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 18
    More: Interesting, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, Beatles, avant-garde  
•       •       •

2096 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-28 11:55:38 PM
2 votes:
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.
2012-10-28 07:15:07 PM
2 votes:

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 06:59:38 PM
2 votes:
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.
2012-10-29 12:05:30 PM
1 votes:

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 12:42:25 AM
1 votes:
Silly love songs? What's wrong with that?

/I need to know
2012-10-29 12:32:53 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-10-28 09:20:15 PM
1 votes:

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 08:08:26 PM
1 votes:

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 07:54:17 PM
1 votes:

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 07:45:41 PM
1 votes:
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 07:43:50 PM
1 votes:

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 07:38:27 PM
1 votes:
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 07:22:48 PM
1 votes:

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 07:07:38 PM
1 votes:
The Beatles started breaking up when Brian Epstein died. They finished 3 years later.
2012-10-28 07:00:08 PM
1 votes:
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 06:59:09 PM
1 votes:
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 05:11:25 PM
1 votes:
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 04:43:59 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report