8 August 2013
29 August 2013
Not sure. I know I was rather upset to realise a few days ago that Paul is probably my favourite Beatle – I think it was residual dislike over the way he treated George in Let it Be, since George was my fave at the time.
Since I have been (finally) replacing my long-sold LPs with CDs I have discovered that there are a lot more Paul CDs on my 'want' list than there are by the others. I last bought a new Beatles CD in 1984 (Give My Regards to Broad Street) and have a lot of catching up to do, and just bought McCartney and McCartney II for the first time ever.
Paul is also the only Beatle I have seen live – in Brisbane back in 1975 I think it was.
9 July 2013
Not sure Paul would appreciate the "cow eyes" thing…he's a vegan!! But, cows and Paul both have awesome eyes, whatever you want to call them. Negative information as well as positive information have their places in biographies. I just do not believe that they belong in obits. You are supposed to be celebrating a person's life, not revealing all the skeletons in their closets. Norman's obit offended me. But, that's just me.
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
8 November 2013
i haven't read all the answers to this thread, so maybe what i'm going to say has already been said… anyway…
in my opinion, many people think that you can only like lennon OR mccartney, never both. and "not disliking" mccartney would mean not honouring lennon… which i don't really understand.
the second thing is, as some rock critic (i think) put it: "paul mccartney is an artist who doesn't suffer for is art." there is much truth in it, i suppose. mccartney loves what he does and he doesn't try to make us believe otherwise. that's probably confusing for most people. someone who doesn't suffer for his art can't be a real artist. … yeah, i don't really understand this point of view either, but i think that's really partly why people dislike mccartney. you don't want successfull artists to be happy, right?
20 December 2010
I think it depends on what you like in an artist. I have always felt the Lennon was a great lyricist and McCartney was great at writing music but both have written great music and lyrics so the debate just goes on. Some artists like to be in the limelight and some don't. Each person makes their own decision on what path they choose. There is no wrong or right. Lennon was always considered a pessimist while McCartney a optimist. Together, they were great. Apart, in my opinion, there was always something missing for both of them in their solo work though each one has had some great tunes. I'm sure this topic will never end. Paul was the pop artist and Lennon was the underground artist.
15 November 2013
Yeah, how dare a 71-year-old not be able to hit high notes he originally sang when he was 19…?
Exactly! I'm just going to take it as people are jealous of his fame, money and incredible talent and love to find reasons to pull him off his pedestal. People are drags sometimes! You hit the nail on the HEAD…jealousy, they love to cut SUCCESSFUL people down…They started to turn on the fab after magical mystery tour movie was released, why because they still kept cranking out the hits…
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: meanmistermustard, LongHairedLady, trcanberra, IveJustSeenAFaceo
Currently Browsing this Page:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
Guest Posters: 87
Newest Members: bambam, ComeTogetherOverMe, Trijn, AceJ, DayInTheLife
Moderators: Joe (2972), Ellie (1), Zig (3093), fabfouremily (2046), mja6758 (1928)
Administrators: Joe (2972)