I've so had it with people that know nothing bashing Paul. It's the same comments all the time. He's fluff. His music is all pop. He wasn't deep like Lennon. Now the new one is his ego and controlling attitude broke up the group. Like the others didn't have an ego. I think if Paul was controlling, it's because he wanted what he thought was best for them. I don't think he was doing it to be a dick. I think he cared about the group more than any of them. Otherwise why go into a deep depression after the break up?? Also, the whole Paul as PR man and that he's not sincere. Give me a break! They put him in that position because he's good a communicating to people. So that makes him an opportunist? I think the guy is decent. More decent than given credit for. He's out there now because he loves what he does. He has a passion for it. I think he cares about his fans and I certainly don't think he's trying to take anything away from Lennon in interviews and so on. These are just some of the annoying things that bother me. What's this trend of Lennon as God and Paul as fluff? I just do NOT get it?? I think Paul is anything but fluff. I think he was just as important as Lennon. People just don't care to acknowledge what he's done. They just read the surface crap and the stuff that came out about Lennon after his death. They guy was practically sainted. Paul's being punished for living I guess. Anyway, what do you say to these people? What can you point out to shut them up?
Be yourself, no matter what they say. Administrator
Posts
4,449
Gender
Male
Posts Per Day
2.71
What to say to paul Bashers?...Well I had a few goes at explaining to Ydoll. lol
NEVER were they as good without each other. (Check solo careers for proof.)
Are your opinions formed from dis-gruntled, failed musician 'journalists?' with a deep dis-like of anything 'nice.' Or journalists in Yoko's pocket?
John would have probably spoken out by now and cleared up all the confusion if he were around...so it's all speculation at best.
Totally agree about Paul trying hard to keep the band inspired collectively.
They were both just young pals who had achieved all their dreams and more....then, families, mid-life crisis and iconic duties/expectations all played their part in The Beatles un-workable position.
The easy way to shut them up would be to spout a load of anti-John papp but that would be just as negative as their own futile efforts to split into camps whether you should have to like John or Paul more.
Most artists are happy to have one maybe 2 hits... Both these guys have written enough quality...(Even solo) to shut us all up. Until you can do better.....Just speculate and sound like a dick. For me? Good music is good music... Just have to Dig It , Dig it, Dig it!!!!
They were the same men essentially, death in their families was what propelled their passion for music and success. Why separate them?
Should they have both sounded exactly the same after The Beatles? I mean wtf?
It's a tired, boring argument for the new genaration to have a go at deciphering.
Sandra, I do hope that your thread was not inspired by my thread on Paul. I do indeed think he is a very decent guy. I just wanted some ideas on how Paul could be categorised as a Beatle. So, I agree he is the ambitious one. That same ambition meant he was the most productive Beatle of all! He wrote most of the Beatles songs and most of them are great!
Before I joined this forum, I also thought Paul was somehow tangential to it all. The others put me straight; now I respect Paul a lot. Also, for his new album. I'm not a Paul basher! In fact, most of my threads since I joined a couple of months ago seem to be on the subject of Paul! So, viva Paul, all power to Paul!
As An Apple Beatle says, people don't like things nice. Inluding music journalists. He went poppy afte the Beatles I suppose, but Beatles' music is basically pop anyway! They picked up on rock as it came along, but I think they were essentially pop anyway. Without that broad pop appleal they probably would never have been such a massive band IMO.
We don't really know much about her. Or, I don't at least. It's Paul's life! Beatles fans should really only comment on the music. Forget the silly journalists!
No Greenapple. The thing that got me going, and it's been building up for like a year, was this thread at another forum. I started one about Lennon and he got things like: genius, he changed my life, important to music and so on. Then I started a McCartney thread and I get:
I'd go see paul, hes the only left really doing anything, too much though
He's My least favorite Beatle though, his ego, and controlling nature is was what lead to the power struggles that eventually killed the beatles
I dont think i could stand a show with all McCartney beatle songs, POP CENTRAL
Wha?? I mean, come on. It's enough already with this kind of ignorance. His screen name is Dig a Pygmy and his avatar is of Lennon, so you can see where he's coming from. I don't get why people can't appreciate both. I think they're equal. I really do.
[...] I don't get why people can't appreciate both. I think they're equal. I really do.
So do I. I do appreciate the four guys. I don't think they were equal but they were at the same level (I know what you mean and I share it). ... and there was enough space for both at that level ... 'cos there was nobody else with them
Be yourself, no matter what they say. Administrator
Posts
4,449
Gender
Male
Posts Per Day
2.71
Quoted from Maccalvr
No Greenapple. The thing that got me going, and it's been building up for like a year, was this thread at another forum. I started one about Lennon and he got things like: genius, he changed my life, important to music and so on. Then I started a McCartney thread and I get:
I'd go see paul, hes the only left really doing anything, too much though
He's My least favorite Beatle though, his ego, and controlling nature is was what lead to the power struggles that eventually killed the beatles
I dont think i could stand a show with all McCartney beatle songs, POP CENTRAL
Wha?? I mean, come on. It's enough already with this kind of ignorance. His screen name is Dig a Pygmy and his avatar is of Lennon, so you can see where he's coming from. I don't get why people can't appreciate both. I think they're equal. I really do.
This is it though..once you get to that way of thinkng, you have to watch many others get there. lol
The way forward is to dig the whole sum of the parts.
HEY!!!!i only bash paul to make you guys defend the little weasel...lol no paul no beatles no john no beatles no george no beatles no ringo no beatle.....no pete no beatles??
Sad but true fact: Everyone will like Paul a lot more when he's dead. A lot of folks seem to resent him for outliving John.
Sandra, InBlueHawaii is right. It happened to John after all. As I seem to recall.
And, I think that they were indeed equal. If we balance out their respective contributions, they were equal. But, so many are accustomed to thinking of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. In that order. I do indeed see it that way myself. I think John was indeed the first, but Paul was so close behind that they were effectively equal.
I've got a feeling, a feeling deep inside. Words Of Love
Posts
2,336
Gender
Male
Posts Per Day
1.35
Bashing Paul for the hell of it is STUPID because it shows you have no intelligence at all but having an opinion of him positive or negative when it comes to his music isn't hate speech.
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.
I agree Sandra. I think that John has just become this dead sainted Beatle who can do no wrong. Paul, however, who continues to put out work and tours nonstop, is the less talented one. Puh-lease! I think they were equally talented (if not, more so Paul). I hate it when people catagorize Paul's music as "fluff" just because he wrote mainly love songs. They were both pretty egotistical, but what do you expect from two demi-gods. If anything, John was more egotostical than Paul. Look at his songs, they're all "me, me, me." And I also agree about Paul trying to keep the band together. If it weren't for him they may have even broken up as early as late 1966.
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.
I have a theory that the aggressive John fans or aggressive Paul fans (each of whom tries to discount the value of the other) suffer from a lack of personality integration. Lacking harmony or a coherent sense of identity within, they project their own internal discord onto the mythic figures of John and Paul. The Paul devotees were probably potty-trained too early and the John devotees weren't potty-trained at all.
Seriously, it seems the Paul fans as a group are more self-confident and satisfied and don't seek an identity from the music, but rather entertainment. The John fans seek a voice/identity--they don't want entertainment and seem to suffer from the same vulnerabilities that John projected in his songs. Let's face it, although both John and Paul lose their mothers (and perhaps the reason behind their ill-conceived teenage blood-brother 50/50 songwriting agreement), John seems to have suffered from drug abuse, codependency and mental illness (including paranoia and borderline personality disorder) much more than the relatively sane and mentally healthy (if at times overbearing and brusque) Paul.
I think we ought to accept the John vs. Paul conflict as a window on the form of modern mass psychosis that we called "the entertainment industry."
Shake your tired eyes the world is waiting for you Words Of Love
Posts
3,501
Gender
Male
Posts Per Day
2.14
The one thing, if its true, that i think shows where paul bashers are coming from is the following: he made guests pay for drinks at his wedding to heather. if thats true, thats just dicky, hes a billionare
We've heard most of it before from extracts used in the Anthology series and Imagine film. The programme was padded out with pompous reminiscences from Wenner and Yoko. They didn't miss the opportunity to damn Paul with light praise. (Paul was a great charmer and diplomat, while John contributed the artistic weight.)
I agree Sandra. I think that John has just become this dead sainted Beatle who can do no wrong.
It's true. Dying young is good for your image. Take James Dean and Marlon Brando for istance. Everyone remembers Dean as a young god and Brando as the ugly old fat guy from The Godfather. Or Marilyn Monroe and Brigitte Bargot. Monroe is the biggest sex-symbol of all time, Bardot is a racist old hag.
I would also say that based on reading all the books about The Beatles and who did what in the studio...I would say it breaks down for me as far as my favorite Beatles songs go to about 75% McCartney 20%Lennon 5%George and it does seems like Macca was the one in the driver's seat during their best period.
And also, I think that Lennon's influence on Macca was nothing like the bloody world thinks that it is.
my favorite Beatles songs go to about 75% McCartney 20%Lennon 5%George and it does seems like Macca was the one in the driver's seat during their best period.
I think that 2/3 to 3/4 of my favorite Beatles songs are Paul's.
^Thought so. And if you consider that their best period you'd be right, Paul was the man. But, if you think 62 - 66 is their peak, then John would get the nod. So it's even-stevens? ps I'm a 62-66 man (I prefer listening to post '66 Beatles, but regard the earlier period as their more important)
Be yourself, no matter what they say. Administrator
Posts
4,449
Gender
Male
Posts Per Day
2.71
Quoted from adamzero
I have a theory that the aggressive John fans or aggressive Paul fans (each of whom tries to discount the value of the other) suffer from a lack of personality integration. Lacking harmony or a coherent sense of identity within, they project their own internal discord onto the mythic figures of John and Paul. The Paul devotees were probably potty-trained too early and the John devotees weren't potty-trained at all.
Seriously, it seems the Paul fans as a group are more self-confident and satisfied and don't seek an identity from the music, but rather entertainment. The John fans seek a voice/identity--they don't want entertainment and seem to suffer from the same vulnerabilities that John projected in his songs. Let's face it, although both John and Paul lose their mothers (and perhaps the reason behind their ill-conceived teenage blood-brother 50/50 songwriting agreement), John seems to have suffered from drug abuse, codependency and mental illness (including paranoia and borderline personality disorder) much more than the relatively sane and mentally healthy (if at times overbearing and brusque) Paul.
I think we ought to accept the John vs. Paul conflict as a window on the form of modern mass psychosis that we called "the entertainment industry."
Quoted Text
^Thought so. And if you consider that their best period you'd be right, Paul was the man. But, if you think 62 - 66 is their peak, then John would get the nod. So it's even-stevens? ps I'm a 62-66 man (I prefer listening to post '66 Beatles, but regard the earlier period as their more important)
If anything, John was more egotostical than Paul. Look at his songs, they're all "me, me, me." .
Except for We Can Work It Out, at least; every time I hear it, I notice that it's all from Paul's point of view. Nothing like 'I tried to see it your way' in the lyrics.
WCWIO is mostly a song from Paul. John's part is the 'Life is very short'-thing.
John almost makes the song into a kind of peace and understanding thing with that part. I suppose there's two ways of listening to it.
That part originally put me onto the idea some time ago that Paul's songs are not so good without John to 'come in' on them - plus something I once read by a journalist. Of course, it's not true - now I realise! Since I've been here!
I have a theory that the aggressive John fans or aggressive Paul fans (each of whom tries to discount the value of the other) suffer from a lack of personality integration. Lacking harmony or a coherent sense of identity within, they project their own internal discord onto the mythic figures of John and Paul. The Paul devotees were probably potty-trained too early and the John devotees weren't potty-trained at all.
Seriously, it seems the Paul fans as a group are more self-confident and satisfied and don't seek an identity from the music, but rather entertainment. The John fans seek a voice/identity--they don't want entertainment and seem to suffer from the same vulnerabilities that John projected in his songs. Let's face it, although both John and Paul lose their mothers (and perhaps the reason behind their ill-conceived teenage blood-brother 50/50 songwriting agreement), John seems to have suffered from drug abuse, codependency and mental illness (including paranoia and borderline personality disorder) much more than the relatively sane and mentally healthy (if at times overbearing and brusque) Paul.
I think we ought to accept the John vs. Paul conflict as a window on the form of modern mass psychosis that we called "the entertainment industry."
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Sandra
Female
Male
Logged
