Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
3.22am
1 May 2010
Offline
Well the thing is Anderson that "great" is an adjective that describes opinion, that's why you have to say "I like that great blue car" instead of "blue great car", because the adjectives that refer to something in general are said before the ones that are more specific*
We might use some criteria to evaluate good music but some of it might be valid for you. You say it's not valid to say a song is good because it connects to people, that a good song should be good if it's sung in a closed room or in a large audience. Well, I don't think Paul wrote Hey Jude planning "One day, in a large stadium, I'll have tons of people singing these na-na-na again and again. And I'll make a goofy routine with them.. and then…."
The song Hey Jude gave me the chills yesterday when I was in my room, and when I saw Paul live last year. And just to say a point, didn't John say that Strawberry Fields Forever was not as good as he wanted? Even John disagreea with me when we say what makes a great Beatle song.
What I try to say, Anderson, I'm not against your point of view. It's just that trying to define the word "great" is really hard.
Now, I can agree with you in something : I can't hate any John song in the Beatles catalog, while I can't find love for Ob-la-di Ob-la-da. But I blame that to Paul's ego that didn't make him see that song was truly bad (although my niece loved it when she was a kid) more than his "regular" songwriting skills. It's just a song that he shouldn't have never recorded. (And I'm sure someone says that's the best Beatle song ever) How many songs like that John had? (We might find some in his solo work)
And I said I was not going to join the discussion. Damn it.. 
Ah well Peace and Love! 
*And yes, I'm talking about the order of adjectives in English.
3.47am
5 November 2011
Offline
kedame said:
If everyone disagrees with Anderson, then it should be everyone versus Anderson. No one has to be the voice of reason if they don't want to. I happen to think his opinion sucks, so I'm going to share that. Apparently, so does the majority of this board. He opened himself up to criticism by making a spectacularly broad claim that he should admittedly know would be controversial. If people don't agree with it, it is our prerogative to say so.
Implying that Paul and George aren't great or real artists, as he did in his last post, is as good as bashing, unless I am wrong that that was what he was implying. If I was, I'm sorry. But I won't apologize for arguing against him. That's what a thread like this is for.
I encourage you to argue with my position, and it is what I made this thread for. But if you are going to argue, then you should do so in a good faith manner. That is: by paying attention to what I'm typing and making a good faith effort to understand my positions. Almost every single post you've made in this thread has falsely attributed to me some opinion which I did not state. When I correct you, you do not acknowledge your misrepresentation. I agree that you shouldn't apologize for stating your opinions, but you should apologize for belligerently replying to my posts without taking the time to read them properly.
In your last post, you have again misrepresented me. At no point did I state that Paul and George are not "real artists". I said that they aren't very good at creating a nuanced and unbanal tonal framework in their song compositions. Nor did I complain that they aren't "serious or brooding enough". In fact, I said the exact opposite, repeatedly praising Paul for his "moody" and "bi-polar" bass playing. I don't mind having a conversation with you, love. But please try to be a bit less lazy in your reading of my posts if you're going to throw around accusations about what I'm saying.
Finally, a separate question is whether Paul and George are "great artists". I don't see how anyone could come away from reading any of my posts and think that I'm denying that Paul is a "great artist". I've praised him through the sky again and again for his bass playing. It's just that I don't think that his particular greatness, genius, and excellence as an artist comes so much from his songwriting (though he had some very good songs). His excellence and genius as an artist comes from his bass playing. However, I'm afraid to say that I don't think George was a "great artist". That's just too strong a term. George was certainly a good artist. He was creative, but not in the sense that really qualifies as "greatness".
3.56am
5 November 2011
Offline
GniknuS said:
With a Little Help from My Friends is an example of an amazingly complex line with all of these different and unique sections, innovative little riffs, but no one really talks about it because it's not quite as cool as something like Come Together.
Hey, you're right about Paul's bass in "With a Little Help from My Friends". I hadn't listened to that one in ten years at least. Classic "restless" McCartney style.
4.20am
23 January 2011
Offline
Anderson said:
kedame said:
If everyone disagrees with Anderson, then it should be everyone versus Anderson. No one has to be the voice of reason if they don't want to. I happen to think his opinion sucks, so I'm going to share that. Apparently, so does the majority of this board. He opened himself up to criticism by making a spectacularly broad claim that he should admittedly know would be controversial. If people don't agree with it, it is our prerogative to say so.
Implying that Paul and George aren't great or real artists, as he did in his last post, is as good as bashing, unless I am wrong that that was what he was implying. If I was, I'm sorry. But I won't apologize for arguing against him. That's what a thread like this is for.
I encourage you to argue with my position, and it is what I made this thread for. But if you are going to argue, then you should do so in a good faith manner. That is: by paying attention to what I'm typing and making a good faith effort to understand my positions. Almost every single post you've made in this thread has falsely attributed to me some opinion which I did not state. When I correct you, you do not acknowledge your misrepresentation. I agree that you shouldn't apologize for stating your opinions, but you should apologize for belligerently replying to my posts without taking the time to read them properly.
In your last post, you have again misrepresented me. At no point did I state that Paul and George are not "real artists". I said that they aren't very good at creating a nuanced and unbanal tonal framework in their song compositions. Nor did I complain that they aren't "serious or brooding enough". In fact, I said the exact opposite, repeatedly praising Paul for his "moody" and "bi-polar" bass playing. I don't mind having a conversation with you, love. But please try to be a bit less lazy in your reading of my posts if you're going to throw around accusations about what I'm saying.
Finally, a separate question is whether Paul and George are "great artists". I don't see how anyone could come away from reading any of my posts and think that I'm denying that Paul is a "great artist". I've praised him through the sky again and again for his bass playing. It's just that I don't think that his particular greatness, genius, and excellence as an artist comes so much from his songwriting (though he had some very good songs). His excellence and genius as an artist comes from his bass playing. However, I'm afraid to say that I don't think George was a "great artist". That's just too strong a term. George was certainly a good artist. He was creative, but not in the sense that really qualifies as "greatness".
First of all, please don't call me "love." Secondly, what the hell does "a nuanced and unbanal tonal framework" really even mean? I'm sorry if I'm not musically intelligent enough to know, but it sounds like made up crap to me. Thirdly, I don't really know what makes the perfect Beatles song. I know what I like to listen to. It's the whole damn catalog. I think they all wrote great songs (with the exception of Ringo, whose songs have a certain charm, but are hardly brilliant). I can't explain it in terms of musicality because I know next to nothing about the technicalities of music, as I have stated often in my posts on this board. I do know what makes me feel good though, when listening to music. And it isn't just brilliant John's brilliant songs, though I do love brilliant John's brilliant songs. Fourthly, you hardly addressed anything in my posts or other people's posts, either. There is nothing objective in your posts that make sense as to why you would maintain the assertion that the only first-rate songs are John's songs. It makes no sense, and plenty of people in the music world would disagree with you.
I read your posts in their entirety. I didn't lazily skim them. I just happen to disagree with you. It's fine that you don't like Paul's songwriting, or George's songwriting, but that doesn't mean they aren't great songs. I just can't see where a song like Blackbird could be considered inferior to, say, Dear Prudence, or even I'm So Tired. It isn't a raw song, but it has a serious message without being overbearing, a beautiful melody, and Paul's wonderful singing. Tell me why Penny Lane isn't a great song? What about it indicates that it does not have "a nuanced and unbanal tonal framework?" (Again, what the hell does that mean? Seriously, I would like to know.) What is it about Let it Be or We Can Work it Out that is inherently wrong? Why isn't The Fool on the Hill a great song, when it's as whimsical as I Am the Walrus and as poetic as anything in the Beatles catalog? Why is Here Comes the Sun merely a good song? You haven't elaborated on any of these questions in a serious manner.
4.30am
1 May 2010
Offline
Guys, if we continue using subjective terms as the word "great" we will go nowhere. As simple as that. 
Hence my theory that says "There will always be someone who thinks Citizen Kane is a piece of junk". What is great for us, for Anderson is just ok.
(BTW Something is a great fucking song. If you can't see it, honestly….)
4.45am
1 May 2010
Offline
I don't understand why there are always these massive problems on the site whenever someone says something even slightly negative about Paul. Like on the Dear Prudence page, when people question whether or not Paul could have played those fills at the end, McCartney fans freak out and refer to other examples of Paul's playing that don't even come close to what he did on Dear Prudence. Yes, for god sake, I've heard Mrs. Vandebilt…
Or another example was when someone said something slightly negative I believe about a bass part, I can't remember what song page, and someone (
) responded by saying "well you just don't like Paul" or something like that and the guy was like, look I play bass and Paul McCartney is the reason. It's just ridiculous that if we don't always praise his most holiness, these ridiculous claims about not liking or respecting Paul come out.
I'm a Lennon fan because I think he's better, period. But I think Paul McCartney is the coolest (white) musician of all time. I play bass (I'll give you one guess as to the bass I play), I study his bass lines and I respect him as one of the most innovative bass guitar players of all time. The guy is simply fantastic.
That being said, I don't consider him necessarily a great songwriter. He's unbelievable from a melodic perspective, but I never really feel where he's coming from on a lot of his songs. Does this mean that I dislike him or disrespect him? That's fine if you think so, but certainly it's not even close to the truth.
My point would be to set emotions aside for a second when something slightly negative is said against Paul and try to see the other person's perspective without automatically assuming they are trying to put Paul down. We all love him and realize that the band would have gone nowhere without him, but that doesn't mean people's opinions should automatically be dismissed.
5.03am
23 January 2011
Offline
But this isn't something slightly negative, and it's not just about Paul. It's about George, too. Saying the only fantastic songs in the entire Beatles catalog are the ones written by John is just an absurd notion. You can certainly say they are your favorites, but why does that mean they are the only so-called first-rate songs?
I never said he hated Paul or disrespected him. I just asked why certain Beatles songs that just happen to be written by Paul (or George) and are generally considered some their greatest songs don't measure up? And if you'll notice, it isn't just me and paulsbass saying this. We might be the loudest, but so far, you seem to be the only person who thinks the same as he does. Mith made some good points in his defense, but you can tell she doesn't necessarily agree with him.
What do you think of as a great songwriter if you can't even say that the songwriter of nearly 50% of the Beatles's songs is a greater songwriter?
Edit: GniknuS, I'm really not trying to be belligerent, here. These are things I really want Anderson and you to answer. Like I said, it's fine for all of us to have a personal favorite. I just don't see why Paul and George's songs should be relegated to a permanent sub-standard status by Anderson. I like Strawberry Fields Forever better than Penny Lane, but that doesn't mean I think Penny Lane is inferior. It's a personal preference. I like Here Comes the Sun better than Paperback Writer and Honey Pie better than Yer Blues. Does that mean I think Honey Pie is a better song than Yer Blues…probably…but I recognize that is an opinion, not a fact. It is not "obvious" that Honey Pie is better, or Here Comes the Sun is better. It is preference. I can't give reasons for that. I don't know what the reasons are. I get it must be tiring to hear people like paulsbass and me defending Paul all the time, but it gets tiring having to hear that people think his music is second rate. I understand it is opinion, and I will mock no one for his or her opinion, but Anderson really just didn't make any sense here, to me, or, it seems, to a lot of people.
Also, could you continue to call Paul his "holiness?" I think it is an apt title.
5.44am
1 May 2010
Offline
The problem Gniknus is the way things are said.
Anderson said:
I think that a great Beatles song must consist of two elements: its being primarily written by Lennon, and its being accompanied by an inspired McCartney bass line. Without this formula, I believe that we are left with songs that are either mediocre or outside of the first-rank.
To me, mediocre is this..
Not Something or Blackbird. Come on..
Edit : Heck, I'll rather hear Ob-la-di Ob-la-da and Ding Dong a million times again and again than this crap. 
edit 2 : Joe forgive me for posting this video in here… 
7.55am
12 March 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said:
Paulsbass isn't a stupid guy. He knows his stuff well. I might not always agree with him, but it's never because of something really stupid he says (because he doesn't say stupid things). You know what (and I would like to think he agrees with me), I would agree with him if he's right about something in a heartbeat. And typically when he calls me out, it's my fault. I don't think there's any bad blood, right?
Wow, I laughed out loud a few times reading this one!
I know you REALLY tried hard to be nice, and I LOVE how you realitivized your points right away when you realized they were actually insults! 
No, there's no bad blood between us, I do think you cut down your output and also worked on your own attitude. In fact Anderson's post reminded me a bit of a certain young man who claimed that George was the best bass player in the Beatles…
But that's all water under the bridge, so let's see what we can do together about Mr. Anderson – if he deserves the attention.
8.03am
12 March 2010
Offline
GniknuS said:
Ok, it doesn't need to be everyone versus Anderson, I don't think that was his intention.
Oh YES, it WAS!
For example, Come Together certainly is a cool bass line, but outside of the riff it really isn't spectacular.
Don't try and talk sense into his "points", he said that Come together could be a nice little song IF it wasn't for the lazy, unspectacular bass. GnikuNus, the bass is the most spectacular thing of the song and it's trademark, and denying that proves him a trouble-maker looking for a stage.
Don't encourage or defend him!
Let's try to keep some things in perspective, I don't believe he's trashing Paul or George by sharing his opinion.
Eh, saying neither Paul nor George EVER wrote a single GREAT song is trashing in my book.
So, he wants the attention, he wants the fight, so let's give it to him and see if he's able to provide ANY substantial thing to say or if he sticks to elaborate ways of saying "You are not as smart as I am because you have a different opinion, so f… off!".
8.18am
12 March 2010
Offline
GniknuS said:
My point would be to set emotions aside for a second when something slightly negative is said against Paul and try to see the other person's perspective without automatically assuming they are trying to put Paul down. We all love him and realize that the band would have gone nowhere without him, but that doesn't mean people's opinions should automatically be dismissed.
1.) As long as people express their preference to John WITHOUT dismissing Paul as a whiney, over-optimistic, superficial scumbag I have no(t a big) problem with that.
I NEVER express MY preference of Paul while at the same time calling John an insecure, big-mouthed, lazy, crazy crack-whore with a bad taste in women. I still respect John very much.
Many Lennonistas don't give that respect to Paul, so there's the problem.
2.) That's NOT what Anderson did. Please re-read his postings, they are FULL of insults not only about Paul but also George, John and even Ringo.
And let's not forget he ALSO trashes George Martin by dismissing practically every productional decision he ever made. The arrangement of "I am the walrus" is widely considered to be one of their best and most elaborate, and while it's obviously possible to think it's overproduced you can't dismiss the fantastic strings and everything THAT easily.
Claiming that the master of melody Paul McCartney is unable to write an "unbanal" melody is admitting that you look for trouble and don't deserve to be taken seriously, you have to admit that.
Don't defend this clown, you're damaging yourself doing it, which would be a shame.
8.51am
12 March 2010
Offline
Anderson said:
I encourage you to argue with my position, and it is what I made this thread for. But if you are going to argue, then you should do so in a good faith manner. That is: by paying attention to what I'm typing and making a good faith effort to understand my positions.
Oh well, yeah maybe our "good faith manners" evaporized after having read your insults and arrogant dismissals of 95% of the Beatles' output and after getting patronized and insulted by some big-headed freak.
Almost every single post you've made in this thread has falsely attributed to me some opinion which I did not state. When I correct you, you do not acknowledge your misrepresentation. I agree that you shouldn't apologize for stating your opinions, but you should apologize for belligerently replying to my posts without taking the time to read them properly.
Typical troll behaviour: Accusing other people of their own mistakes while ignoring other people's points, thus provoking more angry reactions.
In your last post, you have again misrepresented me. At no point did I state that Paul and George are not "real artists". I said that they aren't very good at creating a nuanced and unbanal tonal framework in their song compositions.
I think you said they're not only not "very good" at but totally incapable of writing anything "nuanced and unbanal".
Kedame rightfully called you out, just using different words for it.
I don't mind having a conversation with you, love. But please try to be a bit less lazy in your reading of my posts if you're going to throw around accusations about what I'm saying.
Could you BE more patronizing and arrogant?? Hardly.
Finally, a separate question is whether Paul and George are "great artists". I don't see how anyone could come away from reading any of my posts and think that I'm denying that Paul is a "great artist". I've praised him through the sky again and again for his bass playing. It's just that I don't think that his particular greatness, genius, and excellence as an artist comes so much from his songwriting (though he had some very good songs). His excellence and genius as an artist comes from his bass playing. However, I'm afraid to say that I don't think George was a "great artist". That's just too strong a term. George was certainly a good artist. He was creative, but not in the sense that really qualifies as "greatness".
More nonsense. You reduce a guy who wrote many piano classics like "Let it be" or "Live and let die" or "Lady Madonna" or "Maybe I'm amazed" etc. and many guitar classics like "Yesterday", "Blackbird" etc. and some classics with no piano or guitar at all like "Eleanor Rigby" and has one of the most diverse voices in rock music – to his bass playing.
So what about his keyboard attributions to songs like "Lucy in the sky" etc.?
Oh, I forgot, that's all crap in your book.
And while I'd agree that George wasn't in the same league with John and Paul he definitely WAS a GREAT artist, being highly respected by fans, musicians and critics (at least at some times) for his songwriting, guitar work, voice, interest in other forms of music and culture, humour, generosity…
So, if you really WANT to be taken seriously (which I doubt…) stop the patronizing and dismissing things you don't like in this arrogant and provocative way.
9.03am
12 March 2010
Offline
mithveaen said:
Now, I can agree with you in something : I can't hate any John song in the Beatles catalog, while I can't find love for Ob-la-di Ob-la-da. But I blame that to Paul's ego that didn't make him see that song was truly bad (although my niece loved it when she was a kid) more than his "regular" songwriting skills. It's just a song that he shouldn't have never recorded. (And I'm sure someone says that's the best Beatle song ever) How many songs like that John had? (We might find some in his solo work)
Mith, I respect you very much, but please don't support the troll. I know I keep feeding it myself, but that's still something different than saying you can see a point in his words.
We're all entitled to our opinions (I also wouldn't name Obladi-Oblada as my favourite Beatles song, but how can you ignore the fact that literally billions of people know this song and still call it "bad"?? It's a good fun-song, especially for kids indeed, or for happy people, or for people who are not happy but want to feel happy and this songs helps them. Not EVERY song needs to be a "Yer blues", you know. George expressed his awe of McCartney by saying he would NEVER be able to come up with these fictional people and stories himself. Fun songs are much harder to write than Blues songs, and Obladi-Oblada is among the greatest and most successful fun songs.), but we can talk about them without making other people feel bad.
Mr. Anderson here is on a mission. He experienced the reactions before, so his replies are already in his routine.
Don't defend this guy, he's not worth it.
1.23pm
19 September 2010
Offline
In fact, I closer see a resemblance to JFKin60. Both being COMPLETELY ignorant of anything. Paulsbass, (and you too Kedame), you are spot on with this guy. I mean, even if you prefer John (which I used to) that doesn't mean EVERYTHING PAUL DID SUCKS! I can stand an opinion, but I can't stand the stating of those opinions in such a patronising way, such as calling Kedame (who you are having a f ing debate with) love. Come ON. And Paulsbass, I love how you responded to his "good faith" bullshit. It's pathetic and laughable. And finally, Anderson, if you go about insulting, being condescending and arrogant, well expect those things in return. We'll respond to you how you speak to us. You'll have a bad time here if you don't realise that insults get returned fast.
2.11pm
1 May 2010
Offline
Just to make it clear Paulsbass.
I'm not feeding the troll. Well. Maybe. I'm just practicing what the Dalai Lama says "Try to connect and understand people". Otherwise my first reaction would be "Fuck off Man, George and Paul are as awesome as John. Nuff said". But I try to get people. So blame it to this book.
Also, I still haven't learned how to discuss about the Beatles like you LOL!!
Now Paulsbass I don't say Ob-la-di Ob-la-da is junk. I just don't like it. I dunno why. It's one of those things that I just can't explain. And I don't think I'll find love for it, because in Paul's concert, when he sang the song it was like when I go to the gym and my instructor says "Ok, time to drink water". It was my time to catch my breath. But there are tons of kids who like it.
Now what I find interesting in all this is that typical Beatle fan who says that John Lennon was the greatest thing on Earth and Paul McCartney should be kissing Yoko's dress rim for having the opportunity of working with John.I even heard a guy saying "The Beatles should have been John Lennon and his chorus"
First of all, when John met Paul,he thought Paul had talent, he was as good as he was, and that maybe, just maybe he might jeopardize his position of leader in the band. And still, he chose him. Why can't we trust John's judgment?
I wonder what it would have been if Paul chose John instead. We would have rabid McCartneistas? 
2.37pm
1 May 2011
Offline
Its noticable that Anderson has not responded to how can you can write off Paul and George as not being great songwriters?
3.40pm
12 March 2010
Offline
mithveaen said:
I'm not feeding the troll.
I didn't say that. I am feeding the troll, you are SUPPORTING him!!
Well. Maybe. I'm just practicing what the Dalai Lama says "Try to connect and understand people". Otherwise my first reaction would be "Fuck off Man, George and Paul are as awesome as John. Nuff said". But I try to get people.
Yeah, but what if the other guy doesn't WANT you to connect, if he's just looking for trouble?
In your short posting where you tried to find some understanding for his points you said many things that were totally contradictional to what he said, or how he said it.
Same with GnikNus, btw. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I still can respect him and I feel his love and respect for The Beatles.
I don't feel that with Mr. Anderson. And I'm not alone with that.
Now Paulsbass I don't say Ob-la-di Ob-la-da is junk. I just don't like it. I dunno why.
Sorry, that's NOT what you said. You said "How could Paul not see it was a bad song". And it's not.
And I totally know how it's possible to not like it, how the instrumentation and high pitched "lalala" can get annoying.
It's still a masterpiece and a Beatles trademark song, I guess it's in their top 10 best known and best loved songs on the planet (at the SAME time it has also damaged their reputation, I don't deny that) and rightfully so.
Normal people don't know about Tomorrow never knows or For no one. They think Beatles are happy music, to a huge part due to this song, and what's wrong with that?!
About your last point:
I don't think you describe "the typical Beatles fan", just a part of them, maybe a third. Another third will think the other way around, and the last ones are favouring both or George.
3.44pm
12 March 2010
Offline
meanmistermustard said:
Its noticable that Anderson has not responded to how can you can write off Paul and George as not being great songwriters?
Nonononono, he NEVER said that! He just meant that they tried really hard and showed some really good effort but were just NOT cut out to reach John's mastership.
He has not responded much at all, another typical troll behaviour…
Maybe we are that lucky and never hear of him again?!
5.35pm
1 May 2011
Offline
Anderson said
To defend my view, it's necessary for me to hold that McCartney and Harrison didn't write great songs. McCartney and Harrison were good at writing hits, but this is not the same thing as writing great songs. A great song must feature both an interesting mood, and an unbanal tonal framework. Neither McCartney nor Harrison seem to me very good at these things.
(Taken from the very first post of this thread tho i think you may be being sarcastic. My emphasis by the way, not Anderson's.)
6.04pm
1 May 2010
Offline
This was not my day.
Paulsbass just to make it clear. I disagree with Anderson. And right now, I don't give a fuck about what he says.
I just wanted that for one fucking time, a John fan told me a very valid reason why Paul and George were mediocre.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online:
6 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3438
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1540
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1378
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1685
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2400
Posts: 73465
Newest Members: BrettB, Ralphrennick, fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
