|
Post by JoJo on Sept 18, 2005 9:56:30 GMT -5
Many here are well aware he's Bill, just don't subscribe to the notion that one must feel "cheated" somehow because he doesn't use the name he was born with. There is a hive mind mentality in some circles that one must hate Bill, and by extension canonize "St. Lennon and St. JPM", where neither point of view is reasonable. I'll agree that the deaths of the of the people you named may have other more unknown circumstances surrounding them than the official line we are told.
I probably have more Bill bootleg material than I do of The Beatles at this point, and yes I've listened to it all. (my ears didn't break or anything, haha) JMO, there is a creative process going on there, start to finish.
People are just going to have to get over it, sorry. Maybe an understanding of the circumstances involved would help.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 18, 2005 15:29:29 GMT -5
Many here are well aware he's Bill, just don't subscribe to the notion that one must feel "cheated" somehow because he doesn't use the name he was born with. There is a hive mind mentality in some circles that one must hate Bill, and by extension canonize "St. Lennon and St. JPM", where neither point of view is reasonable. I'll agree that the deaths of the of the people you named may have other more unknown circumstances surrounding them than the official line we are told. I probably have more Bill bootleg material than I do of The Beatles at this point, and yes I've listened to it all. (my ears didn't break or anything, haha) JMO, there is a creative process going on there, start to finish. People are just going to have to get over it, sorry. Maybe an understanding of the circumstances involved would help. The people who felt cheated will be at least equally counter balanced by the people who like "new phase" Beatles (post '66) and/or Wings better........ Get a reasonable but equal number of both of those kinds of people in a room and have them debate it out to the last counterpoint. (They must have refreshments* and bathroom breaks lol) When they are exausted, and talked out, you have your full retinue of reactions. *Doctor Robert always recommends to include Bailey's Irish Creme Whiskey. But do keep it only at the table of 21 years of age and over.
|
|
|
Post by Rubber Soul on Jan 12, 2014 15:09:30 GMT -5
Yes, these photographs, as artsy and wonderful as they are-----well, what amateur photographers ever got so lucky? JUst the right lens and exposure time; and the subject (Paul) is so accidently (mind you!) well placed in the composition of the shot....... The shutters never clicked so fortunately for" National Geographic"............or "Sports Illustrated".......I mean, it's as if McCartney was being followed around by Ansel Adams.......I would just expect more "crappo" pictures from the 1959-1961 or even 1962 period. Why aren't there more luxurious shots of John or George? Weren't those boys subsisting on soup, cereal, and leftovers in their salad days? Who had the Minolta? Now, of course there was Astrid in Germany, but who in England? Nice shots like those cost money even then, relative to the day. There are a couple of tookey record covers the Beatles had that aren't as nice for publishing as those! Lord give me a Polaroid camera and let me go off snapping every stranger I meet on the street. "Pardon me, ma'am, but could I come into your house and take, I dunno, random photos through your kitchen window? Do you have any musical friends or children?" Maybe Paul had a friend who was a picture bug.............or, beetle....... cd booklet says mike McCartney took the cover photo
|
|