Hey Paul, you asshole!

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

::Hands bob the quick guide to the music folder::

 

goodhelmet, godthedog=Beatles.

Agent= Slayer Good, Metallica Bad.

Corey=Wuss.

Kinetic, Incandenza, et al.=Indie rock I know nothing about and don't listen to.

[Guest spiny norman]

Lethargic, I don't know if you're ignorance is intentional or not, but if it is unintentional you really need to read what they're saying and quit assuming you know what they're saying.

 

What a lot of people are not appreciating here is not the fact you dislike The Beatles (mind you, some are holding that against you), but the fact you are wishing death upon the two surviving members and finding glee in the deaths of the other two.

 

If you don't think that's a problem, then you surely wouldn't mind if I wish for you to die, sooner rather than later, surely?

 

Sorry for starting to flame here, but you're being an idiot. Do not say "I hope Paul and Ringo die, and am glad John and George are dead", and not expect a reaction of "oh, that's all right then."

[Guest saturnmark4life]

saturnmark = AWK, morrissey and NOFX.

 

can we please flame McCartney now? those basses fucking suck, you moron~%

[Guest Harry Hood]

Not that it really matters, but Harry Hood= Jam Bands

[Guest Incandenza]

What a lot of people are not appreciating here is not the fact you dislike The Beatles (mind you, some are holding that against you)

I never held it against him that he doesn't like them; I held it against for not coming up with a good reason for not liking them beyond "'cuz they suck." I'll let the pure idiocy of comparing them to the Backstreet Boys speak for itself.

[Guest Kinetic]

Even in their prototypical boy band days, they were miles ahead of the Backstreet Boys or any such recent act. They played their own instruments and wrote their own songs, in addition to having formed organically. Whether you deem the marketing of the band (and any such subsequent "boy band") as manipulative or brilliant or both is up to you.

[Guest Lethargic]

Lethargic, I don't know if you're ignorance is intentional or not, but if it is unintentional you really need to read what they're saying and quit assuming you know what they're saying.

 

What a lot of people are not appreciating here is not the fact you dislike The Beatles (mind you, some are holding that against you), but the fact you are wishing death upon the two surviving members and finding glee in the deaths of the other two.

 

If you don't think that's a problem, then you surely wouldn't mind if I wish for you to die, sooner rather than later, surely?

 

Sorry for starting to flame here, but you're being an idiot. Do not say "I hope Paul and Ringo die, and am glad John and George are dead", and not expect a reaction of "oh, that's all right then."

Well I didn't look at this for a while. Figured it'd be over by now. Why is it that everything anybody says on this board is taken so literally? I don't wish death on them. Do I shed a tear? No, but I also don't sit around thinking about the Beatles and counting the days until they drop dead. But making a sarcastic comment about wishing they were dead does seem to get over the fact that that I really hate the band much easier. haha And Ringo is at least funny so I'd like to see him stick around for a little while longer at least. But I would like the ability to turn on Larry King just ONE night and not have to listen to Paul McCartney and that cripple wife of his talking about land mines.

 

And no I don't mind if you wish I was dead because seeing as how I already have cancer it doesn't really matter. You're too late.

[Guest saturnmark4life]

that's one thing i hate about this entire place. Waaaay too uptight about ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. fuckers.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Early Elvis was more boy bandish then the Early Beatles. Think about it, takes a form of music predominantly black, is more show than substance, writes few, if any, of his own songs.

 

Oh and by the way, even though I was only 1 year and a few months when Elvis died, I masturbated furiously out of glee that the world was rid of that fat bloated fake!

[Guest Kinetic]

You have to think of the impact that Elvis had, though. Elvis brought rock and roll to a lot of white kids on both sides of the Atlantic, who proceeded to take the music in a lot of different directions in the following decade.

Plus, he had a pretty nice singing voice.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Plus, Paul is always thought of as secondary to John (he is, but that's another topic) even though he wrote just as many hit songs.

I don't want to start an argument over whose songs were better, but in terms of sales, Paul wrote more hit songs. WAY more.(They wrote all the songs together, but Paul was the driving force on some. And John on others.) I mean one can argue that Lennon wrote better songs, but in terms of mass appeal and financial sucess Paul was "da man".

 

 

Wings was a cool band, IMO.

[Guest Kinetic]

I would very much like to start an argument over whose songs were better. I don't consider sales or mass appeal to be important factors when calculating someone's merit as a songwriter. That mass appeal was just a by product of McCartney's willingness to write some truly cloying songs ("Yesterday," for instance), while Lennon had an integrity that he maintained until his death, even if the songwriting and production stopped cooperating with him during some of those later solo efforts. Which is definitely not to discount McCartney's abilities. He was an unbelievably talented songwriter who wrote or co-wrote some of the greatest songs in pop history. Lennon was equally talented, and his ability to avoid tripe like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" make him just a cut above, in my view.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I would very much like to start an argument over whose songs were better. I don't consider sales or mass appeal to be important factors when calculating someone's merit as a songwriter. That mass appeal was just a by product of McCartney's willingness to write some truly cloying songs ("Yesterday," for instance), while Lennon had an integrity that he maintained until his death, even if the songwriting and production stopped cooperating with him during some of those later solo efforts. Which is definitely not to discount McCartney's abilities. He was an unbelievably talented songwriter who wrote or co-wrote some of the greatest songs in pop history. Lennon was equally talented, and his ability to avoid tripe like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" make him just a cut above, in my view.

I was responding to his "just as many hit songs" comment.(Hence the quote.)

 

 

Hit songs are determined by sales. I don't consider talent to be based on sales either.

[Guest Kinetic]

Ah. Well, you're absolutely correct, then. It's been a long day, brother.

[Guest HellSpawn]

Let me see, Yoko is Pi$$ed 'cause Paul change the order in the credits. OK, I guess Paul didnt pay her enough to shut her mouth.

 

Oh Dear Yoko, where were you (and lets be honest all the othre 3 guys) when Freakazoid Jackson got the rights for ALL this songs??

[Guest DrTom]

To weigh in on the Lennon vs. McCartney debate...

 

They're both great songwriters, and obviously worked well together. However, I prefer Lennon's work. McCartney wrote songs that appealed to wider audiences, while Lennon tended to writer darker, more introspective, often acerbic songs. It's more noticeable after he left the Beatles, but for their last few years as a band, it's pretty easy to tell whose songs are whose.

 

Basically, it comes down to this, IMO:

Plastic Ono Band > Any of McCartney's post-Beatles work

[Guest subliminal_animal]

You don't like the Beatles???

I only like them when they get shot, stabbed and/or die.

That was funny because of the sheer asshole nature of saying it. But as Andy Richter taught us, people with cancer can't be assholes.