|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 2, 2004 15:25:50 GMT -5
Please let us know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 2, 2004 15:30:46 GMT -5
The poll should be: "Do you think Paul was replaced?". There is no evidence that he's actually dead.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Mar 2, 2004 15:34:45 GMT -5
Is he dead or alive? Heck I don't know, but I sort of like him anyways...both then and now.
I think the poll may be better worded with the question about being replaced. My own answer would be better stated that Yes, I believe he is alive, but I have some questions...not really doubts, just questions.
Hey Dark Horse, I love your George Harrison animation! I've really taken a renewed liking to him as I watch bits of the Concert for George practically every day now.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 2, 2004 15:44:36 GMT -5
Hey Dark Horse, I love your George Harrison animation! I've really taken a renewed liking to him as I watch bits of the Concert for George practically every day now. Hey, same here! I voted for the "Yes he's alive, but then again, there are two many coincidences..." option.
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 2, 2004 15:54:50 GMT -5
I'm sure the man performing as Sir Paul McCartney today is the same man who performed on the Ed Sullivan Show with the other three Beatles in '64.
I'm also sure that he's a superficial, arrogant, self-centered jerk on a personal level, as that's what I've been told and history backs it up.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 2, 2004 16:00:13 GMT -5
Hey thanks to you both! I rather like George's pants don't you? He wore them on the rooftop concert. I don't like the whole 'replaced' notion. If he was replaced, he is most definitely dead in my opinion. If you believe the clues that Lennon left, they are that Paul was dead not just merely replaced. So I like it the way it is. P.S. LarryC, how is that Concert for George? I was thinking of buying it.
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 2, 2004 16:04:57 GMT -5
The Concert for George DVD is fantastic. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 2, 2004 18:51:18 GMT -5
I for one am of the opinion that Paul was replaced. I think it naturally follows if that is true, then why? Why is a seperate question, although it would seem the only obvious reason would be that he is no longer with us. And yes, there are "oddities" on the albums from Sgt. Pepper on that strongly suggest clues that Paul is indeed dead, not just replaced. I think the best order of business is decide if he's replaced first, then is he dead. However, "Paul is dead" is linked too closely with the replaced question, the clues or alleged clues if you like are going to be part of the discussion. Is PID putting the cart before the horse, or is it too close to call? Tough to decide.. As for the Concert For George, I highly recommend it as well, it was way better than I thought it would be. (I'm usually not a fan of tribute concerts) Eric Clapton and the others were amazing! It was so great to have a guitarist as talented as him to play George's songs.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 2, 2004 19:01:48 GMT -5
I think the only person seriously arguing that Paul was replaced while still alive was scatterDome. It was wishful thinking at best IMO. All the evidence and clues point more to PID (most likely in a car accident), not PWR so he could get some R&R.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 2, 2004 19:10:55 GMT -5
Agreed Revolver, it's more of an ordered step by step manner of doing things that I'm talking about, not that I seriously believe that Paul was replaced to go be a "paperback writer" or something.. By the way, love that spinning 45, I have a few of those, which single is it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 2, 2004 19:17:26 GMT -5
Thanks JoJo. It happens to be Badfinger's "Come and Get It". I "borrowed" it from an ebay photo.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 2, 2004 20:33:54 GMT -5
I for one am of the opinion that Paul was replaced. I think it naturally follows if that is true, then why? Why is a seperate question, although it would seem the only obvious reason would be that he is no longer with us. And yes, there are "oddities" on the albums from Sgt. Pepper on that strongly suggest clues that Paul is indeed dead, not just replaced. I think the best order of business is decide if he's replaced first, then is he dead. However, "Paul is dead" is linked too closely with the replaced question, the clues or alleged clues if you like are going to be part of the discussion. Is PID putting the cart before the horse, or is it too close to call? Tough to decide.. Spoken like a true investigator!
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Mar 2, 2004 21:16:06 GMT -5
P.S. LarryC, how is that Concert for George? I was thinking of buying it. You will NOT regret getting it, I promise you! I watch bits of it every day because I have it on my computer...it won't burn to DVD for some reason though or I would be happy to share it. I will make a more informative post in the George Harrison board because I don't wish to take away from the spirit of this thread. LC
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 0:14:49 GMT -5
Hey, same here! I voted for the "Yes he's alive, but then again, there are two many coincidences..." option. lol...I didn't see that exact option...
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 0:15:33 GMT -5
I'm sure the man performing as Sir Paul McCartney today is the same man who performed on the Ed Sullivan Show with the other three Beatles in '64. I'm also sure that he's a superficial, arrogant, self-centered jerk on a personal level, as that's what I've been told and history backs it up. AGREED!
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 0:21:00 GMT -5
Hey thanks to you both! I rather like George's pants don't you? He wore them on the rooftop concert. I don't like the whole 'replaced' notion. If he was replaced, he is most definitely dead in my opinion. If you believe the clues that Lennon left, they are that Paul was dead not just merely replaced. So I like it the way it is. P.S. LarryC, how is that Concert for George? I was thinking of buying it. But, one must also consider that historically half the time Lennon spoke painfully bluntly, and half the time he spoke conceptually, figuratively, and intentionally ambiguously. I am of the opinion that Lennon truly meant Paul was dead...CREATIVELY. Just like John often remarked, "Elvis died when he went into the army..." He meant Elvis lost his spark and street icon credibility by voluntarily entering the service. John wasn't meaning Elvis was physically DEAD and replaced by a look-alike when promptly entered the service, lol. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 3, 2004 7:03:36 GMT -5
I voted "most likely dead but I have my doubts" cause I lately have my doubts.
But what of Paul's creativity? I do think he reamined creative, or whomever this man is today IS creative, but at what point (if Paul is alive) did he creatively pass away? Could it be analyzed as sudden, or gradual? Was the break-up possibly a catalyst that caused him to begin to think differently about pop composition?
Granted pop music can adopt new streams and sack old ones QUICKLY. A versatile writer may be the one with the long career.
On the other hand, Bacharach has hung on while remaining himself. His output of chartbusters has slowed or stopped, but he had a good long run without redefining himself.
Fertile ground. I see the 70's direction for Paul as a plausible new direction--it worked and he defined a niche in 70's pop.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 8:05:15 GMT -5
I voted "most likely dead but I have my doubts" cause I lately have my doubts. But what of Paul's creativity? I do think he reamined creative, or whomever this man is today IS creative, but at what point (if Paul is alive) did he creatively pass away? Could it be analyzed as sudden, or gradual? Was the break-up possibly a catalyst that caused him to begin to think differently about pop composition? Granted pop music can adopt new streams and sack old ones QUICKLY. A versatile writer may be the one with the long career. On the other hand, Bacharach has hung on while remaining himself. His output of chartbusters has slowed or stopped, but he had a good long run without redefining himself. Fertile ground. I see the 70's direction for Paul as a plausible new direction--it worked and he defined a niche in 70's pop. Any thoughts? Sure. I have plenty of thoughts on this topic. Specifically, the schism between John Lennon and Paul McCartney broke open with the writing -and success- of 'Yesterday.' John bitterly hated the pomposity of using strings on a rock and roll song. John further thought that to wrap a string quartet around sweet Paul's voice, with no other Beatle on the song, was the height of egocentric pretentiousness. On the 1965 tour, when the band was basically forced to add 'Yesterday' to the set list, many stinging barbs were made by either George or John as they introduced Paul to do his 'solo' song. One can hear Harrison intone sarcastically, "opportunity knocks!" They even half-joked that Paul should do a solo album, and title it, "Paul McCartney Goes Too Far." From that point onward, it seems that Paul's gift for writing imminently catchy yet lyrically and substancially anemic songs would provide the contrast between Paul and John, and also provide the spark of friction within the band. John felt that the Beatles were a rock and roll band. He felt Paul "sold out" by churning out the superficial ballads, with their lightweight 'moon in june' lyrical lack of content. By 1968 and the White album, there was open contempt and scorn directed at Paul for his "powder puff" tunes, therefore John did the 'Paul is a dead man...miss him, miss him, miss him..." backwards bit. He felt the rocking Paul he had known all those years ago was creatively dead.
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 3, 2004 8:45:52 GMT -5
Of course, John was just as capable of churning out the same pap that Paul was, and often did. "Good Night," anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 8:50:02 GMT -5
Of course, John was just as capable of churning out the same pap that Paul was, and often did. "Good Night," anyone? One song as opposed to basically an entire CAREER of sappy, braindead banalities? No comparison there.
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 3, 2004 8:59:43 GMT -5
I only cited the one song. There's plenty of others. But I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here, Ian -- believe me, I agree that Paul has churned out a lot of unlistenable commercial pablum over the years, but he's churned out some decent material as well. Fact of the matter is, there's very little solo material by either Paul or John that I find up to Beatle standards. The majority of George's solo output, on the other hand, I find far superior to either John or Paul's. John and Paul needed each other, at the very least as sounding boards.
Don't get me wrong... there's a lot of both John and Paul solo work that I think is great... but in general, I think George holds up better than either.
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 9:44:04 GMT -5
I only cited the one song. There's plenty of others. But I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here, Ian -- believe me, I agree that Paul has churned out a lot of unlistenable commercial pablum over the years, but he's churned out some decent material as well. Fact of the matter is, there's very little solo material by either Paul or John that I find up to Beatle standards. The majority of George's solo output, on the other hand, I find far superior to either John or Paul's. John and Paul needed each other, at the very least as sounding boards. Don't get me wrong... there's a lot of both John and Paul solo work that I think is great... but in general, I think George holds up better than either. ...Interestingly, it was George's albums which ended up in the 'bargin bins' with stinging frequency... with the obvious exception of 'All Things Must Pass'
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 9:52:32 GMT -5
I only cited the one song. There's plenty of others. But I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here, Ian -- believe me, I agree that Paul has churned out a lot of unlistenable commercial pablum over the years, but he's churned out some decent material as well. Fact of the matter is, there's very little solo material by either Paul or John that I find up to Beatle standards. The majority of George's solo output, on the other hand, I find far superior to either John or Paul's. John and Paul needed each other, at the very least as sounding boards. Don't get me wrong... there's a lot of both John and Paul solo work that I think is great... but in general, I think George holds up better than either. Well, the seperate parts never matched the genius of the whole. Specifically, John & Paul went the way of every other mega-successful songwriting duo; their partnership worked, generated amazing artistic and financial success, then the rot set in between them, and they poisoned their own well, as it were. A classic tragedy repeated for infinity: Simon & Garfunkle Henley & Frey Perry & Tyler Jagger & Richards Taupin & John Nicks & Buckingham Waters & Gilmour etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by AcrosticUnicorn on Mar 3, 2004 11:38:38 GMT -5
<irony> ...Loggins and Messina...</irony> [edit] ...Interestingly, it was George's albums which ended up in the 'bargin bins' with stinging frequency... with the obvious exceltion of 'All Things Must Pass' Oh, not all that interesting. George's solo material was never really that commercial until Jeff Lynne made it sound like every ELO record ever made. I still say, for me, anyway, it's the most listenable. Paul's solo work, on the other hand, has been the most commercial, and he has the sales to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 13:43:04 GMT -5
<irony> ...Loggins and Messina...</irony> [edit] Oh, not all that interesting. George's solo material was never really that commercial until Jeff Lynne made it sound like every ELO record ever made. I still say, for me, anyway, it's the most listenable. Paul's solo work, on the other hand, has been the most commercial, and he has the sales to prove it. I know and understand where you are coming from. I personally didn't dig giving a Beatle the "ELO" patented sound. And, today, in 2004, Paul is a traveling redundantcy...a lumbering dinosaur from 'Yesterday' (pun!) with no relation to contemporary times. I watched with chagrin as, over the decades, Paul brought forth more and more Beatles songs into his live show...until, -poof!- we have the Paul/Beatle show! That is of course because his own solo material hasn't aged very well at all, including wings stuff.
|
|