If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Metro)   Paul McCartney claims Yoko Ono did not break up the Beatles. Well, glad that's finally cleared up   (metro.co.uk) divider line 87
    More: Interesting, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, Beatles, avant-garde  
•       •       •

2099 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 28 Oct 2012 at 6:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-28 04:43:59 PM  
Well, he's right. In the end, it was Paul who said "fark this shiat, I'm out of here".

But, things might not have been as bad if Yoko hadn't been around.
 
2012-10-28 05:11:25 PM  
I guess if anything contributed to the breakup of the band it was the death of Brian Epstein. They pretty much all looked up to him and followed his advice, I'm sure he would have fought having the group break up.
 
2012-10-28 06:37:54 PM  
I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.
 
2012-10-28 06:45:11 PM  
i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.
 
2012-10-28 06:45:13 PM  

douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.


In this ever changing world in which we live in. Those lyrics alone prove McCartney was a hack.
 
2012-10-28 06:45:32 PM  
I'd say Paul trying to get his father-in-law installed has the group's manager was a bigger issue than Yoko.
 
2012-10-28 06:46:30 PM  

Linux_Yes: i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.



proof that even the greatist rock and roll band in the world couldn't compete with pussy. (:
 
2012-10-28 06:53:14 PM  
Don't blame it on Yokey

ai ai ai ia ye yi yi yiyiyi
 
2012-10-28 06:53:19 PM  
what broke the beatles up?

1)getting older and tired of the running around/game of it all. they weren't young lads anymore.
2)drugs
3)chicks --not just john ,but the others were kinda' going off with their chicks too
4)creative differences and each wanted to do his own thing musically.
5)outside pressure from others who wanted to manage and/or steal the groups money
6)drugs
7)they were all very wealthy and figured out that there is more to life than collecting money/wealth.

Lennon himself said in 1965 that he expected to be happier and more content with all the money he made. he said that all his life he wanted to make it big and get rich. once it happened he realized that it wasn't as good as he had thought it was going to be. he said he was grateful that he'd 'made it' but that it wasn't as satisfying once it had happened as he thought it was going to be. john was growing up.

Chinese Curse: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
 
2012-10-28 06:56:48 PM  
The Beatles bring out the trolls every time.
 
2012-10-28 06:59:09 PM  
No one has ever made a convincing argument to me that Yoko was at all to blame for the Beatles' break up.

You have several large egos in what had to be the biggest band in the world at the time, and the cause of the break-up was...one chick who wasn't even in the band?

Please.
 
2012-10-28 06:59:38 PM  
I always figured that it was because of the growing artistic differences between John and Paul. John was wanting to write all this strange psychedelic hippie music while Paul was content to keep writing pop songs that had mass appeal and would be played on the radio.

Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.

Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.
 
2012-10-28 07:00:08 PM  
actually i think Ringo broke the Beatles up. he'd had it in for them from the beginning. he had said secretly to mal (road manager) that often times during a concert, he fantasized about beating the hell out of john with his drum sticks, but knew it would be bad for the group's image. ((:
 
2012-10-28 07:04:04 PM  
and if john was alive today, he'd take the mickey out of him and say that Pauly is being a good boy.
 
2012-10-28 07:07:38 PM  
The Beatles started breaking up when Brian Epstein died. They finished 3 years later.
 
2012-10-28 07:08:54 PM  
its a shame that, ultimately, Fame is what killed John Lennon. that and the fact that he came to live in the Useless States of America.

he had half, or more, of his life taken away.
 
2012-10-28 07:09:15 PM  
They all kind of hated each other at the end. Yoko didn't help things, but still. John wanted to do his own thing, likewise with Paul and George. Even though Ringo was actually the first to quit (for two weeks) he was just happy to be along for the ride.
 
2012-10-28 07:14:07 PM  

Linux_Yes: Linux_Yes: i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.


proof that even the greatist rock and roll band in the world couldn't compete with pussy. (:


Uh, dude, you forgot to log into your alt account.
 
2012-10-28 07:15:07 PM  

titwrench: douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.

In this ever changing world in which we live in. Those lyrics alone prove McCartney was a hack.


Are you trying to quote, "But if this ever changing world in which we're livin'?"

Seems like you are, but you're crippled by half truths and internet memes. You'll be fine. Just drink a lot of water and get some sleep.
 
2012-10-28 07:18:43 PM  

rocky_howard: Linux_Yes: Linux_Yes: i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.


proof that even the greatist rock and roll band in the world couldn't compete with pussy. (:

Uh, dude, you forgot to log into your alt account.



wrong again.

that was an addendum.

you're welcome!
 
2012-10-28 07:19:55 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: I guess if anything contributed to the breakup of the band it was the death of Brian Epstein. They pretty much all looked up to him and followed his advice, I'm sure he would have fought having the group break up.



yea, that was a huge blow. he was like daddy and now they were on their own to face the vultures.
 
2012-10-28 07:21:01 PM  
Can we blame Yoko for Paul suddenly writing easy listening songs I find hard to listen to? Or was that the part where he was replaced with a vegetarian robot?
 
2012-10-28 07:22:34 PM  

dholway: The Beatles bring out the trolls every time.



bring out the trolls. i bet that would be a good beatles song.
 
2012-10-28 07:22:48 PM  

Linux_Yes: i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.


This is pretty much it. The Beatles had a long standing "No wives/girlfriends in the studio" rule, but John insisted on having Yoko by his side at all times. This, combined with Paul and John's artistic differences, greatly accelerated the breakup of the band.
 
2012-10-28 07:23:12 PM  
Who gives a shiat about the farking Beatles?
 
2012-10-28 07:24:57 PM  

douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.



Johnny was the Soul of the group. he was the only member that could not have been replaced. Paul was very talented writing music, but he still could have been replaced, although it would most certainly had hurt the group alot.
 
2012-10-28 07:25:33 PM  

Mugato: Who gives a shiat about the farking Beatles?



your mama.
 
2012-10-28 07:26:43 PM  

Rubber Biscuit: titwrench: douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.

In this ever changing world in which we live in. Those lyrics alone prove McCartney was a hack.

Are you trying to quote, "But if this ever changing world in which we're livin'?"

Seems like you are, but you're crippled by half truths and internet memes. You'll be fine. Just drink a lot of water and get some sleep.


http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+mccartney/live+let+die_20105856.html

It would appear that I am more correct than you are. It's OK champ maybe don't be such a dick about it next time though.
 
2012-10-28 07:28:31 PM  

darkjezter: Linux_Yes: i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.

This is pretty much it. The Beatles had a long standing "No wives/girlfriends in the studio" rule, but John insisted on having Yoko by his side at all times. This, combined with Paul and John's artistic differences, greatly accelerated the breakup of the band.



yea, i had forgotten that but you are correct. they liked to be alone in the studio unless they needed outside players to assist with certain things, and then they sent them on their way. the beatles were a very private group and they were best friends too. they didn't let sh*tters get into their circle because they had learned in the early years what that could do. well done, mate!
 
2012-10-28 07:28:44 PM  
William Campbell said what now?
 
2012-10-28 07:31:02 PM  

2words1finger: Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.

Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.



And yet all these years later, the only Beatle whose solo work holds any appeal to me is George Harrison.
 
2012-10-28 07:31:57 PM  

Linux_Yes: Mugato: Who gives a shiat about the farking Beatles?


your mama.


Yeah, she probably does.
 
2012-10-28 07:35:45 PM  

2words1finger: I always figured that it was because of the growing artistic differences between John and Paul. John was wanting to write all this strange psychedelic hippie music while Paul was content to keep writing pop songs that had mass appeal and would be played on the radio.

Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.

Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.



Quality always beats Quantity.
 
2012-10-28 07:36:32 PM  

Linux_Yes: i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.


The Beatles would still be together if they had used Linux! It's all Micro$oft's fault!!1!
 
2012-10-28 07:38:27 PM  
I like the Beatles. I like a lot of their music. That being said, they are, without a doubt the most over-rated band ever.

A good portion of their music is simplistic bubble gum garbage, on par with boy bands that were popular a decade ago.
 
2012-10-28 07:43:39 PM  

Linux_Yes: wrong again.

that was an addendum.

you're welcome!


Again? I don't think you know the meaning of that word.
 
2012-10-28 07:43:50 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Linux_Yes: i doubt she broke them up but she most definately increased tension in the group. john would always bring her into the studio when they were working and the others felt like it was an intrusion. but john insisted. they felt she was hanging around too much and that john wasn't the same when she was around.

she sped up the break up but it probably would have happened anyways.

The Beatles would still be together if they had used Linux! It's all Micro$oft's fault!!1!



no, they still would have broken up, but losing Brian Epstein would not have gotten the ball rolling on their breakup. the community of Beatles lovers would have come together to support the group emotionally and they would have insured that the vultures, and lawyers and other takers would have not had access to the group and would not have been able to clean out a whole lot of the group's money. the community would have selected a manager that would have done Brian proud.

AND, the community would have outed mark chapman as the psychopath that he is and John would be alive today. mark would be in Prison for attempting to kill john lennon.

and the group would still be playing the occasional gigs, but in smaller, community oriented venues.

nice try, though.
 
2012-10-28 07:44:03 PM  
it was Pete Best
 
2012-10-28 07:45:41 PM  
Personally I find Pantera's breakup to be 100x worse than The Beatles, despite the fact that the Beatles have a greater impact with their breakup simply due to the fact that a)Boomers and b)Lennon getting shot
 
2012-10-28 07:46:11 PM  

mjbok: I like the Beatles. I like a lot of their music. That being said, they are, without a doubt the most over-rated band ever.

A good portion of their music is simplistic bubble gum garbage, on par with boy bands that were popular a decade ago.



yea, i prefer someone screaming into a micophone because they can't sing, and beating on a guitar they can't play. that's the future, man.

lol
 
2012-10-28 07:47:40 PM  

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: it was Pete Best



even lennon admitted they did pete best wrong. he was outed but in a dirty, sneaky way.

they must have found out he was a republican.
 
2012-10-28 07:51:08 PM  

Linux_Yes: yea, i prefer someone screaming into a micophone because they can't sing, and beating on a guitar they can't play. that's the future, man.


Are you talking about Revolution? You know, the Nike song? From a pure technical standpoint they were far from great at their respective instruments. However, some of their biggest hits have some of the stupidest most simplistic lyrics ever pressed to vinyl.
 
2012-10-28 07:54:17 PM  

mjbok: A good portion of their music is simplistic bubble gum garbage


You're forgetting how much music has progressed in the last 50 years (and just how much they were contributed to that progression) - prior to around 1965/66 rock/pop music was nothing but simplistic bubble gum garbage - it's one of the reasons the folkies lost their shiat when Dylan plugged in at Newport (which, not coincidentally, he was inspired to do by seeing the Beatles live) and it's one of the reasons that Revolver (which in turn was influenced by seeing Dylan) is still considered such a ground breaking album - pop/rock music was no place for a serious musician and no one believed anything of any real consequence could come from the music.
 
2012-10-28 08:01:25 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Well, he's right. In the end, it was Paul who said "fark this shiat, I'm out of here".

But, things might not have been as bad if Yoko hadn't been around.


It was John who first announced (to the band) that he was leaving. However, McCartney was the first to announce it publicly, and the first to get a post-Beatles solo album out.
 
2012-10-28 08:08:26 PM  

mjbok: Linux_Yes: yea, i prefer someone screaming into a micophone because they can't sing, and beating on a guitar they can't play. that's the future, man.

Are you talking about Revolution? You know, the Nike song? From a pure technical standpoint they were far from great at their respective instruments. However, some of their biggest hits have some of the stupidest most simplistic lyrics ever pressed to vinyl.



lets see........... Rubble soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's, Abbey Road, the White Album......

listen closer.
 
2012-10-28 08:09:23 PM  

whatshisname: 2words1finger: Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.
Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.
....
And yet all these years later, the only Beatle whose solo work holds any appeal to me is George Harrison.


Yeah me too. Odd that.

Linux_Yes: 2words1finger: I always figured that it was because of the growing artistic differences between John and Paul. John was wanting to write all this strange psychedelic hippie music while Paul was content to keep writing pop songs that had mass appeal and would be played on the radio.
Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.
Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.
.....
Quality always beats Quantity.


What world are you living in? I agree that quality should beat quantity, but that's just not true in the music business... or in retail if we're to look at wal mart as an example.
 
2012-10-28 08:10:55 PM  

mjbok: Linux_Yes: yea, i prefer someone screaming into a micophone because they can't sing, and beating on a guitar they can't play. that's the future, man.

Are you talking about Revolution? You know, the Nike song? From a pure technical standpoint they were far from great at their respective instruments. However, some of their biggest hits have some of the stupidest most simplistic lyrics ever pressed to vinyl.



screaming has its place, but when its constant screaming then you have issues. Jimi Hendrix was known to beat on his guitar sometimes but he earned that right because the rest of the time he could play it like no other.
he even earned the right to burn his guitar up with lighter fluid.
 
2012-10-28 08:13:03 PM  

2words1finger: whatshisname: 2words1finger: Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.
Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.
....
And yet all these years later, the only Beatle whose solo work holds any appeal to me is George Harrison.

Yeah me too. Odd that.

Linux_Yes: 2words1finger: I always figured that it was because of the growing artistic differences between John and Paul. John was wanting to write all this strange psychedelic hippie music while Paul was content to keep writing pop songs that had mass appeal and would be played on the radio.
Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.
Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.
.....
Quality always beats Quantity.

What world are you living in? I agree that quality should beat quantity, but that's just not true in the music business... or in retail if we're to look at wal mart as an example.



the operative word their is Business.

and when you mix Art with Business, the Art goes away and all you are left with is noise.

that is part of the reason why the music 'business' of today sucks so much.
 
2012-10-28 08:15:42 PM  

rocky_howard: Linux_Yes: wrong again.

that was an addendum.

you're welcome!

Again? I don't think you know the meaning of that word.



i used 'again' in a generic way because every time i post to one of my posts (to add something) folks accuse me of using aliases.

Linux_Yes is the only Fark account i have.
 
2012-10-28 08:18:21 PM  

Snapper Carr: You're forgetting how much music has progressed in the last 50 years (and just how much they were contributed to that progression) - prior to around 1965/66 rock/pop music was nothing but simplistic bubble gum garbage - it's one of the reasons the folkies lost their shiat when Dylan plugged in at Newport (which, not coincidentally, he was inspired to do by seeing the Beatles live) and it's one of the reasons that Revolver (which in turn was influenced by seeing Dylan) is still considered such a ground breaking album - pop/rock music was no place for a serious musician and no one believed anything of any real consequence could come from the music.


This is absolutely true. If you take the time you could probably actually say this is when they went from meh to influential. I believe it's probably around the time that they stopped touring or shortly before that.

//Never said I didn't like them. Never said they weren't good or influential. Said they were over-rated.
 
2012-10-28 08:20:24 PM  

LegacyDL: Personally I find Pantera's breakup to be 100x worse than The Beatles, despite the fact that the Beatles have a greater impact with their breakup simply due to the fact that a)Boomers and b)Lennon getting shot


The Beatles made enough albums already, Pantera did not. And Lennon's murder cut short a career that was veering right into easy listening alongside Paul - which certainly was not the case with Darrell.
 
2012-10-28 08:22:38 PM  

Linux_Yes: lets see........... Rubble soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's, Abbey Road, the White Album


All from the second half of their discography. As I mentioned above there is a split where they became different, but that is less than half of their total output. Much of their stuff was no different than everything else out there, bubble gum pop.
 
2012-10-28 08:23:07 PM  

Tax Boy: Don't blame it on Yokey

ai ai ai ia ye yi yi yiyiyi


Is that a "Be My Yoko Ono" reference? Because that was my first thought as well.
 
2012-10-28 08:27:29 PM  
I thought Paul was dead? ;)
 
2012-10-28 08:29:22 PM  

mjbok: Much of their stuff was no different than everything else out there, bubble gum pop.


Ahh, but it was some of the first bubble gum pop. The Stones early albums were similar. "Everything else out there" owes a lot to what came before it.
 
2012-10-28 08:43:56 PM  

whatshisname:
"Everything else out there" owes a lot to what came before it.


Not so Syd Barrett.
 
2012-10-28 08:44:14 PM  

douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.


So much this (except I like Elton John). For further evidence of terrible songwriting, look no further than "Silly Love Songs", one of the worst songs ever when you consider who wrote it. Talk about the emperor having no clothes. But then I remember that I like "Live and Let Die" and "Yesterday", so I hesitate to say that he's worthless. Bah.
 
2012-10-28 08:45:55 PM  

mjbok: Linux_Yes: lets see........... Rubble soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's, Abbey Road, the White Album

All from the second half of their discography. As I mentioned above there is a split where they became different, but that is less than half of their total output. Much of their stuff was no different than everything else out there, bubble gum pop.


I draw a hard line at Rubber Soul and afterwards (White Album tops my list) as my favorite period of the band. To be fair, prior to that, they were still kids cutting their teeth and much of what they did was covers (some of the best versions of those songs you'll here).

Lennon and McCartney complimented eah other and minus either, there's no Beatles.

I actually prefer post-Beatles McCartney to anything else by him or the others, so what do I know?
 
2012-10-28 08:46:23 PM  

titwrench: Rubber Biscuit: titwrench: douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.

In this ever changing world in which we live in. Those lyrics alone prove McCartney was a hack.

Are you trying to quote, "But if this ever changing world in which we're livin'?"

Seems like you are, but you're crippled by half truths and internet memes. You'll be fine. Just drink a lot of water and get some sleep.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+mccartney/live+let+die_20105856.htm l

It would appear that I am more correct than you are. It's OK champ maybe don't be such a dick about it next time though.


I hate to break this to you, but so many of those "lyrics" websites get stuff wrong ALL THE TIME. And not just the lyrics, they also get the song title or even the artist wrong. I'd sooner trust a Wikipedia article.
 
2012-10-28 08:56:36 PM  
Even as early as 1971, George Harrison was saying it wasn't Yoko's fault that the Beatles broke up.
 
2012-10-28 09:13:21 PM  

LegacyDL: Personally I find Pantera's breakup to be 100x worse than The Beatles, despite the fact that the Beatles have a greater impact with their breakup simply due to the fact that a)Boomers and b)Lennon getting shot


i172.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-28 09:19:46 PM  
He's wrong. It was her fault.
 
2012-10-28 09:20:15 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: titwrench: Rubber Biscuit: titwrench: douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.

In this ever changing world in which we live in. Those lyrics alone prove McCartney was a hack.

Are you trying to quote, "But if this ever changing world in which we're livin'?"

Seems like you are, but you're crippled by half truths and internet memes. You'll be fine. Just drink a lot of water and get some sleep.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+mccartney/live+let+die_20105856.htm l

It would appear that I am more correct than you are. It's OK champ maybe don't be such a dick about it next time though.

I hate to break this to you, but so many of those "lyrics" websites get stuff wrong ALL THE TIME. And not just the lyrics, they also get the song title or even the artist wrong. I'd sooner trust a Wikipedia article.


I backed up my claim. So until evidence is presented to the contrary I will assume I am correct. If I am wrong so be it.
 
2012-10-28 09:25:45 PM  

bwilson27: whatshisname:
"Everything else out there" owes a lot to what came before it.

Not so Syd Barrett.


He owes most of his work to gnomes and unicorns.
 
2012-10-28 09:26:26 PM  

mjbok: I like the Beatles. I like a lot of their music. That being said, they are, without a doubt the most over-rated band ever.

A good portion of their music is simplistic bubble gum garbage, on par with boy bands that were popular a decade ago.


After the Boomers die off, I think they'll eventually fade into obscurity. I do wonder what people a century or two from now will regard as "great music"

/ bet Classical music from the 18th-19th centuries will have a longer shelf life than 60's rock-and-roll...
 
2012-10-28 09:28:16 PM  

2words1finger: I always figured that it was because of the growing artistic differences between John and Paul. John was wanting to write all this strange psychedelic hippie music while Paul was content to keep writing pop songs that had mass appeal and would be played on the radio.

Did John write some decent stuff? Sure he did.

Did Paul have the better career as a musician? Without a doubt yes.


Lennon and McCartney balanced each other out in their songwriting. They were successful on their own, but it was never to the same degree as when they were together.
 
2012-10-28 09:57:23 PM  
The beginning of the end was when she suggested that they record their new album in Doubly.
 
2012-10-28 10:30:41 PM  

douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.


comparing asswipe McCartney to the stack of early vinyl from Elton John & Bernie Taupin is a flaming troll insult to people with ears.
 
2012-10-28 10:31:15 PM  

Comsamvimes: Tax Boy: Don't blame it on Yokey

ai ai ai ia ye yi yi yiyiyi

Is that a "Be My Yoko Ono" reference? Because that was my first thought as well.


Same here. And I just realized that "Gordon" was released twenty years ago. Yet another reason to feel old. *sigh*
 
2012-10-28 11:45:30 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: After the Boomers die off, I think they'll eventually fade into obscurity. I do wonder what people a century or two from now will regard as "great music"

/ bet Classical music from the 18th-19th centuries will have a longer shelf life than 60's rock-and-roll...


I don't think it'll fade away for a long while, but I do agree with your classical music statement.
 
2012-10-28 11:55:38 PM  
To all those who attempt to diminish the Beatles by comparing them to a boy band... forget it.

The Beatles did as much to change the music industry as digital music and downloading did.

The industry changed when sheet music was replaced by recordings as the mark of best selling music. Then white band leaders stole black musicians' compositions and arrangements and made "swing" the replacement for jazz. By the early 1950's, songwriters would sell their compositions, producers would be assigned, who would choose the arrangers, the singers and the musicians, recordings would be made and the ones who controlled the process were the producers who were controlled by the record companies. (which, with boy bands and girl pop singers, is where the industry is trying to be today).

With rock and roll (Ike Turner, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly) came a few artists with small combos where the artists wrote the songs and the combos created heads up arrangements without arrangers. A few like Elvis, needed producers to feed songs to them, but their combos still did simple arrangements. When they jailed Berry, blacklisted Jerry Lee Lewis for marrying his 14-year-old cousin, kept covering Little Richard by Pat Boone, drafted Elvis, and Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens died, clowns like Don Kirshner tried resurrecting the old system with Brill Building songwriters, hired arrangers and musicians, selected singers singing pop ditties to placate the masses of parents.

All the while Cashbox was king (Billboard was second), and hit charts were composed mainly by jukebox plays more than actual record sales. Most of the industry profits were from the nickels (then dimes) from listening to the singles on jukes.

The Beatles farked up the system completely. After a few covers, all their hits were self-written, with minimal arrangements, very few studio musicians... and, biggest revolution of all, sales to 11-year-old girls made more money for the record company than all the sales to jukeboxes and jukebox plays in the world. Suddenly, the US music industry was confused. All these British bands, all making recordings in the UK, no involvement by American songwriters, producers, arrangers... or the people in the jukebox industry. Cashbox died a lingering death, Billboard adapted to record store sales and survived.

What they first prduced may sound a bit like boy band pap, but they wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, and sold to kids by the millions... and albums by teen pop idols began to sell. Singer-songwriters took over, then arena rockers, then disco (return to record producers), then punk, then metal, then the pop schtick of the '80's. Madonna was simply the most successful of the producer, songwriter, arranger, hired musicians, selected singer pop stars which still dominate the music business.

The Beatles were named after Buddy Holly's Crickets... for a good reason.

George flourished after John, then Ringo, then Paul (publicly) left the group.
 
2012-10-29 12:32:53 AM  
They grew up and got married. That's it, that's all. The same thing that happens to any other group of guy friends when they hit their mid- to late twenties.

Never understood the big mystery.
 
2012-10-29 12:37:25 AM  
so why didn't the Stones ever break up?
 
2012-10-29 12:42:25 AM  
Silly love songs? What's wrong with that?

/I need to know
 
2012-10-29 12:47:28 AM  
shaunphilly.files.wordpress.com: Burn her anyway!
 
2012-10-29 12:53:11 AM  
Somewhere in a dump in England is a whole shiatload of original unpublished songs written by Paul and John.

One weekend, while Paul was away, Linda cleaned his house for him. And threw out piles of songs.

I blame Linda.
 
2012-10-29 02:05:01 AM  

mjbok: Forbidden Doughnut: After the Boomers die off, I think they'll eventually fade into obscurity. I do wonder what people a century or two from now will regard as "great music"

/ bet Classical music from the 18th-19th centuries will have a longer shelf life than 60's rock-and-roll...

I don't think it'll fade away for a long while, but I do agree with your classical music statement.


Beatles have a slight edge as they've been beamed into deep space and may someday find another audience a millenia from now.

However, Beethoven, Guan Pinghu, Mozart, Stravinsky, Blind Willie Johnson, Chuck Berry and Kesarbai Kerkar are on the albums launched into space on the Voyager probes 

So it may be a tossup, after humanity wipes itself out. Will another alien civilization find a hard gold LP and figure out how to hear it, or will they intercept a deep space radio signal?
 
2012-10-29 08:33:05 AM  
douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.


On the other hand, you have songs like "Here Today", "Another Day", "My Brave Face", "Jenny Wren", etc etc...
 
2012-10-29 08:40:12 AM  

douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.


There are only two songs where he and John disagreed on writing. John says he helped with Eleanor Rigbey and Paul says he wrote the melody to In My Life. That's it.
 
2012-10-29 08:58:52 AM  
Love John but he really didn't do that much solo wise and Some Time in New York City is an awful album. Same goes for George. For all the brilliance of All Things Must Pass he had a few horrid albums. Paul has some clunkers as well but to say he's terrible is absolutely ridiculous. They were never as good as when they were together. Not really shocking...
 
2012-10-29 10:20:26 AM  
As far as anything Ive ever read on the subject Lennon wanted the beatles to fark off and Yoko was trying to convince him to not let them go.

The beatles broke themselves up. Get over it.
 
2012-10-29 12:05:30 PM  

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: so why didn't the Stones ever break up?


1. They are opposite of the Beatles
2. Too ugly to get laid without being in a band
3. Kieth needs a singer so he can play
4. Still trying to catch up to the Beatles in sales
5. They need the income to pay all the paternity suits they keep losing
6. Nothing better to do
 
2012-10-29 12:47:03 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.

There are only two songs where he and John disagreed on writing. John says he helped with Eleanor Rigbey and Paul says he wrote the melody to In My Life. That's it.

Cook of the House

is credited to Linda McCartney; in which case, she did ok. It's a cute song that I even sing occasionally whilst cooking.
 
2012-10-29 05:56:57 PM  
Mugato
2012-10-28 07:31:57 PM
Linux_Yes: Mugato: Who gives a shiat about the farking Beatles?

your mama.

Yeah, she probably does.

Apparently you do, enough to come into a Beatles thread to make your irrelevant comment
 
2012-10-29 08:12:52 PM  
How can Paul say anything? He died in the mid-1960s. I don't think he ever even met Yoko.

Now, Bill on the other hand... He's known her most of his life.
 
2012-10-29 08:54:46 PM  

FunkOut: bwilson27: whatshisname:
"Everything else out there" owes a lot to what came before it.

Not so Syd Barrett.

He owes most of his work to gnomes and unicorns.


And drugs. Don't forget drugs!
 
2012-10-29 11:19:09 PM  
titwrench

Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-28 09:20:15 PM
B.L.Z. Bub: titwrench: Rubber Biscuit: titwrench: douchebag/hater: I'm not surprised he doesn't go off on a rant about which songs he 'actually' wrote.

When you hear the shallowness of his songs - ' Admiral Halsey' or 'Cook of the House', anyone? - versus the type of songs Lennon wrote - he should be ashamed of his some of his claims.

Seriously, he's a light-weight in the song-writing department, along the lines of Elton John.

In this ever changing world in which we live in. Those lyrics alone prove McCartney was a hack.

Are you trying to quote, "But if this ever changing world in which we're livin'?"

Seems like you are, but you're crippled by half truths and internet memes. You'll be fine. Just drink a lot of water and get some sleep.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+mccartney/live+let+die_20105856.htm l

It would appear that I am more correct than you are. It's OK champ maybe don't be such a dick about it next time though.

I hate to break this to you, but so many of those "lyrics" websites get stuff wrong ALL THE TIME. And not just the lyrics, they also get the song title or even the artist wrong. I'd sooner trust a Wikipedia article.

I backed up my claim. So until evidence is presented to the contrary I will assume I am correct. If I am wrong so be it.


I have wondered about this lyric myself, because In this ever changing world in which we live in. makes you give in and cry doesn't make any sense. And McCartney was a better lyricist than that.
Insert "But if this ever changing world in which we're livin' makes you give in and cry" and the song now makes sense. I'm a believer no matter what lyrics freak says.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report