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…
7 February 2014
I'm getting very frustrated with some of the attitudes I've heard towards the gorgeous and brilliant Paul lately (not on the Beatles Bible I hasten to add!) When he performed Hey Jude at the Olympics my mum and I watched with tears in our eyes and shivers down our spines. He was AMAZING and had everyone on their feet and singing. I was so proud to be a Beatles fan that day. When it had finished I turned on the radio and there was a discussion going on about the ceremony. Everyone said how good it was, except for Paul's perfomance which was apparantly "awful". So many people called in to say that he had lost his singing voice and should retire gracefully. Needless to say I was furious! Why should he retire when he CAN still sing and is entertaining thousands of people all over the world? The next day, most of the people I spoke to agreed that he was crap! I actually had a row with my boyfriend about it on the train cos he was saying how bad he was and he should give up. I was furious and in the end had to bite my tongue with people as I didn't want to fall out with them. My young nieces and nephew loved it however. It's not just in relation to the Olympic ceremony, I seem to come across this viewpoint alot. Paul is a genius and should be respected as such. Even if you don't like the Beatles, surely people should respect everything he's done for the music business, all the people he's influenced?
I don't think its necessarily that people don't respect what he has done. Actually, in some cases, it could be the opposite.
It's like Muhammad Ali – a lot of people didn't like seeing Ali's last few fights, not because they didn't respect everything Ali had done, but because they just felt he didn't have it anymore and was a shadow of his former self and didn't want to tarnish their memory of how great he used to be. I must stress I never saw Paul's performance at the Olympics, so do not have an opinion of my own of the performance in question. I am just pointing out that criticism of one performance does not necessarily mean a lack of respect for everything an individual has done.
1 November 2012
22 December 2013
"Why is everyone suddenly bad mouthing Paul?" Well, I don't see what's so "suddenly" about it for Paul became a popular target for many since April 9th, 1970, even his 'Beast Friends'. If it appears to be more noticeable on this site then perhaps some feel it appropriate to counter the excessive amount of Paul flanking (for lack of a better word) evidenced here as well. Everyone is entitled to an opinion at the end of the day, and I'll freely admit that I'm not nearly as impressed by Sir Paul as some here are, the fact that he plays so many instruments is overstated here a lot when there are many others who can as well but would rather share the workload with others and trust their abilities instead. As sonically enjoyable as Paul's solo on 'Taxman' is, to use it as some sort of evidence to make claim to Paul being the best lead guitarist in the band is laughable, in my opinion, and it's no wonder that "bad mouthing" him is commonplace on some of these threads.
I think the "bad mouthing" would decrease incrementally should the "flanking" be toned down, but is it really "bad mouthing" when someone doesn't put Paul on as high a pedestal as some do and wish to counter it? Why so sensitive when it comes to Paul? Maybe that's the question that should be asked instead. Certain people feel that Paul has a right to "set the record straight" to those who felt that Lennon was The Beatles, so why can't those who disagree with the notion that Paul did everything have a voice in dispelling that myth? Many of them aren't "bad mouthing" Paul so much as they are backing up an opinion on his role with supporting evidence. Some fans are beginning to adopt some of Paul's habits I'm afraid, including feeling insecure about the Paul McCartney "legacy"…:-)
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: LongHairedLady, IveJustSeenAFaceo, Annadog40, Matt Busby
Currently Browsing this Page:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
Ron Nasty: 2382
Guest Posters: 87
Newest Members: FrettsArt, Henry, elnortheyrusse, stforever, walrus on the hill
Moderators: Ahhh Girl (2928), fabfouremily (2871), Zig (3187), Joe (3119), Ellie (1)
Administrators: Joe (3119)