McCartney is an embarassment

[Philter]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]Man, you guys are easily offended, and not easy to communicate with. Did you read my above post? (The one with the numbered sentences.) Some of you are acting like children. I only pointed out the absudity of this recent love letter tv special by billionaire Sir Paul and the silliness of this whole sixties "infatuation", which he milks. How can anybody disagree with that? You don't see the absudity of "creative" people (musicians) wallowing in the past? I stand by all my statements... (And it feels SO GOOD to be right![/b][/quote]Dude, if you were to wallow in the septic tank of the McCartney residence, I would find you more interesting simply because you would have Sir Paul's poopy on you. You need to learn to respect your elders before you can hope to get anywhere. Paul McCartney is like Aaliyah in "Queen of the Damned"; he could burn you up from the inside by simply looking at you. People are right to deify him. Maybe some day you'll have some achievements that people will respect. Until then, back to the cesspool from whence you surfaced.

[Philter]

BTW, I'm 26 so it's not an age group thing.

[jonnyvommit]

Hey, I like "Bottle of Wine". Thanks for getting it stuck in my head. I'm gonna be humming that all night now. I don't know if that qualifies as great music or crap, but I know I really enjoy that song. In the criticisms of today's music I just hear mention of the pop-type stuff. What about The White Stripes, The Hives, The Strokes, etc.? Not very original, but I like that it's finally rock music that isn't actually built around poppy drum loops and turn-tables. As for rap-rock stuff, what about the Beastie Boys and Rage against the Machine? Is this un-original garbage? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[whitefang]

It's not entirely a generation gap thing. And not all disagreed with the original poster. I didn't, anyway, except to say I thought the concert was musically sound. And in other threads, I've also went on about how every decade and generation had music that was some good, some bad. There's nothing really "wrong" with any of the new music being played on various radio stations today. And, like today, we had our own versions of those bubble-gum type groups that more or less appeal to the pre-adolescent demographic. You could make claim that in the beginning, even the Beatles fell into this category! What separated them from the others was their constant efforts to grow, musically, apart from that sector. Does any performer or group today compare to The Beatles as far as output and creativity? None that I've heard so far. But, that's a pretty unfair comparison, as there are several artists in today's music scene that surpasses many from the past. As well as quite a few that are just as big a waste of good listening time as many others from the past. Argueing now is better then times gone by is a moot point at best. After all, we're talking 30 to 40 years ago. Some of you close to my age(51)might do well to think about what was popular music 30 to 40 years before the Beatles! And the gripes and arguements we all used to have with OUR folks about the difference. Did you ever want to pride yourself in not turning into your Mom or Dad? Well, then, cut this shit OUT! So what, they have Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys. WE had The 1910 Fruitgum Co. and Andy Kim. AND Tommy Roe! Earlier it was Fabian and Frankie Avalon. All at the same time there was Gene Vincent, Carl Perkins, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix. It's kind of unfair to knock the Foo Fighters, Bush or even Creed because of who gets the Superbowl Pepsi franchise, don't you think? Or, DON'T you? Whitefang

[T. Ehl]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]You don't see the absudity of "creative" people (musicians) wallowing in the past? I stand by all my statements... (And it feels SO GOOD to be right![/b][/quote]idiot

[T. Ehl]

[quote]Originally posted by jonnyvommit: [b]What about The White Stripes, The Hives, The Strokes, etc.? [/b][/quote]wheres the beef?

[Nawor]

The first album I ever owned was Abbey Road... the second was Sergeant Peppers. I didn't know it at the time but Abbey Road was to be their last recording. Let it Be was recorded prior to Abbey Road but released last. I grew up on the Beatles albums of my older brother and sister. When my parents wouldn't let my sister go to the Beatles concert in Melbourne in 1964, she shut herself in her room and wouldn't eat for five days. The amazing thing was that the Beatles commercial recording career effectively only lasted about seven years from 1963-1970. As for the careers of those since... I never really thought much of Wings or anything McCartney did post the Beatles. Lennon and Harrison's work was far more acomplished IMHO. My 2 cents. Oh and as for Ringo?... You can't knock 'The Fat Controller' :D Not forgetting of course the 'fifth' member Sir George Martin! ;)

[Philip OKeefe]

Macca's a legend. Yes, I'm over 40... w(ell, okay, I am exactly 40, but who's counting? ;) ) But I have to say that I have seen a large increase in interest in the Beatles stuff in younger people (15-30) in the past few years. I think the original poster just doesn't care for the 60's / 70's era stuff in general and McCartney in particular... and that's fine - a matter of personal taste that I'd never try to talk him out of... but to dismiss all the things that occurred in that era simply because you were not around and / or don't understand them is IMO, shortsighted and myopic.

[Nytrix]

3 obvious conclusions I've reached about the topic of this thread and it's author. 1. He's 10 years old if not ... 2. He's the most ignorant person in the history of existence. 3. He's a complete and utter psychopath.

[ulven]

-

[Jazzman]

whitefang, exactly! (I beat you by a year). [quote]After watching Paul McCartney's love letter to himself on ABC a couple of nights ago, I have come to the conclusion that he is the most cheezy, embarassing figure in rock. [/quote]Whoa!!!!! You mean to tell me that you would take Ozzy Osborn over Paul? Ozzy is a total trash out.....Even if I took drugs I wouldn't like this guy, his family or his showmanship on TV. I think this guy is patethic, and a waste of airtime. I would rather watch Leave it to Beaver! [quote]There were more shots of the audience crying in there over-priced seats than there were of the music being played. ($80.00 dollars for NOSE-BLEED seats? $300 for the floor? How much more money does a billionaire need?) [/quote]You pay for Legends.....You would probably pay the same for Frank Sanatra, Elvis, and Michael Jackson. Oh by the way Michael was in my sons history book 3 years ago! Paul doesn't need the money the promotors do. There are only so many seats, that is how you can control the crowd to these sessions through high dollars. Do you really want to see him? [quote]His overweight, over-playing drummer kept speeding up, mainly because he is such a ham he doesn't pay attention to what the others are playing. [/quote]Now wait a min......I didn't see that he made any mistakes. I thought he was a show-off but most drummers are. He was having fun and I thought he played well, in fact he did an awsome solo on the skins to boot. He knows the material, didn't have to read anything and was at center stage in the air, playing his heart out on national TV. [quote](The other musicians were actually pretty good, and seemed to play their roles in the band quite well.) [/quote]I agree....in fact I thought one of the guitarists was better than Paul on the leads. [quote]The whole "let's wave the American flag" trick is the oldest one in the book, and shows what little class McCartney has left. [/quote]What do you want him to do...wave the British Flag. I think he did this out of courtsy to a COUNTRY that FED him all of these years. Were you around on 911...He came out with a song that was written specifically for that tragety! He started the other high profile folks to do the same thing.......even the bands you like. I take offense to you suggesting that this was a ploy, or not sincere. I thought it was. And yes I had a tear in my eye too, because he represents some history and was giving his best. The Beatles were in this country to make a name for themselves and they did a good job at it, regardless how I felt back then. There are other bands that burn flags for Sh**s and giggles on stage and make videos of that! Your Country! Our people! You guys are having trouble waving the Confederate flage in Texas. So don't speak too loud. [quote]I could go on and on about the show, but basically the guy is so cheezy and out-of-touch it's pathetic. [/quote]Cheezy meaning kinda having too much fun on stage, didn't care about his age on stage doing songs that are 30 years old? This guy among the other members made folks cry in the audience 30 years ago and is still doing it today. I don't know what drives these folks to keep going on, maybe because the image was there with the orig. Beatles, maybe he wishes they were still doing things together....I don't know. Neither do you, but he has had an impact in this country for the good. The Beatle songs were all different, all theirs. Their music didn't sound like some one elses work, they didn't rely on others to give them help and ideas, they did it on their own. They had an act if you call it that, and it was their music. They didn't blow up amps on stage, drop their pants, come out on stage in rags, paint their faces, cuss and swear on stage, deface the flag, defy this country, write about their homeland, rap about the problems of the world, or be racist in any way........ [quote]Yes, he co-wrote some of the greatest rock songs of all time, but that was 30 years ago. He hasn't written anything great since "Maybe I'm Amazed" in 1970. [/quote]This is true.....but he doesn't have to! I'm not up to speed with him these days, don't know how much he does write, not interested either. But as I said before, he does things his way and feels he needs to keep the Beatles alive....it is a hole that is filled. Elvis did it, Sanatra did it, Santana did it, For Tops did it, Beach Boys did it, the Rightous Brothers did it........ Its called touring the masses for the hits that made them famous. There was a tribute to Steve Wonder last night....they played some of the songs that he wrote.......why is that.........that's because he was known for those tunes that made him popular. [quote]Something tells me that McCartney has always been like this, but that John and George managed to keep him from ruining the Beatles. It's ironic that the two intelligent, witty and iconoclastic Beatles have gone and left us with the two who have none of those traits... [/quote]I wouldn't know.......it seems that you have spent a lot of time researching this. You must like that part of History........no? It was a concert shared to the masses on TV for free! Jazzman :cool:

[mbl]

I suppose telling my age was a mistake. After doing so my opinion has been dismissed by quite a few on this forum, with constant negative comments about that fact. I don't think 23 is THAT young. If I wasn't there in the 50's does that mean I can't have an opinion one way or another about Miles Davis? ("Kinda Blue" is one of my favorite albums by the way.) I feel that I've had so much of the sixties thrown at me that I may as well have lived through it. I just am really offended by people like McCartney who so obviously are bilking people by preying on their feelings of nostalgia for (I guess) simpler times in their lives. How can anybody not be offended by such an obvious trick like his phoney 9/11 tribute? That is pure Wall Street marketing, and he isn't even creative enough to mask it better. Yes, others have done it as well, but this guy was A BEATLE. Supposedly the hippest of the hip. It's like worshipping false gods and their feet turn out be clay. And on another note, I defy any of you regardless of age to listen to the new Foo Fighters CD and not be knocked out. It simply can't happen if you have ears that work. As for the Beatle's music, I've said before that I like some of their stuff. I have yet to hear any Paul McCartney solo tunes that are even half-good. I agree with the guy above who said that George and John's solo stuff was better. (I actually like a couple of cuts I've heard off of "Brainwashed". Much better than anything McCartney has done in 30-odd years.) So yeah, if I had grown up in the sixties I would have been a John Lennon "type"... :D

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: ...if I had grown up in the sixties...[/quote]Hey...that's a great song title...maybe you can write a song around it...? :p I WAS there in the 60's...BUT...I don't blindly "worship" bands from that time period...I just acknowledge that fact that something good happed then that isn't happening now. I don't spend my days listening to nothing but 60's rock...hell…I listen mostly to current stuff...and maybe that's why I can say that most of it is shit...but there are a few good new bands too. The Foo Fighters...??? Well...let’s check back in about 20-30 years and see if they're doing any $300-a-seat concerts like that embarrassment...McCartney... MBL... You could have spent your first 9 posts doing something else besides trashing McCartney and some of the 60's...but...that's just my take on it. To quote the Budweiser Lizard: "Let it go Louie....just let it go."

[Moronix]

This IS an age thing and here is why, It is not until you reach about 40 that you start seeing performers that are about your age starting to get tired looking. Hey guys I like B. spears, A-teens... You guys want hear some young girls that could really harmonize! Then check out Draem. I also like the Skillet lickers, L. Armstrong, All of the Bob Wills faimly, Charlie Christian...... Mbl will get a clue when one of his peer god-like entertainers is struggling to get a booking in some 2nd tier venue in Vegas. Good thing Hendrix Died, can you see him today!?!?!?---ouch. Robert Moron----ix The name stays

[Jazzman]

mbl, do me a favor, print this thread out........buy those CD's that you believe will be classics, and 30 years from now in your 50's go over this thread. See if your opinion about a single muscian playing old songs that his group did some 30 years back sounds cheezy to you. Or might it be a tribute to his/her hard work, showmanship and the sense that he/she had fans that loved him/her, his/her group, his/her work, knoweldge of the business and past fame. Who knows you may get a tear in your eyes too, if you had some sort of a heart, and compassion to others that have given it their all in the passion of the music business to please us. But you have had to work a little to understand that. Make fans, make money if you plan on doing this full time, take the hits, take the praise, loose the family, be talanted. Look at MJ, he almost lost his son over the railing.....what a goof! And he is in my sons history book. :eek: I guess they put him in there too soon. Doin't forget, if Paul were to join another group, would he be as popular? I doubt it, he might get some acknowledgement but would not be the same. He would be nuts to do this too. He would fade out in the masses of other groups. And it would be below him. Santana comes to mind. He had to be with a Rap group first before the Promotors and Record companies gave him the green light to go it alone again. You believe that? Santana! I thought Santana and Rap....no frigging way....sounded like crap! What a joke! Paul could in fact write some new stuff, I don't know why he doesn't, maybe he can't do it, is afraid he would fail. Fighters quit boxing when they get the belt, so do the baseball, football and basketball players when they are on top. But they do interviews, coach others in the business while still having the fame. Why do something else that others would remember that was less of a effort and to be remembered by and loose the edge. There are a few folks that come to mind that have failed after fame and fortune. Paul is having fun with his new group playing the oldies all over the states......a sure thing. Your age is not the point here, your entitled to your opinion......started a good thread on the subject and have pulled us folks out young and old to discuss this with you. Just because he is British doesn't mean that he doesn't like this country, or wants to be a part of or associated with a great country that has political ties with his for many, many years. Why can't you believe that he may be sincere, don't you think all of us would be taken back like you if we felt the same way? After all the seats were packed. We were there when the Beatles started, before you were born....you wouldn't know. That's all my friend. I just dissagree about your observations of a single musician that still wants to entertain folks of music works that he has been a solid part of, regardless of his age. Don't forget the Beatles had thousands of fans, and we are the ones including you that allow any music to stand the test of time. That's a fact, the popular vote gets it all the time. If a well known or want-a-be artist screws up in this business he/she would be black-balled forever too. I think this world has gone off it's rocker in my opinion, with some of the acts that I see today that will be short lived. Look at M&M.....what a jerk, carries a gun, what for.......a part of his act? Give me a break......these are the guys that need to get tuned up by the masses to prove their talant to all of us. These are the folks that need to be shut down. It is one thing to be different, but a gun, fighting, being a part of a gang is only degrading to the music business. Music and the talent needs to stand alone, in my opinion. I see little talent, thousands of folks putting out junk on the airwaves with no substance, and need the help of multitudes of people to help make a statement on stage for them. Stage shows with explosions, laser shows, cranes moving the so called "star" in the air over the people! I think that is pathetic.....these folks are lost in the shuffle, and exploited to the max. These are the things that attract people in your age bracket that attend these shows too. If I want to go to a circus I'll visit one under a tent. Talk about false gods! They can't stand alone and on their on two feet without the help of others on stage with the glitz. Paul is standing alone now........his and his friends works have stood the test of time. Sorry about the long remarks, I have two sons one 22 and the other one 20. I need to talk to them in paragraphs before they get the picture too. Their way of thinking is they are going to college to get a life......I told them they are going to college to get a job! No offense mbl My fade out..... Jazzman :cool:

[Joachim P. Dyndale]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]I suppose telling my age was a mistake. After doing so my opinion has been dismissed by quite a few on this forum, with constant negative comments about that fact. I don't think 23 is THAT young. If I wasn't there in the 50's does that mean I can't have an opinion one way or another about Miles Davis? ("Kinda Blue" is one of my favorite albums by the way.) I feel that I've had so much of the sixties thrown at me that I may as well have lived through it. [/b][/quote]Well sure you're entitled to an opinion on what you think of that music. But that's about it. The fact that you're 23 years old does in some ways restrict what you can say about the 60's and 70's. You can say what you like/dislike about things from that era, but you also have to acknowledge what many artists/bands from that era have contributed to the world of music. You might not like Sir Paul, but that doesn't mean he's a bad musician. You might not like any of the songs he's written since 1970, but that doesn't mean none of them are good songs (many of them are quite obviously very good songs, since he's had many number one hits since 1970). [quote][b] I just am really offended by people like McCartney who so obviously are bilking people by preying on their feelings of nostalgia for (I guess) simpler times in their lives. [/b][/quote]Well, if people want it, and he wants to give it to them... What's it to you? Don't like it? Then just ignore it. [quote] [b]How can anybody not be offended by such an obvious trick like his phoney 9/11 tribute? That is pure Wall Street marketing, and he isn't even creative enough to mask it better. Yes, others have done it as well, but this guy was A BEATLE. Supposedly the hippest of the hip. [/b][/quote]His father was a fireman. He is a musician/songwriter. The media, records etc. are the mediums he naturally turns to to express his opinions on things. A musicians tribute to someone/something will naturally be through music. I would have been surprised if he didn't express any feelings on things such as 9.11. [quote][b] It's like worshipping false gods and their feet turn out be clay.[/b][/quote]Well, I don't think anyone should feel so strongly about another mortal so as to deify him/her. [quote][b]And on another note, I defy any of you regardless of age to listen to the new Foo Fighters CD and not be knocked out. It simply can't happen if you have ears that work. [/b][/quote]Well, this just proves that many people here have the right to call you an idiot. By saying this you are saying that noone else has the right to not like the new Foo Fighters CD. So that means that we can say that you don't have the right to not like Sir Pauls post-1970 music? I'm sure you'll agree that this is quite obviously not the case. If the Foo Fighters have contributed many important things to the world of music that will have consequences for tomorrows music, then we won't be able to deny that fact. We can still think that the Foo Fighters' music sucks. [quote][b]As for the Beatle's music, I've said before that I like some of their stuff. I have yet to hear any Paul McCartney solo tunes that are even half-good. I agree with the guy above who said that George and John's solo stuff was better. (I actually like a couple of cuts I've heard off of "Brainwashed". Much better than anything McCartney has done in 30-odd years.) So yeah, if I had grown up in the sixties I would have been a John Lennon "type"... :D [/b][/quote]Well, I don't agree, but I respect that this is just a matter of differing opinions. Oh, and by the way, I'm 21...

[T. Ehl]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b] How can anybody not be offended by such an obvious trick like his phoney 9/11 tribute? [/b][/quote]idiot [b]you regardless of age to listen to the new Foo Fighters CD and not be knocked out. It simply can't happen if you have ears that work.[/b] i have and i like it but not a knock out. created by dave grohl 34 year old beatles fan. queens of the stone age cd more fun. [b]I like some of their stuff. I have yet to hear any Paul McCartney solo tunes that are even half-good.[/b]subjective

[Anifa]

hmmmm.... MBL...... let me guess, that stands for Must Be Looney. I grew up in the sixties and, as a young child, I HATED the Beatles! I HATED the HYPE! I hated the fact that my older sisters were acting STUPID over nothing! I had to GAG all the way through YELLOW SUBMARINE (the movie) while thinking these guys were the WORST actors that ever hit the face of the earth; Elvis looked good compared to them, and I HATED Elvis too! I was a KID that had never experienced any of the emotions being expressed, so therefore I could not relate to the feelings being conveyed. Yet, as I began to mature, I found myself actually getting into some of their music while not realizing it was them. As I continued to grow more and experience more situations in life; I grew to appreciate the Beatles more and more. As I've reached an age where days gone by are insignificant, I hand the Beatles immense credit in helping to build a foundation for modern music. "Something in the Way She Moves" - awesome song (all the way around), "Elanor Rigby" - a very realistic depiction of a society where people withdraw and live in recluse; emotions still in existance today. I never remember the name of it.... but the song that starts with "I read the news today, oh boy..." I've always loved that song ... it was complete DEFIANCE of the NORM. The "BEATLES" were a complete DEFIANCE of what was considered to be normal; it was their landmark of fame. Long hair on men... in the SIXTIES? Com'n now, if the ears weren't showing.......... These guys were NOT country (HeeHawing, squawling cowboys, or yodeling yo-yo's like our parents liked) they were fresh and UNTHINKABLE! They got on our parents nerves... much like todays' music gets on MY nerves. At least they were MUSICIANS back then, NOW, and will FOREVER BE. The Beatles never generated their tunes from synthesized jukeboxes... they were the CREATORS that consensed sound into quality music. Listen to all those SAMPLED rhythms that you hear coming out of synthesizers; somebody somewhere created the ORIGINAL tones and progressions. Sure makes it easy for todays mock bands to come up with CREATIVE music. Now, WHERE DO YOU SUPPOSE THESE IDEAS FOR SAMPLED TONES COME FROM? Could it possibly be the DINOSAURS that actually CREATED the vibe? In your mind, as the Beatles should dwindle away and just hang up their boots; I suppose NO YOUNG KID has ever wanted to learn to play the guitar like Jimi Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughn... is this a fair assumtion? About the age thing.... 23 years old DOES play a factor because you have yet to live many of the emotions. As you mature, the relevance of the Beatles music and lyrics will become more clear.

[Hippie]

I can relate to what Whitefang is saying about 'not turning into your parents' and letting the new blood come in and have their own niche musically. I'm all for it and I think it is what keeps r-n-r fresh err.. phresh. But, some musicians span the generations, like the great classical composers, Duke Ellington, Rogers & Hart/Hamerstien, etc. I believe the Beatles (and all the solo off-shoots) fall into this cross-generational category. (the Beatles are as popular today as they were 30 years ago) A good melody or a clever musical passage/message will always be good, right? Who cares if one can't write them like he/she used to; that's life. Even Babe Ruth, toward the end of his career wasn't hitting 'em like he once did. That doesn't take away from his greatness. I'll stop now. Matt

[Felix_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by Felix: [b]I'll give Paul credit for his significant contributions to music and some truly great songs. But the televised concert was far less than I expected from someone who is mostly revered in the halls of this forum. I didn't think it sounded good, I didn't think the performances were inspired... sure it appeared to be an emotional, fun nostalgic trip for many of the people in the audience (and make sure to get them on camera so everyone will know, damnit), but it wasn't for me. ...but then I'm a Gen-X, so maybe that's the missing link.[/quote][/b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]I'll bet that you got laid while listening to your favorite music too, and I am certain that when you are 50 Justin Timberlakes voice will still bring a tear to your eye.[/b][/quote]Ouch! I get your point, Jotown, but you're a bit off on my musical tastes (and age, but thanks for the compliment - wish I really were that young :D ). Justin doesn't do anything for me - and I wouldn't really draw any comparisons whatsoever between him and Paul, as I think few parallels, if any, exist. [quote]originally posted by Miroslav: [b]It's obvious that some folks who were too young to have experienced first-hand that something special that occurred musically during the 60's... ...will have an even harder time understanding why it is still so popular today...why people have turned musicians and songwriters into icons...why they pay $300 for a seat to hear them, even though they don't have that same sparkle they had 30 years ago... ...or why many of us that WERE around to experience the 60's, think much of today's "rock music" is shit.[/quote][/b] Some of us understand why some 60's music is still popular today, whether we love it or not. But didn't many people similarly discount the Beatles when they became popular? And don't tell me there's no such thing as shitty 60's rock music. I don't think it's fair to dismiss today's music before it's even had a chance to stand the test of time. [quote]originally posted by Jazzman: [b]Listen to the music backgrounds for the autmotive comercials today.....60's music. The songs picked for these comercials were cool back then and are still cool today.[/quote][/b] Hmmm... I have heard a few, but most of the ads I see nowadays use Electronica. Plus, the music for these ads isn't only picked because it's cool, it's picked because the car manufacturer thinks it will sell more cars. I agree with whomever said "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I think mbl has a valid opinion. I do too, and so does everyone else here. Potshots and personal attacks that are somewhere near Jr. High level don't really contribute to the discussion. Just because mbl is in his 20's doesn't make him less capable of liking or disliking the concert, or Paul McCartney's music for that matter. I bet most of you at his age were very capable of forming an opinion on what music you liked or didn't like.

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by d: [b]Taz, I watched; I taped; I like Paul but I recognize that his desire to be well liked sometimes keeps him from doing what would actually make him [i]more[/i] respected & loved---[i]that's[/i] what might be "wrong" with that.[/b][/quote]And what in your ever so enlightened opinion would[b]"that"[/b]be?

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by T. Ehl: [b] [quote]Originally posted by jonnyvommit: [b]What about The White Stripes, The Hives, The Strokes, etc.? [/b][/quote]wheres the beef?[/b][/quote][quote]There is TONS of great music being made TODAY. Foo Fighters, Tool, Incubus, Fat Boy Slim, etc. [/quote]Crap, poop, lame, etc....

[pauldil]

[quote]Originally posted by mbl: [b]Paul is the worst example of what I mean by these sixties phonies peddling their corporate nostalgia. [/b][/quote]Actually, mlb, based on interviews, film, books, and everything I've ever read about them, I don't think that the Beatles ever really considered themselves to be anything other that a good little band. It was other people who made them out to be more than that. Just because one had long hair & did drugs in the 60's did not automatically make them “anti-establishment hippie rebels”. The Beatles themselves were influenced by the clothing, hair styles, and lifestyles of the times (in that respect no different than the Foo Fighters or any other of today's bands). Because of their popularity, the Beatles are often given credit for starting trends when they were actually merely following them. However, Paul no longer wears flowered ponchos or drops acid, so I really don't thinks he's pretending to be anything as you imply. I used to know everything when I was 23, too, but that was 23 years ago :) Paul

[Dan South]

The only cheese - no, sorry, it's not spelled with a "z" - and embarrassment - yes, MBL, it's spelled with two r's - that I can detect here is a first time post on a respectable music board bashing one of the twentieth century's leading songwriter/performers in a pathetic bid for attention. Well...that and MBL's attrocious spelling and grammar skills. By the way, members of the audience paid for THEIR seats, not for "there" seats, the word "regurgitate" is not hyphenated, etc., etc. I, too, would like to hear examples of MBL's music so that I can compare his singing, songwriting, bass playing, guitar playing, piano playing, drumming, and showmanship skills with those of the gentleman that he's so eager to publicly disparage. MBL = My Brain Left (apparently)

[doc taz]

Heh, if this mbl person is so pissed at Sir Paul, he should experience a mouthful of that fucked up Bralalalala dude! That should set him straight. I don't come from the 1960's either, but to disparage previous generations of music just because it doesn't sound like yours is preposterous. If you're so good, mbl, then play me a Dream Theater song like "The Glass Prison" as it is played EXACTLY on the album "Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence". Then I'll shut up...maybe... Can you handle 13 minutes of pure melodic madness? :mad: :rolleyes: :bor: :freak:

[zele]

My 16 year old niece just visited for the holidays from New Orleans ...while watching the concert together--she said "he seemed to sing with a foreign accent"..wondered who he was.....she had never heard of Macca or even Wings...Was amazed that you could "hear" the lyrics,,,her collection of CDs, she was traveling with, seemed to be very hard-edged guitar with the vocals in the background.....Still just amazing she had never heard of Wings, or listened to any of the Beatles songs, knowingly? She did however, reply the Bond theme was reconizable--just never linked it to Wings^^^^^^^^^^

[T. Ehl]

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b]I can relate to what Whitefang is saying about 'not turning into your parents' and letting the new blood come in and have their own niche musically. [/b][/quote]that is itself old thinking you now have parents who may listen to music that is more rocked out than their kids and you may also find parents listening to newer music as well so mbl's position of playing the age card is once again idiotic

[cerumen]

Not to take anything away from Paul as a singer or songwriter but when i think of his role in the Beatles...."BAD ASS" bass player is what i think of first...I wish he still played today like he did back then...and with the same sound...oh well...Even if Paul does suck to the starter of this topic....the guy has a shitload of talent...can't say much for a lot of today's so-called talent. Foo Fighters are ok...they sounded better as Nirvana...... :D

[The Studio Pet-Rock]

I'm just kind of curious about something. The title of this topic: "McCartney is an embarrassment". Hmm. It's interesting because Kurt Cobain once said that in a Rolling Stone interview. Ah, I remember it well. I just think it's ironic that a "alternative musician" who's been playing "alternative music" for the last 11 years would say something like that. Maybe you've read that interview? Maybe a few times more than you should have? Being for the benefit of others: http://www.rollingstone.com/features/cs674article.asp It just seems to me that - like Cobain used to do - you're shooting from the hip with the intent of instigating some sort of negative response. Cobain used to get pretty out there as well. I've seen interviews where he's bashed Clapton, Leo Fender, Pearl Jam and countless others. But he knew when to let it go & make nice. How 'bout you? :D

[copacapripacbell.net]

First off I will start with a big WOW!!! MBL and followers...... The Beatles or Paul McCartney obviously dont need you to like them. Ok that said. Next I'm a Gen Xer as well and I wish our music peers were half as good as what the boomers are and were. Beatles,little Richard, Willie Dixon, Big Mama Thornton,Chuck Berry, The Rolling Stones, The Who,Led Zepellin,Joni Mitchell,The Temptations,Issac Hayes,Gladys Knight and the Pips,Marvin Gaye,James Brown,Deep purple,Black Sabbath,Jimi Hendrix,TheDoors,Cream,Frankie Beverly and Maze, Earth Wind and Fire,America,Chicago,The Ohio Players,Joe Cocker,Bruce Springsteen,Cameo,Fatback Band,the Monkees,Average White Band, Bob Marley,Sam Cook and the Soul Stirrers, The Dixie Humingbirds,......I could go on but I wont. Thats a tiny slice of backbone R&B/Rock N' Roll that can never be repeated. For damn sure not by the likes of Brittany,N'sync,Matchbox 20, Creed, Disturbed,Sum 41,Blink 182,Nelly,JaRule,JLo, and so on. You wanna talk about SOLD out corporate rock??? If sir Paul sucks what do you offer or suggest as a remedy? Far as selling out well I am a musician no one can take that away from me or you or anyone else. However If you or anyone else has something to offer the masses and they want it why not make a living. And a good one at that. There is not any old rockstar musician pension plan. Get over that whole Rock and Roll is for only the rebellious crap anti-establishment bullshit. Saying that tells me from the start you have already fallen for it an didnt no it. R&B/Rock and Roll came from Black Americans who had a lot to be angry about and most of their music was about having a good time or love lost or won. The mainstream called it Race music, Devil music, or just nigger music. Are you so anti establishment you want to take it back to that? Which one do you want to call it?? I'll take the Disney marketing approach and call it Rock and roll. Now everyone can listen to it embrace it and we will hopefully sort out the stupidity later. Long live good music,music. Long live Rock and Roll oh yea and Paul McCartney fuckin rocks. :p