Paul McCartney is still "second fiddle"

[Purple Haze]

Why is it that John Lennon is held in higher esteem?

Because he didn't write "Silly Love Songs"?

Because he's dead?

Because he was the real Walrus?

Because he wrote "Revolution"?



The Queen, Paul McCartney don’t make the cut


LONDON - John Lennon made the cut, but Paul McCartney did not. Queen Elizabeth I is there - but not Queen Elizabeth II.


The British Broadcasting Corp. on Saturday released a list of the 10 greatest Britons in history, based on more than 30,000 votes by members of the public.


The list, whittled down from a Top 100 released in August, includes Princess Diana -- but not her husband, Prince Charles -- and wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill.


Also on the list are playwright William Shakespeare, scientists Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, Victorian engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel, naval hero Horatio Nelson and Oliver Cromwell, leader of England’s 17th-century revolution. Murdered Beatle Lennon also made the Top 10, but not bandmates McCartney or George Harrison, who were both among the 100 finalists.


The British Broadcasting Corp. will profile the 10 figures in a television series entitled Great Britons, with viewers voting to choose a winner.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Celebrity&OID=6620

 

[miles]

Lennon was rock & roll. Paul, well, he wrote "Jet."

 

[Soblue]

Hey!

He also wrote Hey Jude

And Maybe I'm amazed.

You've hit on all the reasons there Purple Haze.

 

[Siren]

 

[427cobra]

Lennon was the talent

McCarthy was the pop


George was the soul

and

Ringo was the clown

True and yet not. Paul could rock every bit as hard as John i.e, Long Tall Sally, I'm Down, Why Don't we do it in the Road, and more. The difference is that Paul wasn't always trying to excercise his inner demons. Did Paul have a tendency to pull some schlocky tunes? Yes, but that was due to the fact that was the most well versed in different musical styles of the four Beatles. He tried more and pushed the others to achieve greater hights. Abbey Road, Pepper, Let it be were all Paul led projects. None of this is to put down John in anyway. As Paul said many times they could have only done it together.

 

[Purple Haze]

Paul wrote "Helter Skelter"

 

[Siren]

 

[Purple Haze]

He ain't all fluff and pudding.

 

[427cobra]

your point Hazie?

I think the point is that Paul is not second fiddle to John. Having seen Paul 3 times in concert I can say that in fact he plays second to none. Paul often drug John kicking and screaming out of his drug induced lethargy and forced hiim to keep up with him.

 

[Purple Haze]

I saw him at the Metrodome about ten years ago.

Two and a half hours of number one hits.

Some of them were Beatle tunes...

 

[427cobra]

I saw him at the Metrodome about ten years ago.

Two and a half hours of number one hits.

Some of them were Beatle tunes...

That `93 tour was good, yeah. That was the second time I saw him. I caught the big comeback tour of 89/90. That was my first concert, too. I jus saw him in Philly back this April. For 60 he kicked maaaaaaaajor ass. He hit all those great high notes, which I thought were gone for good. Thanks for another great night Paul!!!!

 

[Wrong Element]

Princess Diana is considered one of the ten greatest Britons of all time? Jesus friggin' Christ.

Lennon didn't have a "decline phase" because of his early death. In rockers, creative decline can be long and painful. Example: the last Rolling Stones album most people give a shit about, Tattoo You, came out 21 years ago--in what is now the first half of their career.

Who knows: had he not been shot, the embarassingly saccharine "Woman" may have been the springboard to a second phase of Lennon's creative life, one that may have drawn as much scorn as McCartney's second phase. But we never heard those songs. McCartney wrote more bad music than Lennon, but he wrote more music, period.

 

[427cobra]

Princess Diana is considered one of the ten greatest Britons of all time? Jesus friggin' Christ.

Lennon didn't have a "decline phase" because of his early death. In rockers, creative decline can be long and painful. Example: the last Rolling Stones album most people give a shit about, Tattoo You, came out 21 years ago--in what is now the first half of their career.

Who knows: had he not been shot, the embarassingly saccharine "Woman" may have been the springboard to a second phase of Lennon's creative life, one that may have drawn as much scorn as McCartney's second phase. But we never heard those songs. McCartney wrote more bad music than Lennon, but he wrote more music, period.

The interesting thing is that Paul's good songs are still as good as anything "that other band did." What he really needs is sombody to say to him which songs he shouldn't let out. One of the pluses of being in a band like the Beatles is that there was a lot of competition to only bring in your best stuff and that's what got out out. The substandard material would make everybody look bad, so it never got put out.

 

[Purple Haze]

They gave it to Ringo...

 

[427cobra]

Ummmmmm I think early on maybe yeah, but by the time of Yellow Submarine on Rubber Soul, that had changed some. After all John wrote a very pretty ballad called Goodnight for Ringo to sing. That song closes the white album. Any of the others could have sung it better, but only Ringo could have brought that unassuming almost childlike innocence to the song. don;t forget either that during the big feudes of the later years, it was Ringo's Ringo album that brought in all of the Beatles. They weren't in the studio at the same time, but it provided a good excuse for do a semi-reunion. Ringo was the calm in the middle of the Beatle storm.

 

[SINthysist]

His death. I think it gave beetle followers the okay to give it up. Like when Garcia went. Okay dudes, time to sell the mini-bus...

 

[phrodeau]

John was also a political activist. This may have put him above Paul.

Here's an interesting thought experiment:

After the 9/11 attacks, Paul's response was a fund-raising mega-concert to aid the victim's families.

What would John have done?

 

[SINthysist]

Baked a memorial bundt cake...

 

[android1966]

After the 9/11 attacks, Paul's response was a fund-raising mega-concert to aid the victim's families.

What would John have done?

Blamed it all on Bush and held a "love in" inside Yasser's compound.

 

[acitore_vuli]

I read somewhere that, in an interview, John Lennon criticized Paul McCartney for writing nothing but "Silly Love Songs". McCartney saw the quote and shortly thereafter penned the hit 'Silly Love Songs'.

Not one of my favorite McCartney songs by any means, but if this story is true, it speaks of McCartney's amazing talent for song writing. Even if it's not true, in my opinion McCartney was a much better song writer than Lennon.

Can anyone corroborate this story?

 

[Soblue]

I think I heard the same thing you did. Maybe on one of those Behind the Music shows.

I've been reading the Anthology, it may say it in there.

 

[acitore_vuli]

I think I heard the same thing you did. Maybe on one of those Behind the Music shows.

I've been reading the Anthology, it may say it in there.

Cool. Finish reading it and report back here at once.

 

[Soblue]

Will do

 

[hogjack]

I love Paul

I like his silly love songs. Would have loved wingin' around a tour with him.

 

[Agent99]

Lennon was the talent

McCarthy was the pop

Joe McCarthy was a Beatle?!

Was this during their White Album? Revolution?

I think he was equally as powerful as Lenin.