Lennon/Mccartney Songs........

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:30 am

WHat I meant was I agreed with Brian. Got sniped there while I was composing my own word puzzle...

jonpaul · Post by **jonpaul** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:52 am

I think it's great that everyone has different opinions of what the lads were really like and who did what and the reasons behind it. But in the grand scheme of things, the only ones that really know what went down were the four lads that took that ride together. All of our comments and observations are from an outside perspective (unless there are a few our friends on this great forum that were actually lucky enough to be directly associated with the fabs). Basically the majority of our knowledge is all speculation based off what others have said, written, or various documentary type information. As I noted before, I think they were great talents no matter what their personal hang-ups were, hell we all have those. One thing for sure, it is fun discussing how these four guys from Liverpool changed our lives no matter what our personal perspectives are.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:14 pm

No David... I'm right

Cuz I said so thats why!

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:29 pm

Paul, I thought my assessment was more reflective than yours, haha!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:41 pm

Ouch. Sniped and out-reflected...

qmoder · Post by **qmoder** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:04 pm

Its very true that no one here has or had direct access to the Beatles. But can a person be too close to someone or some event that they become so involved they can't see or be open to what really happened?
Then can and outsider looking in see something that obvious to them but not the people who are the closest to it and actually in the situation?

Some people can tell you that you are marrying the wrong person, saying no when you should say yes, or something simple like you are buying the wrong car. But you can't see it clearly like they see it. You are too close to the situation blinded if you will hypmotized by the light.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:26 pm

I think that it's important to make a distinction between observing and analyzing here. A casual observer or outsider often sees things in a different way than those involved. This only achieves validity when held up to the light of comparison with "official versions". Most often the conclusion is: "interesting, but..."

By the same token, an analyst needs all the salient facts in order to arrive at an informed view. If details are missing--as they often are--it can throw an analysis off to some degree.

That's one reason why we trade in stories, lore, and rumors--they help us in out fact-hunting quest. But we need to keep our bulls**t detectors in good nick. I dunno--maybe some are beeping right now?

joeyr · Post by **joeyr** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:16 pm

Yeah, It's beginning to sound like
S.J. Krammerhead III

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:57 pm

Life imitates art, Joeyr!

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:00 pm

I thought that this article would fit in here.

Feb 18, 2005 Souce: Daily Record

MICHAEL Jackson is so strapped for cash that he may have to sell off part of his empire.
And it's believed his multimillion-dollar song catalogue could be at the top of the list.

Jackson has been advised by his brother and business manager Randy to stop paying some creditors.

A report claimed a Los Angeles art gallery planned to sue the superstar this week for non-payment of bills.

Jackson was said to have failed to pay $179,000 (Â£100,000) of the $379,000 he spent on antiques.

Ex-wife Debbie Rowe is also suing him for $1million and former manager Marc Schaffel is asking for more than $3million for services.

The most likely sale is of Jackson's prized possession, a 4000-song music catalogue of artists from The Beatles to Bob Dylan, which is believed to be worth around $500 million.

Jackson has repeatedly used the catalogue to raise money, first by selling a 50 per cent stake to Sony in 1995 for $100million.

More recently, Jackson took outa$200million loan from the Bank of America, using the catalogue as collateral.

But Jackson's credit is so bad, the bank insisted on an arrangement where they take their payments automatically from the singer's royalties.

Jackson faces forking out $5million in legal fees to the defence team representing him in the current child molestation case.

roadrunners · Post by **roadrunners** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:06 pm

bosifis · Post by **bosifis** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:31 pm

No remorse here. I don't care how many records he's sold, the man is definitley twisted. I am a FIRM believer that he's guilty. Sleeping with children? Unless you're a relative, I'd say 15 is the "cut-off" age. Anyone see the Michael Jackson South Park Episode? I tell you, it was a pretty fun time learning "Wishing Tree" on piano. LOL!

Hey Alex, how's the album comming a long?

roadrunners · Post by **roadrunners** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:47 am

Album is doing well...Im still kinda in a research phase. but ive got a few songs down. im currently in my bootlegs and pieceing together songs "woke up in the morning" etc.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:08 am

Here we go off-topic again...FIFTEEN IS THE CUTOFF?

If your statement was tongue-in cheek, try using a smiley face or something to let us know. If not---

That's outrageous! Try FIVE, which mainstream child psychologists agree upon. I won't go into details to back this up; this is not the place.

bosifis · Post by **bosifis** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:56 am

Ha ha ha Paul.

!!! In all due respect...I was drunk again!