Paul being hated
-
It wasn't me who "personally attacked" although it might look that way, because of my post. Oh well no biggie. The kid didn't mean any offense by writing that negative stuff others had said about P.M., he was just trying to find out things.
-
I've said it many times in the past: Most Paul-"dissers"/John-praisers talk crap only because they think it is the cool thing to do. Most of them are wholly ignorant of the facts. Same thing with the morons who keep repeating the lie that Elvis calculatedly "stole rock & roll music from black people." Again, these folks haven't bothered to check the facts because they believe that making these claims pleases people in their circle.
-
Paulfan:
I do feel that Paul has gotten the sort end of the stick from critics and even Beatles fans alike and John has been elevated. John deserves all the respect eht gets but I don't feel that they need to put Paul down to elevate John.
I've noticed this too. Not only that, it has become "fashionable" to call him the third best beatle by being a bit of a hipster and saying George was better, too. That's simply not true. George was awesome in a lot of ways but...
-
audi:
I've said it many times in the past: Most Paul-"dissers"/John-praisers talk crap only because they think it is the cool thing to do. Most of them are wholly ignorant of the facts. Same thing with the morons who keep repeating the lie that Elvis calculatedly "stole rock & roll music from black people." Again, these folks haven't bothered to check the facts because they believe that making these claims pleases people in their circle.
Thank you! All musicians influence each other if they are listening to each other's music and digging it.
-
I doubt it keeps Paul up at night that some people don't care for him at the moment. When he dies those same people will be all over him anyway. I'd much rather have one of my two favourite singer/songwriters still releasing music in exchange for being seen as an embarrassing uncle instead of being cool and perhaps liked more but dead for the last 33 years.
-
I was just reading on Jorie Gracen's website that Paul had a pep talk with John a long time ago and John said he wondered how people would feel about him when he died and Paul said you're crazy ,you won't care because number one you will be dead and number two you've done a fantastic job meaning John's work with the Beatles. I just found this out now so it does seem that regardless whether John had us believe he didn't care what people think I believe he really did in a way,I'm sure everybody does as Paul said in that article it is a human thing. Paul himself says he tries not to read reviews in that interview because he will have to do something better and he feels the same way and is actually quite surprised by what people think of him. I think they were all great for me I say Paul had the best voice,John the best lyrics,George I'm glad he made Indian music popular to the western culture and Ringo for the drums. Without each other they wouldn't have been as great as they became.
-
MaccaBeatles:
I doubt it keeps Paul up at night...
I'm with ya on that one
-
Fan4-45years:
MaccaBeatles:
I doubt it keeps Paul up at night...
I'm with ya on that one
If it does, I'm sure Nancy will find something else to occupy his mind (and body)!
-
Nancy R:
Fan4-45years:
MaccaBeatles:
I doubt it keeps Paul up at night...
I'm with ya on that one
If it does, I'm sure Nancy will find something else to occupy his mind (and body)!
scrabble?
-
oobu24:
Nancy R:
Fan4-45years:
MaccaBeatles:
I doubt it keeps Paul up at night...
I'm with ya on that one
If it does, I'm sure Nancy will find something else to occupy his mind (and body)!
scrabble?
No, Twister.
-
Nancy R:
oobu24:
Nancy R:
Fan4-45years:
MaccaBeatles:
I doubt it keeps Paul up at night...
I'm with ya on that one
If it does, I'm sure Nancy will find something else to occupy his mind (and body)!
scrabble?
No, Twister.
:
-
-
oobu24:
I knew you'd "appreciate" that!
-
Nancy R:
oobu24:
I knew you'd "appreciate" that!
-
oobu24:
boy I miss everything.
yeah, so do I but I"m not sorry. can't go calling me one of the troublemakers then but the Lennon vs McCartney debates can get very ugly
-
what I don't get are those folks who say that John and Paul always hated each other. Now, Paul and John were teens when they met. If they hated each other, they wouldn't have stuck it out to work together because no teen would.
-
To be honest, the whole Lennon Vs McCartney Vs Harrison ( sorry I don't think people really compare ringo...) is a terrible debate! each artist first NEEDED each other to get somewhere. I mean, if the events that happened on the day of that fete so so long ago, paul would not of met john which means they would of never started to write songs together which means they wouldn't of got the songwriting skill down well individually which means George wouldn't of bothered to try and write songs to get a good one to compare to the likes of Lennon/McCartney, which ovisoly means they would of never even of exsisted in the first place. once they had that tranning step ahead of them, they started to branch off and do their own ideas. for example,you cant tell me that "Rain" , "Paperback Writer"and "Taxman" all sound exactally the same musically and lyrically. This is even more ovious in the later years when they all were in to different things. It was easy to see John was starting to get into Visual arts," doing things to the extreme"( I follow that concept as well I admit) and stared up the plastic ono band George was taking it a bit easier and going along the more "Ill release what I think is good and if it dosnt do brilliantly, I don't care." and his songs were on a bit more of a religious tone. Paul on the other hand....( gets the McCartney Biography out). I admit as a beatles enthusiast I don't really know what paul did... I only really started to get into pauls awesome sounding stuff a while ago and don't really know that much history and even how to represent paul propley in this context. I feel quite bad in some ways not knowing what to say but I really really don't want to say something wrong. I NEVER believed the VS myth, I just never actually got around to paul since my music tastes have always been going nuts. one week im into " Living in the material world" next im into "Pet Sounds" even though im not really that much of a beach boys fan but only the fact that it is musically brilliant, list goes on and on and on and on and on. So I find it to be like the "cholesterol is bad for you" myth. that first started with a Terrible terrible hypothesis with bad supporting points getting generally accepted among the public and now basically being know as a big factor in society today.thing is,people with low cholesterol are dying just as much as people with high cholestrerol. search it up its a intresting study. back to the point, I find the media started presenting this " competition" and in this modern day, it basically feels like "WE MUST BE ONLY BE A SUPPORTER OF JOHN OR GEORGE AND HATE ON THE ONE WE DONT SUPPORT AND PAUL OR WE WILL SUPPORT BOTH JOHN AND GEORGE AND REALLY HATE ON PAUL." of course there would be more hipsters liking John and Geroge but we need to rember the one solid fact. there music was all unique and different and great in their own right. it should never be put up against each other since it was never made to be compared. it was made to cherish, enjoy and inspire the next new generation to make brilliant music. That message didn't really come out well In some aspects did it... sigh... Well that's my sort of long ( not really) take on the issue
-
Ring064:
To be honest, the whole Lennon Vs McCartney Vs Harrison ( sorry I don't think people really compare ringo...) is a terrible debate! each artist first NEEDED each other to get somewhere. I mean, if the events that happened on the day of that fete so so long ago, paul would not of met john which means they would of never started to write songs together which means they wouldn't of got the songwriting skill down well individually which means George wouldn't of bothered to try and write songs to get a good one to compare to the likes of Lennon/McCartney, which ovisoly means they would of never even of exsisted in the first place. once they had that tranning step ahead of them, they started to branch off and do their own ideas. for example,you cant tell me that "Rain" , "Paperback Writer"and "Taxman" all sound exactally the same musically and lyrically. This is even more ovious in the later years when they all were in to different things. It was easy to see John was starting to get into Visual arts," doing things to the extreme"( I follow that concept as well I admit) and stared up the plastic ono band George was taking it a bit easier and going along the more "Ill release what I think is good and if it dosnt do brilliantly, I don't care." and his songs were on a bit more of a religious tone. Paul on the other hand....( gets the McCartney Biography out). I admit as a beatles enthusiast I don't really know what paul did... I only really started to get into pauls awesome sounding stuff a while ago and don't really know that much history and even how to represent paul propley in this context. I feel quite bad in some ways not knowing what to say but I really really don't want to say something wrong. I NEVER believed the VS myth, I just never actually got around to paul since my music tastes have always been going nuts. one week im into " Living in the material world" next im into "Pet Sounds" even though im not really that much of a beach boys fan but only the fact that it is musically brilliant, list goes on and on and on and on and on. So I find it to be like the "cholesterol is bad for you" myth. that first started with a Terrible terrible hypothesis with bad supporting points getting generally accepted among the public and now basically being know as a big factor in society today.thing is,people with low cholesterol are dying just as much as people with high cholestrerol. search it up its a intresting study. back to the point, I find the media started presenting this " competition" and in this modern day, it basically feels like "WE MUST BE ONLY BE A SUPPORTER OF JOHN OR GEORGE AND HATE ON THE ONE WE DONT SUPPORT AND PAUL OR WE WILL SUPPORT BOTH JOHN AND GEORGE AND REALLY HATE ON PAUL." of course there would be more hipsters liking John and Geroge but we need to rember the one solid fact. there music was all unique and different and great in their own right. it should never be put up against each other since it was never made to be compared. it was made to cherish, enjoy and inspire the next new generation to make brilliant music. That message didn't really come out well In some aspects did it... sigh... Well that's my sort of long ( not really) take on the issue
Thanks for those words of wisdom. I agree with most of what you said. Reading your take on how all of them are different, but equal, musically, gave me a mind picture of how opposites attract or how contrast and diversity is what makes society sing. Another image I got while reading your assessment was when you go out to a fine restaurant and you have your filet mignon, your gourmet asparagus, your garlic mashed potatoes and your fine wine--all complimenting each other, all dishes important, without one of which the meal would not be quite right for the over all effect and satisfaction for the diner.
-
Kathryn O:
what I don't get are those folks who say that John and Paul always hated each other. Now, Paul and John were teens when they met. If they hated each other, they wouldn't have stuck it out to work together because no teen would.
People will say anything, I suppose, and they have regarding John and Paul. I agree that teens do not stick around with other teens whose company they don't enjoy. Brilliant observation!
-
Paul will be venerated long after his detractors are forgotten.