Macca is 64 today

[Sperge]

"Will you still feed me, will you still need me, when I'm 64?"

Well, Heather won't.

Must admit I chose not to see Paul McCartney at Glastonbury - would have been great in the traditional Sunday 'old timer' slot but I thought it was a bit of an ego trip when he insisted on having the Saturday slot.

But I remember loads of people justifying seeing him by saying: "It's probably my last chance to see a living Beatle performing live and they were the greatest band of all time."

Hmmm, I strongly dispute the "greatest band of all time" tag. Highly influential band, certainly. First band to be successfully marketed like a soap powder, definitely. In the right place at the right time, absolutely. But greatest band of all time? Naaaaaah.

[dance dissadent]

Basement Jaxx set me up for an allnighter on the other stage that night. The whole idea struck me as an expensive version of a covers band like the 'Bootleg Beatles' or something.

[alboot]

ive no intrest to see macca, but the beatles were the most influential band ever no question, they pretty much single handed created modern pop melodys and they introduced the use of studio editing to pop music an all, probably the biggest paridgm shift in pop in the last 100 years

[Pablo Essexbar]

"Will you still feed me, will you still need me, when I'm 64?"

Well, Heather won't.

Ha-ha-ha!

i lunched him off at Glasto...

I'd have liked to for the same reasons... proably never seen him again etc... however... It totally wasn't my priority at all.

there was so much fun to be had elsewhere.. we did dance village sat night...

[El Topo]

Happy birthday Paulo!

DBM your Beatles bait is just too transparent... besides you know you're just wrong

[SunburnedCactus]

I can respect the Beatles for what they did, I certainly don't have to like it.

And McPaul is not the Beatles, as much as he likes to believe it.

[Sperge]

Happy birthday Paulo!

DBM your Beatles bait is just too transparent... besides you know you're just wrong

Ha, they were a good band, don't get me wrong, but Beatlemania was about more than just their music, there were all sorts of socio-political factors behind it which went beyond the band itself - and they all quite understandably grew to hate it.

I quite like Macca, actually - contrary to popular belief, he was the more talented of the Lennon-McCartney partnership.

Lennon had the 'cynical iconoclast' persona all right, and he did admittedly write better songs as a solo artist than Macca did, although neither measured up to their achievements as a partnership. But it was McCartney who showed a genuine and informed interest in modern art, for example, while Lennon was all image in my view. Lennon also beat all his women up, which isn't something I believe Macca did.

[alboot]

they didnt right songs in partnership, they each wrote songs sepratly, just released them as lennon/macartney

[Sperge]

they didnt right songs in partnership, they each wrote songs sepratly, just released them as lennon/macartney

If you read what I wrote more carefully, you'll see that I didn't actually make a statement either way about whether they physically wrote stuff together when they were a partnership, merely that neither wrote songs of the same standard when the partnership was dissolved.

That aside, I believe you're mistaken:

"A common misconception is that Lennon and McCartney each wrote their own songs and simply credited them to the partnership. While each musician often wrote independently and many Beatles songs are primarily the work of one or the other, it was only rarely that a song would be completed without some input from each of the duo. In many instances, one writer would sketch an idea or a song fragment and bring it to the other to finish or improve; in some cases, two incomplete songs or song ideas that each had worked on individually would be combined into a complete song. Often one of the pair would add a middle eight or bridge section to the other’s verse and chorus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennon-McCartney

[SunburnedCactus]

For example "A Day in the Life", in which Lennon wrote the main verses of the song, then Paul added a middle 8 which sounds very different.

[alboot]

they didnt right songs in partnership, they each wrote songs sepratly, just released them as lennon/macartney

If you read what I wrote more carefully, you'll see that I didn't actually make a statement either way about whether they physically wrote stuff together when they were a partnership, merely that neither wrote songs of the same standard when the partnership was dissolved.

That aside, I believe you're mistaken:

"A common misconception is that Lennon and McCartney each wrote their own songs and simply credited them to the partnership. While each musician often wrote independently and many Beatles songs are primarily the work of one or the other, it was only rarely that a song would be completed without some input from each of the duo. In many instances, one writer would sketch an idea or a song fragment and bring it to the other to finish or improve; in some cases, two incomplete songs or song ideas that each had worked on individually would be combined into a complete song. Often one of the pair would add a middle eight or bridge section to the other’s verse and chorus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennon-McCartney

fair doos, i thought u were saying there wrote ther songs together, wich i recon is false, and totally diffreent from them giving each other a hand with there tunes, but i get what ur saying, my mistake

[El Topo]

Yeah, that's one of the classic misconceptions about the Beatles, that McCartney and Lennon each wrote their songs in a bubble... another one is that Ringo Starr was a poor drummer, when in fact he was a great one - Come Together, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Rain, etc...

[Junkyard]

On thing to remember about some of the Beatles drum tracks is that they were the first band to use any form of "sampling". The drum track on Tomorrow never Knows is a drum sample looped on an old 8-track. Another example of them using this technique is found at the very end of the Sgt Peppers album. And the only reason for that one was to show everybody else that they could do it. Cocky buggers.

And fair enough, The Beatles were probably THE most influential band of all time, but a good bit of their stuff was total guff.

[dance dissadent]

The Beatles are grossly over ratted if for no other reason than 85% of there fans are clueless about other innovative muscians from the same time period.

They were very innovative and very very good at popularising innovative music, but they are almost unique in going from cheesy easy pop to commercialy succesful inovation.

Its like if Mc Fly had produced Kid A.

[Sperge]

On thing to remember about some of the Beatles drum tracks is that they were the first band to use any form of "sampling". The drum track on Tomorrow never Knows is a drum sample looped on an old 8-track. Another example of them using this technique is found at the very end of the Sgt Peppers album. And the only reason for that one was to show everybody else that they could do it. Cocky buggers.

I think George Martin was the true innovator on that album.

[Junkyard]

I think George Martin was the true innovator on that album.

And he wanted a bit of Lennons arse too, apparently

[buzzingtalk]

I think the beatles are great, but also overhyped and underhyped. Most of the standard beatles songs, the more acessable popular ones, im sick of, and although will never grow completey bored of them and discredit their influence, its a bit silly how some people dont realise the many other dimensions to the beatles. for exaple, as the person above mentioned the drum sampling - not many people who didnt know that would have thought of the beatles as technological innovators or progressors,

i personally am a fan of their more 'out there' acid soaked music. lucy in the sky with diamonds, for example, is a great song yet a lot of people brush it under the carpet, along with most of the songs from the yellow submarine.

the beatles were a great, important influence on pretty much every genre about now - from the simple, but now predicatable chord changes (which were reiterated and popularised by the beatles but writtein hundreds of years ago by great classical composers etc), to the mania and almost global branding and packaging of pop bands.

i personally prefer lennon, but i have an attatchment to his music since i was little. macca's stuff was great also. and ringo is a wicked drummer, and even if he is shit you have to respect him becuase HE IS THE VOICE OF THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE. and if you didnt know that, then report to my tent at glade for a slapping!

(you can tell im doing a BA in music right, haha.)

[Efflux-J]

lucy in the sky was my favourite beatles song when i was a little'un.

[buzzingtalk]

deffo, still one of my fave beatles tunes.

and the white album!! a lot classic!

i had a lot of childhood memorys to that album particularly rocky racoon

[Lady_Jane]

the beatles broke boundaries in their time. Shame their creativity didn't really last. They did write some lovely tunes though (Tomorrow Never Knows - play that with Let Forever be by the chems - companion piece or rip-off? - you decide)

I thought it was odd that last night on the news he was defined as being an ex-beatle and divorced from that Flamingo (one-ledged bird ).
So not defined by who he is, but by what he was.