Page 3 of 3

Re: McCartney: Blessing the Beatles never Re-Formed

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:32 pm
by winston
collin wrote: Good thing it didn't happen then. I'd hate for people to have to sit through another set of Yoko's tasteless warbling. :wink:
Tasteless shrieking is probably a more apt description Collin. :lol:

Re: McCartney: Blessing the Beatles never Re-Formed

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 2:07 am
by bbmusic
shamustwin wrote:This B.S. McCartney bashing.
I didn't think there was McCartney bashing going on. Was there?

Not from me, and if it was taken that way, I was misunderstood. He's my favorite of the four, and I agree completely that his post-Beatles work was far better than John's. (A 45 of "Let Em In" was the first record I ever owned, after I pressured an exchange student into buying it for me.) And I think it was probably his ambition that drove the latter half of the Beatles' career, after everyone else was getting burned out.

But I think (and this is what I was getting at) it's that same ambition that is protective of the shiny Beatles legacy (or "brand," if you're feeling cynical), and I think that's a drag. I guess I feel (selfishly) like history's interest in the Beatles at work outweighs the preservation of what's left of his career. And I'm speaking as a guy who had the last Fireman record on repeat for a week or two...

Re: McCartney: Blessing the Beatles never Re-Formed

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 3:42 pm
by shamustwin
I might have consolidated a lot of comments from various threads. Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. Apologies for any offense!

I hold all the fabs in the same high regard.

Re: McCartney: Blessing the Beatles never Re-Formed

Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 1:24 pm
by baniarit
They walked down the stage while all were applauding, bravo very much agree

Re: McCartney: Blessing the Beatles never Re-Formed

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:12 am
by harley
Not to bash anyone, Beatle or forum member, but the idea that the Beatles couldn't have continued into the 70s and still been viable defies logic. If you believe that the solo work of the ex-Beatles was good then couldn't it have been even better if the other three had been involved? Even George later admitted that Paul was always generous about contributing to other peoples songs (once they had fought the good fight to get them recorded in the first place). Of the four, I prefer the WIngs-era music but isn't it possible that the presence of John, George and Ringo could have made it even better?

I don't feel a particularly keen sense of loss because they split up but I don't think it's necessarily "best" that they did it.

Harley