Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1.33am
1 May 2010
Offline
You know, when I was a kid my favorite Beatles was George, later I fell in love with Ringo, and in my teens, I fell in love with John. But I never felt the same for Paul. He was the lesser Beatle. But after watching him live, love struck on me and it's growing and growing. I might never accept some of his songs, (like Obladi Oblada) but the heck I don't like Piggies. So it's not 100% inconditional love.
but one of the songs I refused to love was Here there and Everywhere. I have a zero sentimentalism chip very deep in my soul that makes me roll my eyes every time I listen to something chessy like the chorus of the song. Yeah, they're sweet, yeah they're the Beatles, yeah they're great, but to me, they're chessy.
But then I listened to this.
And then I listened to this. Damn great music.
And then I listened again to this again…
And then I take my hands to my heart and I look at the Fab Four pic I have on my board and I say "Guys, I love your music. Do I have to have a massive crush on you four????" and they say "Yes you do". 
Damn it.
3.43am
13 November 2009
Offline
There, there mith. I understand.
*laughs at Ringo's sexy face* (We need to fix that.)
3.51am
4 December 2010
Offline
It really is a cheesy love song, but I can't help but love it and love them even more when I listen to it. Their harmonies are spot on as well. I think this was the first song where I realized how good they are at harmonizing.
5.18am
1 May 2010
Offline
The problem with the armonies is that I used to have this mental picture in my mind of John and George singing it. 
I love Kermit, and I know about kissing a frog to find your prince,
but my mental picture was too damn funny to keep a straIght face. Now the armonies are growning on me. A lot.
And yes, my mind works in strange ways.. I know…
5.32am
14 April 2010
Offline
mithveaen said:
And yes, my mind works in strange ways.. I know…
You're not alone. It's not easy being green.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
7.37am
20 December 2010
Offline
I used to love 'Here, There and Everywhere when I was a kid when 'Revolver' came out in the summer of 1966. But as time has passed, I don't like it as much as I used to. Paul used to be my favorite when I was young but as I got older and music changed especially with FM radio and Underground Radio it just seemed to me that Paul was just a Pop Artist and I wanted more depth in the music I liked.
I wonder regarding all the Paul fans out there, how many like him because he is still alive. If he had passed away many years ago and John was still alive, would he still be as popular.
6.45pm
27 February 2010
Offline
Paul is 4th in my list of favourites beatles, after John, Ringo and George. And just above Carl, Jim and Blinky.
HTaE is a good excuse for those lovely choirs, and arrangement. This song is cheesy, I agree. But I love cheese.
1.46am
1 December 2009
Offline
Can't strongly enough express my dismay at people calling "Here There & Everywhere" 'cheesy' – no, no, no, that's hogwash and I won't stand for it! "Cheesy" indeed – the world's strictest vegan restaurant has more cheese! Structurally, conceptually, and melodically, "HT&E" is a ringing success all around. Case closed!
Can John Lennon, George Martin, and Brian Wilson all be wrong?
3.16am
1 May 2010
Offline
Fair enough Von Bontee 
So, let's say it's too sentimental. And the thing is, they're good, but I don't like The Beach Boys. As I say, my mind works in weird ways. 
3.25am
9 June 2010
Offline
mithveaen said:
And then I take my hands to my heart and I look at the Fab Four pic I have on my board and I say "Guys, I love your music. Do I have to have a massive crush on you four?" and they say "Yes you do".
Mithveaen? Do you have to be so awesome all the time?
vonbontee said:
Can John Lennon, George Martin, and Brian Wilson all be wrong?
Sure! Why not?
I STILL think it's too cheesy for me.
The *9* proves my point.
mr. Sun king coming together said And yes, YouTube comments are stupid. But hilariously so.
7.50pm
27 February 2010
Offline
vonbontee said:
Can John Lennon, George Martin, and Brian Wilson all be wrong?
They were/are "cheesyheads".
But wait, I want to add something: The lyrics are cheesy, the music is heavenly.
8.26pm
1 May 2010
Offline
Von Bontee :
I'm not saying the music and the words are wrong. I think it's one of the most beautiful love songs ever. I love it. And the music? Forget it! It's beautiful!. My only problem was the chorus. I didn't like it, but it's growing on me.
But I have a question : What's the name to describe those armonies? I mean, Beach boys can be said "surf rock". I'd like to know and learn, and to me, you're a walking musical enciclopedia.
Thank you Von!
8.48pm
4 December 2010
Offline
Inner Light said:
I wonder regarding all the Paul fans out there, how many like him because he is still alive. If he had passed away many years ago and John was still alive, would he still be as popular.
It's a bit of both. Because John died first, he's seen by the general public as the genius, and also the maverick who took loads of drugs, was horrible to his friends and abandoned his wife and son for an evil hag. Paul, contrastingly, is seen as the lovely one, who wrote sweet love songs, had a devoted relationship with an animal rights activist, and was the only reason John stayed sane, though he isn't thought to be as talented or experimental. McCartney's been able to hush up some of the nastier bits of Beatles history, such as his treatment of George, or Frankie Schwartz, or the bits that put him a bad light, like his request to have Let It Be changed after telling Spector it was fine and clearing it for production. I think if Paul had died first, he'd be remembered as the Beatles who cheated on his girlfriend, brought his new flame into the studio, married a groupie, took loads of drugs, was horrible to his friends and was argumentative and obtuse, but also the first Beatle to embrace the avant-garde and wrote some ground breaking songs. Lennon, contrastingly, would be a devout lover of a peace protestor who wrote shallow songs, and a great father to Sean (though I don't think his treatment of Julian would be overlooked).
8.56pm
25 November 2010
Offline
I think if Paul had died first, yes, there'd be all that dirt digging going on, but like Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Jeff Buckley, he might not be *canonized* per se, but his legend would loom large over his work and people would always question what could have been. To paraphrase a song I just heard, everyone respects the dead.
9.07pm
9 June 2010
Offline
Marcelo said:
But wait, I want to add something: The lyrics are cheesy, the music is heavenly.
I wouldn't go as far as "heavenly," but the music is good.
(SORRY, MOM!)
mr. Sun king coming together said And yes, YouTube comments are stupid. But hilariously so.
3.37am
20 December 2010
Offline
The Walrus said:
Inner Light said:
I wonder regarding all the Paul fans out there, how many like him because he is still alive. If he had passed away many years ago and John was still alive, would he still be as popular.
It's a bit of both. Because John died first, he's seen by the general public as the genius, and also the maverick who took loads of drugs, was horrible to his friends and abandoned his wife and son for an evil hag. Paul, contrastingly, is seen as the lovely one, who wrote sweet love songs, had a devoted relationship with an animal rights activist, and was the only reason John stayed sane, though he isn't thought to be as talented or experimental. McCartney's been able to hush up some of the nastier bits of Beatles history, such as his treatment of George, or Frankie Schwartz, or the bits that put him a bad light, like his request to have Let It Be changed after telling Spector it was fine and clearing it for production. I think if Paul had died first, he'd be remembered as the Beatles who cheated on his girlfriend, brought his new flame into the studio, married a groupie, took loads of drugs, was horrible to his friends and was argumentative and obtuse, but also the first Beatle to embrace the avant-garde and wrote some ground breaking songs. Lennon, contrastingly, would be a devout lover of a peace protestor who wrote shallow songs, and a great father to Sean (though I don't think his treatment of Julian would be overlooked).
I agree. Personally, I don't think any of them were angels but my problem is that after reading most of the threads on this site and I am new to this site since Christmas time, that I get the feeling that, though it isn't said, that The Beatles were Paul's backup band. That Paul did everything and the others just sat around and followed him. I respect John and George for not wanting to play on the Beatle thing and developing their own new sound as solo artists were I feel Paul wanted to keep the Beatle thing going.
I remember in 1974, someone asked George if he was going to be Beatle George during his Dark Horse tour and he replied that "if you want to hear Beatle George or the Beatles than go and see Wings."
4.05am
1 May 2010
Offline
I disagree that all the people in here are Paul fans rather than Beatle fans. Maybe because he's on tour and we saw him live we're on a Paul's kick. But that doesn't mean (or at least me) think the Beatles as Paul's back up band.
5.53am
1 December 2009
Offline
mithveaen said:
Fair enough Von Bontee
So, let's say it's too sentimental. And the thing is, they're good, but I don't like The Beach Boys. As I say, my mind works in weird ways.
mithveaen said:
But I have a question : What's the name to describe those armonies? I mean, Beach boys can be said "surf rock". I'd like to know and learn, and to me, you're a walking musical enciclopedia.
Thank you Von!
Thanks yourself, Mith!
I have a bit of knowledge, but I'm hardly an encyclopedia – if I was, I wouldn't be surprised and delighted by the Mexican music Youtube videos you post from time to time. Anyways, Beach boys harmonies are generally called just that – "Beach Boys harmonies". Or occasionally "doo wop harmonies" although they aren't quite the same.
7.48pm
1 May 2010
Offline
Thanks Von Bontee! Now I know.
It's weird but I heard Pet Sounds and I didn't like it. And I have listened a few times, but no…
10.25pm
1 May 2010
Offline
Interesting topic, I don't think anyone on this site sees the Beatles as Paul's backup band especially considering how defensive most McCartney fans on this site get, which would make me think that there is more of a John bias on the site. I also don't understand why it always has to be one or the other, the Beatles wouldn't have been the Beatles without all four, so since Paul was an incredibly important part of the four he deserves a lot of credit for what they were able to achieve. I suppose it took me the longest to come around to Paul's stuff just because it's so vastly different from John's, but once I got over the "Paul is the cute one" notion, I've been able to really enjoy his stuff and now he has some of my all time favorite songs like Blackbird, Two of Us, Martha My Dear, etc.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: Von Bontee
6 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3427
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1528
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1369
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1683
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2398
Posts: 73308
Newest Members: fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell, JQ, Juliana Melo
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
