a question for beatles fans

[seekerofvisions]

after the beatles break up did you follow john lennon or paul mccartney?

[Saison]

The break up happened prior to my birth, but I was more of a fan of George Harrison.

[seekerofvisions]

yeah, happened before my time as well.

oops, forgot about harrison.

i think i prefer lennon.

[Saison]

Dave likes Ringo cuz they're both drummers.

[Truth Teller]

I liked(and still like) solo work by all four of them,but Lennon did the music I really could relate to the most.

[Snouter]

Originally Posted by seekerofvisions

after the beatles break up did you follow john lennon or paul mccartney?

No. Contrary to John Lennon's delusions of grandeur, The Beatles were not the biggest thing in music in the 60's. They were a part of it and when they split there was true talent that filled up the void. All of the respective Beatle's post Beatles stuff was mediocre and "easy listening" relatively and of no historical value relative to their work as a band. McCartney did come up with a cool song. My guess is that Paul had the off key vocalist Linda sit in with them to piss off Yoko for ruining The Beatles.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by seekerofvisions

after the beatles break up did you follow john lennon or paul mccartney?

Neither. I was only marginally aware that the beatles existed. Yeah, they had a few good songs....but nothing really memorable.

P.S. John Lennon....meh....you know he had special glasses made to allow him to watch tv while laying flat on his back? I think it would have been faster/cheaper/more elegant to simply mount the tv on the ceiling.

[TrailHiker]

Originally Posted by Truth Teller

I liked(and still like) solo work by all four of them,but Lennon did the music I really could relate to the most.

Imagine that

[seekerofvisions]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

Neither. I was only marginally aware that the beatles existed. Yeah, they had a few good songs....but nothing really memorable.

P.S. John Lennon....meh....you know he had special glasses made to allow him to watch tv while laying flat on his back? I think it would have been faster/cheaper/more elegant to simply mount the tv on the ceiling.

i didnt know that about the glasses.

perhaps because i havent heard all of lennon's songs, i preferred them because those that i did hear werent as "pop" sounding. i dont really favor pop music.

[farlowishous]

even though i find him an ass, i like Paul

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by seekerofvisions

i didnt know that about the glasses.

perhaps because i havent heard all of lennon's songs, i preferred them because those that i did hear werent as "pop" sounding. i dont really favor pop music.

I've heard all his songs...you can't commute to Ottawa and not search out good tunes on the radio. Chez '106' plays a nice selection of classic rock, salted liberally with Lennon, and Young. My exposure then is limited mostly to "Imagine", and the more recent offerings of Neil Young...none of which merit linking. Nothing about the early, or 'classic' Young is pop sounding, which made it nice. It does'nt get nearly enough exposure these days, even by Mr. Young, sadly enough, who's still trying to score coup on Bush for some reason.


But even while obviously toasted....Neil Young was pretty damned awesome.

[TrailHiker]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

But even while obviously toasted....Neil Young was pretty damned awesome.

best beer drinking music from my college days.....way back when

[seekerofvisions]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

I've heard all his songs...you can't commute to Ottawa and not search out good tunes on the radio. Chez '106' plays a nice selection of classic rock, salted liberally with Lennon, and Young. My exposure then is limited mostly to "Imagine", and the more recent offerings of Neil Young...none of which merit linking. Nothing about the early, or 'classic' Young is pop sounding, which made it nice. It does'nt get nearly enough exposure these days, even by Mr. Young, sadly enough, who's still trying to score coup on Bush for some reason.


But even while obviously toasted....Neil Young was pretty damned awesome.

i cant see the video while here at work, but my parents are big neil young fans. i love his old stuff like, my, my, hey, hey, helpless and pocahontas. <3

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by seekerofvisions

i cant see the video while here at work, but my parents are big neil young fans. i love his old stuff like, my, my, hey, hey, helpless and pocahontas. <3

Heart Of Gold is right up there with his old stuff.

And why, oh why, are you still at work? It's Turkeyday Eve!

[seekerofvisions]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

Heart Of Gold is right up there with his old stuff.

And why, oh why, are you still at work? It's Turkeyday Eve!

yes, definitely, heart of gold!

im here until 5pm.

[Truth Teller]

Originally Posted by TrailHiker

Imagine that

Good pun.

Originally Posted by seekerofvisions

i cant see the video while here at work, but my parents are big neil young fans. i love his old stuff like, my, my, hey, hey, helpless and pocahontas. <3

Not only do I have most of his records(CSNY and solo) but I've seen Neil Young in concert with Crazy Horse.

There is no better live show in the world,many just as good but none better.

[GanjaFreebird]

I'm a big fan of all of their solo careers. Paul always was and still is probably the best, and definately the most diverse, all-around musician/composer/multi-instrumentalist. While on the other hand, few, if any, people can compare their songwriting abilities to John and George. I also love listening to George and Ringo's solo albums because of their great musicianship, as well as the musicianship of other people on their albums, like Clapton, Joe Walsh, Dave Mason and Nicky Hopkins, among many others.

Albums like "Imagine", "Plastic Ono Band", "All Things Must Pass" and "Band on the Run" are on Beatles level, in my opinion.

[GanjaFreebird]

No. Contrary to John Lennon's delusions of grandeur, The Beatles were not the biggest thing in music in the 60's.

Name ONE band better than The Beatles!!

I mean, my admiration for Hendrix, The Stones, Dylan, Clapton, The Who, The Doors and The Animals, Led Zeppelin and many others, is as great as it gets, but none has individually contributed to music NEARLY as much as The Beatles. The only artist in Rock music that might be just as influential/great is Elvis. Nobody else though.

They were a part of it and when they split there was true talent that filled up the void.

Such as? Black Sabbath and Judas Priest?

All of the respective Beatle's post Beatles stuff was mediocre and "easy listening" relatively and of no historical value relative to their work as a band.

SOME of their solo work was that, but a lot of it was better than just about anything else that was going on at the time (especially the early 1970's albums, and the albums since the late 1980's), and some of that was actually every bit as good as The Beatles. "Imagine", "Jealous Guy", "Maybe I'm Amazed", "It Don't Come Easy", "What is Life" and "Cheer Down" are just as great as most Beatles songs.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Originally Posted by Snouter

No. Contrary to John Lennon's delusions of grandeur, The Beatles were not the biggest thing in music in the 60's. They were a part of it and when they split there was true talent that filled up the void. All of the respective Beatle's post Beatles stuff was mediocre and "easy listening" relatively and of no historical value relative to their work as a band. McCartney did come up with a cool song. My guess is that Paul had the off key vocalist Linda sit in with them to piss off Yoko for ruining The Beatles.

I agree; they were fashion followers, not innovators. I like some of their songs, like Norwegian Wood, but I think The Steve Miller Band, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, Buffalo Springfield, Cream, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Jimi Hendrix, the Allman Brothers, and many others are far more original, both as writers and musicians. Even the worst Moody Blues surpass anything the Beatles did, together or separately, musically. The Beatles were largely a teenybopper band for bimbo music lovers.

[GanjaFreebird]

I agree; they were fashion followers, not innovators. I

You must be jokin'.

The Steve Miller Band

They are in my Top 100 favorite bands, but even Steve himself wouldn't deny that he ain't no Lennon, McCartney nor Harrison. But he's definitely among the best 1970's artists. I also love his work with Paul McCartney on "Flaming Pie" album, which is one of my favorite McCartney albums.

Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young

Again, in my Top 100, but none of them are anywhere as talented as The Beatles, maybe besides Stills, and even that's a big question. They definitely couldn't/can't play or write like The Beatles, that's for damn sure. Maybe a couple songs are on that level, but that's about it.

, Buffalo Springfield

See above. However, I will say that "For What It's Worth" and maybe "Mr. Soul" (despite being a "Satisfaction" rip-off somewhat) are on the level of The Beatles.

Cream

In my Top 10 favorite bands of all the time, and when it comes to musicianship, they are every bit as good, but again, neither their songwriting nor singing abilities are quite on Lennon-McCartney level (and Clapton and Bruce wouldn't disagree either), with the exception of about 5 songs or so.

I would say that Eric Clapton as an artist overall, comes very close, but that includes his entire career, not just his work with Cream.

Emerson, Lake, and Palmer

Hell f#ckin' no. They were a good band with a some good records, but c'mon, better than The Beatles.

I actually like the versions of ELP songs that Lake did with Ringo Starr better than the original recordings.

Jimi Hendrix

In my Top 5 favorite artists of all the time, and the best Rock and Blues guitar player that ever lived. Having said that, he wasn't quite the songwriter that Lennon-McCartney were, and he would be the first to say so. Besides, The Beatles were a HUGE influence on him, just like they were on all of the people you've mentioned.

Even if those people ARE on the level of The Beatles, they still wouldn't have "happened" if there was no Beatles, nobody can deny that.

the Allman Brothers

In my top 20, and they do hold their own when it comes to musicianship, but NOT with songwriting or being innovative.

and many others are far more original, both as writers and musicians.

Who?

Maybe The Rolling Stones in the 1960's came close, or The Who (at their VERY BEST), but nobody actually was on The Beatles level in Rock music, besides Elvis.

Even the worst Moody Blues surpass anything the Beatles did, together or separately, musically.

:lol :

The Moody Blues are AT THEIR BEST poor man's late 1960's Beatles. Ringo's hit "It Don't Come Easy" is better than ANYTHING the MB did combined, I'm sorry.

The Beatles were largely a teenybopper band for bimbo music lovers.

You probably only heard their first 2 albums then.