dark-skinned people in that song. He was attacking the treatment of women, and saying that they had become (that word).
It's about the songs? And how does one judge those songs, that "it's" about? Once again, this isn't about "this song is better than that song", because that is only an opinion, and because it is only an opinion, it is irrelevant. This is about the fact that Paul was more successful than John in every conceivable way, and this means he had a "better" career, unless as I said, "better" means something here of which I am unaware.
There are people out there who place no value whatsoever on the works of John Lennon, or the Beatles, or Paul McCartney. The songs, the style of music, the presentation, all of it means nothing to them. Instead, they think that the music of <insert band here> is the end-all of music. And, they're not wrong, because it's their opinion, which is just as valid as yours and mine. The music they like moves them they way they wish to be moved, and it may have just as much value to them as any Beatles music has to us.
When you ask "Who had the best career, The Beatles or <insert band here>, It can't be based on personal preference... it has to based on the comparison of successes and failures in a wide range of areas.
What you are really doing here is trying to assign "value" to one artist's songs over another's, and then using the value you assign as proof in fact of the value itself! And what I'm saying is that no matter how much "value" you perceive, and no matter how much weight you put on the the reasons for the value you assign to those songs, it is all simply opinion. And that opinion is neither fact (no matter how much you've convinced yourself otherwise), nor more valid than someone else's opinion. You're listing songs above as if the value YOU place on them is supposed to mean something to ME, and all I see is songs FEWER PEOPLE LIKED. The artist whose songs FEWER PEOPLE LIKED can not have the "best" career, regardless of how much YOU value those songs.
The person who started this thread states in his original post: Whose career do you like best? In that case, best can very well include personal taste and preference.
jj, did you not know that this was the original question? AGAIN (damn, I hate having to explain things more than once), this is PURELY AN OPINION QUESTION. Not "Who had the most hits?"
And I still stand with my original statement. It's John Lennon's career. Whatever weak argument you have against that, based on 'chart position,' IS JUST WRONG. PERIOD. Nobody really cares about who had the most top 10 hits. Figure it out already.
I ve enjoyed greatly reading the posts here, everybody has their point. How am i supposed to write: everybody has their point, or everybody has his point (sexist language!), or everybody has their points? Your obsession with political correctness is so funny and I think, as an outsider, it should offend certain people even more than calling them what they really are. Cause if you don`t call them what they really are, it`s obvious that you think that there is something bad in it. While there is nothing bad at all: nature has created them this way! Well, you can`t use the word blind, jjs, you are to use the word visually-inconvenienced (i liked your ideas about paper money). Sandra, political correctness is not everywhere to such an extreme. According to your PC, you can`t say this is the best solo career, you should say, not the least. We are deleting the BEST, the WORST, male, female, we should be somewhere in the middle, not to discriminate against... I should say, in the middle of nowhere...
I ve enjoyed greatly reading the posts here, everybody has their point. How am i supposed to write: everybody has their point, or everybody has his point (sexist language!), or everybody has their points? Your obsession with political correctness is so funny and I think, as an outsider, it should offend certain people even more than calling them what they really are. Cause if you don`t call them what they really are, it`s obvious that you think that there is something bad in it. While there is nothing bad at all: nature has created them this way! Well, you can`t use the word blind, jjs, you are to use the word visually-inconvenienced (i liked your ideas about paper money). Sandra, political correctness is not everywhere to such an extreme, possibly only in the USA. According to your PC, you can`t say this is the best solo career, you should say, not the least. We are deleting the BEST, the WORST, male, female, we should be somewhere in the middle, not to discriminate against... I should say, in the middle of nowhere...
This is confusing. My PC? America's PC? PC only in America? Really? I find that hard to believe.
I'm not sure you understand American culture. It's really not that PC. Again, that's mostly a MEDIA creation. Don't define people by what the media chooses to feed you. I mean, if you live up in San Francisco, yeah, you might find yourself celebrating Indigenous People's Day instead of Thanksgiving, but in most places there's been a backlash to such nonsense. Remember, this is the same place where people still think it's okay to shoot their guns into the air. Is that PC? There's a lot of stupidity going on over here, but then, there are stupid people everywhere. We just have more of them because, uh, we have more people. However, I think MOST of us are pretty normal and stay away from such extremes. Just the same as any other place I would assume. You can't pigeon hole an entire nation is all I'm saying.
So don't worry. If you visit here the Thought Police won't lock you up in Room 101 just for speaking your mind. Not yet anyway.
I think Paul was very good at writing a catchy " Pop Song " he had that nack . John certainly had it too during the early Beatles , but somewhere along the way he dropped the pop and got more serious about things and his style of his music changed . When i was a record buying punter in the 70's , i bought records that helped me escape from the humdrum world around me . When you watched the news back then it was pretty bleak ( not much as changed on that front ) Thats why when a ray of sunshine like David Bowie's " Starman " or Paul's catchy "C- Moon " was played on the radio you felt good and went out and bought it . I did'nt buy John so much apart from the " Imagine " album , his music was a bit too "Old Fart " . All my friends were either into Glam Rock , Pop ,Soul, Heavy Metal or Punk and Disco in the 70's . John's music just was'nt catchy enough or it did'nt rock enough . Paul on the other hand embraced been a pop star and competed with the mainstream and yes he released some stinkers like " Mary Had A Little Lamb " but much of the "Wings " stuff was just great pop music .
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
BlueMeanie
Male
Female
Logged
